Frustrating draws at the top level - kills interest

@himav , don't you realize that people don't like your scoring system? You got a total of 112 dislikes in this post. If your system worked somehow, I agree with @RamblinDave #37 that the amount of resignations will increase instead of a decrease in draws.

@himav said in #17:
> Your 3-1-0 system will fail for the following case:
>
> Person1: W L L L
> Person2: D D D D
>
> You will still reward the Person2 with trophy. Which is wrong, in my opinion.
what about Person1: W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
and
Person2: D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
You think person1 should win? I'm not sure anybody will agree.

Y@himav said in #1:
> I watch a lot of chess tournaments. The desire to win and crush the opponent is missing in the top players, in my opinion. It kills the interest of many chess enthusiasts like me.
>
> Those who win games, should be awarded more. I propose the following rules in the FIDE tournaments:
> 1. DRAW, award 0 points to both players.
> 2. WIN, award 1 point to the winner, 0 points to the loser.
> 3. If the first place scored 0 points, no trophies or cash prices.
>
> This should reduce the draws significantly. Because:
> 1. In a draw position, people can take risk, because a draw and a loss both have same points (0 points).
> 2. People who want trophy / cash, would want to win at least once. And the only way to come 1st in a tournament is to win more games!
You are suggesting chess purely for entertainment. This will kill the game like T20 is killing cricket.

@pkill said in #51:
> "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see."
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

@himav said in #45:
> This is a wrong narrative. This statement has become an excuse for the top players.
You know chess is (probably) a drawn game right? That means if both sides play perfectly, there will be a draw. Grandmasters get better and better, so the percentage of draws will get bigger and bigger. Stockfish's 0.2 eval for the starting position is a sign of this.

@pkill said in #57:
> Mystery Meat #3: L W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
>@superflash2022 said in #53:
>what about Person1: W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
>and
>Person2: D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
>You think person1 should ̶w̶i̶n̶ come before person2? I'm not sure anybody will agree.

@himav said in #1:
> I watch a lot of chess tournaments. The desire to win and crush the opponent is missing in the top players, in my opinion. It kills the interest of many chess enthusiasts like me.
>
> Those who win games, should be awarded more. I propose the following rules in the FIDE tournaments:
> 1. DRAW, award 0 points to both players.
> 2. WIN, award 1 point to the winner, 0 points to the loser.
> 3. If the first place scored 0 points, no trophies or cash prices.
>
> This should reduce the draws significantly. Because:
> 1. In a draw position, people can take risk, because a draw and a loss both have same points (0 points).
> 2. People who want trophy / cash, would want to win at least once. And the only way to come 1st in a tournament is to win more games!
The problem is this:
Let's have a 20 round, 4 player tournament.
Top 3 get prizes. With your scoring, this kind of scenario could happen.
P1 W W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
P2 L L W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
P3 W D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
P4 L D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
P3 plays with P4 every time and P2 plays with P1 every time.
The ranking with your system would be:
P2
P1
P3
P4
The more logical ranking would be:
P2
P3
P4
P1
because P1 lost so many times.

@superflash2022 said in #59:
> The problem is this:
> Let's have a 20 round, 4 player tournament.
> P3 plays with P4 every time and P2 plays with P1 every time.
No such tournament has these rules. So invalid case.

Regarding the point you are trying to make, I disagree with you. 1 win is better than a 1000 draws, in my opinion.