My drastic proposal to 100% end drawfest in top level RR events

Uninspired draws in classical chess is making top level RR events very boring. Here is my suggestion to fix this!

Here is my suggestion to guarantee decisive results and excitement for every round in top-level round robin events:

- Classical game: If it ends in a draw, the 2 players will immediately reverse colors and play a 15' 10" rapid game.

- If 15' 10" rapid game ends in a draw, the 2 players immediately reverse colors and play a 5' 3" blitz game.

- if 5' 3" blitz game ends in a draw, the 2 players immediately reverse colors and play a 3' 2" blitz game.

- If 3' 2" blitz game ends in a draw, there will be a toss of colors for an Armageddon game where black will have draw odds. White will have 6 minutes and black will have 4 minutes. There will be a 2" increment after move 60.

The classical game will be rated for classical chess, and others will be rated for rapid and blitz (just like in FIDE World Cup). This way, there will be a decisive result for every round of the tournament. I think this will raise the level of excitement and viewership big time.

To illustrate my point, in round 1 of the London Chess Classic, other than the Carlsen - Caruana game, would any of these players take a draw in the final position if they need a win to win the tournament, to avoid elimination in the World Cup, or if their opponents are 2500 GMs? I think not. The point is they have very little incentive to play out.

What do you think?

At the current state, 99.9% of the world population cannot even name the top 10-20 chess players globally. I personally find it boring to see the same 6-8-10 players in top level tournaments where there is very little incentive for them to take risk for victories.

When I asked about 1,000 kids in some of the scholastic events I attended this year, almost all of them have no idea who the top professional chess players are. But they all know who Bobby Fischer is.

No. 1-8

There's a simpler solution:

Win: 1 point
Loss: 0 points
Draw: 0 points


I like what Keyur proposed. I was thinking that some people might object that the later games would be of poor quality, but these early, poorly contested draws are not giving anybody the kind of chess that would be ideal. What might be good strategy for surviving a tournament is not necessarily what makes for a good individual game. Tournament strategy is external to an individual game. The threat of a time pressured playoff is another externality to the current game, it is true. But at least this externality counterbalances the strategic tournament considerations. So, since we are not getting the "purest" form of chess anyway but instead boring chess,, why not try something new? Perhaps we would get a revival of bold and creative chess games. Or perhaps the players netter at shorter time controls would play even harder for a draw, and the poorer players at short time controls would play recklessly. Afterall, the final comsideration is to win the money involved which means winning the torunament will still be more important than a oarticular game, So if that means forcing a good classic chess player into a blitz game, then players will do that.

So complicated, but this does not have to be either/or. We can try the new idea and still have traditional tournaments too. If the new format results in more interesting games, sponsors will fund more tournaments like that, and I presume most but not all olayers would follow.

There realky is no reason not to try it.


Or once a draw is agreed , reverse the colour and play for the remaining time. Another draw, reverse colour and play for the remaining time and keep on going till there is a result!!


And maybe a 3-2-1-0 point system. 3 for a classic win, 2 for the winner of the tie-break and 1 for the tie-break looser. The tie-break could be a 5'3" blitz and then directly an Armageddon game IMHO.


I think adding potentially 4 games of rapid/blitz chess would be too much after a classical chess game. And for organizers it means a lot of stress. The live stream operators have to reconfigure the boards for each game and communicate with the players. To attract a new viewership it would probably be better to play shorter games.