It strikes me as rather flawed. This system incentivises materialistic play, instead of daring play. You would perhaps prefer to go up one pawn an entire game and cling onto it rather than make any attempt at winning. Within the current system, you can at least get higher rated opponents to play more risky games due to the chance they might lose elo in the event of a draw.
Winning a pawn is not an outcome of your "materialistic" play. Your opponent blundered or made several minor errors, and you gained advantage. For your opponent, the best approach would be to offer a draw and at least get 1 point. With an extra pawn, however, you should refuse the offer and continue playing for 5 points. Here you see the advantage of the new scoring system: if your winning attempt will not succeed, the score will be 3:1. With classical scoring, such escapes are 1/2:1/2.
@@VenceslavRutar There are so many games where the point is to sac a pawn for more exciting play. It has absolutely nothing to do with blundering. But you can certainly disencentivise that type of play for no gain.
@@essaysandmore Thank you for making a valid point because sometimes a player intentionally sacrifices a pawn. Gambits, which dominated the romantic era, practically disappeared from the top-level competition because such openings are bad. Positional sacrifices are intended to win games, and available 5 points are a strong incentive. Finally, a standard drawing technique is giving up material in bad positions to reach inferior but holdable endgames. Such sacrifices are indeed discouraged by the scoring system because the best outcome is Disfavored Draw. GM Shankland found this during two games. Since he did not want to receive only 1 point, he continued and lost both games.
For me, “Any 3 fold repetition/ Black’s favored draw, is a win for Black” I think this is a game changer While draw is fine. You will feel that you like to play with both colors right? Not just White
I think it would be interesting to at least score stalemates and insufficient material as a half win/loss. Within the current scoring systems, the player without legal moves would get 0.25 points while the other player would get 0.75 points. Then, if you have say a knight/bishop and king vs. king. The player with the knight/bishop would get 0.75 points and the other gets 0.25 points. King vs. King would obviously still be a 1/2-1/2 draw. Keep in mind that this does not apply for agreed draws, 3-fold-repetition, and the 50 move rule. So, a fortress in an opposite color bishop endgame would still be a 1/2-1/2 draw.
The more I'm looking at how it would affect drawn endgames, the more I like it. In this endgame, both sides are still fighting for points despite it being a draw: 8/n7/k7/8/8/P7/KP6/8 w - - 0 1
I had my reservations(though only really for top level games) but there should definitely be trial events to test it out and see how it works in practice. I think the perpetual check stuff is minor enough and can be tweaked later on if needed.
I think the difference between unfavored and favored draw is too big. I would make unfavored draws score 2 points. I'd also make perpetual checks even draws in all cases.
15:22 Aqui teria Kh7 E você poderia responder qualquer lance dele com check Se ele jogasse o rei na frente do peão não tem como ele promover E se ele jogasse o rei na coluna h pra não ter check ou tentasse levar o rei até a torre teria Rf8 pra tomar o peão sem o rei defendendo Seria um empate a favor das pretas 🙃
Stalemate really shouldn’t be a draw - it’s unfair to the knight, which doesn’t work well in just pairs. The pawn also has inconsistent moves, which means it is too easy to block it from moving.
Before you get your hopes up for non-terrible discussion leading to changes that affect the game, the elephant in the room is that Chess players do not possess typical personalities. The problem to be fixed kinda lies there. Since that isn't likely to happen, rules like this should be tried without trying to discuss and win people over first. Still, not a bad idea to try and make a video promoting it.
Your thoughts on the Venceslav Rutar scoring system and on my match vs Zach are welcomed in the comments! Thanks for supporting me!
It strikes me as rather flawed. This system incentivises materialistic play, instead of daring play. You would perhaps prefer to go up one pawn an entire game and cling onto it rather than make any attempt at winning. Within the current system, you can at least get higher rated opponents to play more risky games due to the chance they might lose elo in the event of a draw.
Winning a pawn is not an outcome of your "materialistic" play. Your opponent blundered or made several minor errors, and you gained advantage. For your opponent, the best approach would be to offer a draw and at least get 1 point. With an extra pawn, however, you should refuse the offer and continue playing for 5 points. Here you see the advantage of the new scoring system: if your winning attempt will not succeed, the score will be 3:1. With classical scoring, such escapes are 1/2:1/2.
@@VenceslavRutar There are so many games where the point is to sac a pawn for more exciting play. It has absolutely nothing to do with blundering. But you can certainly disencentivise that type of play for no gain.
@@essaysandmore Thank you for making a valid point because sometimes a player intentionally sacrifices a pawn. Gambits, which dominated the romantic era, practically disappeared from the top-level competition because such openings are bad. Positional sacrifices are intended to win games, and available 5 points are a strong incentive. Finally, a standard drawing technique is giving up material in bad positions to reach inferior but holdable endgames. Such sacrifices are indeed discouraged by the scoring system because the best outcome is Disfavored Draw. GM Shankland found this during two games. Since he did not want to receive only 1 point, he continued and lost both games.
Even simpler - make stalemate a loss, and if there is insufficient material to mate, the first king to occupy one of the 4 center squares wins.
For me,
“Any 3 fold repetition/ Black’s favored draw, is a win for Black”
I think this is a game changer
While draw is fine. You will feel that you like to play with both colors right? Not just White
I think it would be interesting to at least score stalemates and insufficient material as a half win/loss. Within the current scoring systems, the player without legal moves would get 0.25 points while the other player would get 0.75 points. Then, if you have say a knight/bishop and king vs. king. The player with the knight/bishop would get 0.75 points and the other gets 0.25 points. King vs. King would obviously still be a 1/2-1/2 draw. Keep in mind that this does not apply for agreed draws, 3-fold-repetition, and the 50 move rule. So, a fortress in an opposite color bishop endgame would still be a 1/2-1/2 draw.
The more I'm looking at how it would affect drawn endgames, the more I like it. In this endgame, both sides are still fighting for points despite it being a draw: 8/n7/k7/8/8/P7/KP6/8 w - - 0 1
I had my reservations(though only really for top level games) but there should definitely be trial events to test it out and see how it works in practice. I think the perpetual check stuff is minor enough and can be tweaked later on if needed.
I think the difference between unfavored and favored draw is too big. I would make unfavored draws score 2 points. I'd also make perpetual checks even draws in all cases.
Seems like this would increase the length of games drastically.
15:22
Aqui teria Kh7
E você poderia responder qualquer lance dele com check
Se ele jogasse o rei na frente do peão não tem como ele promover
E se ele jogasse o rei na coluna h pra não ter check ou tentasse levar o rei até a torre teria Rf8 pra tomar o peão sem o rei defendendo
Seria um empate a favor das pretas 🙃
Stalemate really shouldn’t be a draw - it’s unfair to the knight, which doesn’t work well in just pairs. The pawn also has inconsistent moves, which means it is too easy to block it from moving.
Before you get your hopes up for non-terrible discussion leading to changes that affect the game, the elephant in the room is that Chess players do not possess typical personalities. The problem to be fixed kinda lies there. Since that isn't likely to happen, rules like this should be tried without trying to discuss and win people over first. Still, not a bad idea to try and make a video promoting it.
I don’t like this idea at all. Draws are fine. If they don’t like chess, let them (the noobs) go watch more decisive games.
The idea of the system is not that draws are bad per se, but that they should be scored differently