I always thought top-level chess made some great strides forward in the 1990s', when the new young generation of players moved away from the old Karpovian 'win-with-White, draw-with-Black' paradigm.lkaufman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:11 amDisincentiviting draws with White makes sense, not so much with Black. Logically Black should play for a draw, White should not. Simply awarding 0.6 to Black and 0.4 to White in case of a draw (promoted by Ed Epp) would be an improvement over current system, but perhaps not a big improvement.carldaman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:27 pmIMO, a scoring system that disincentivizes draws and rewards wins more, especially with Black, should be better than messing with the fabric of the game (by introducing weird variants).
Such an alternate scoring system was discussed here a while ago - HGM made an interesting suggestion, but I don't remember all the details.
There is still a need to go for a win with Black, for example in Swiss tournaments, in lopsided match-ups ratings-wise and whatever must-win situations may arise. Many tournaments use wins, as well as wins with Black, as tie-breakers, and rightly so. I never liked the Karpovian paradigm.
Interestingly, nowadays it is White who no longer necessarily seeks the largest advantage from the opening, hoping to outplay the opponent later in the middlegame - Carlsen's new paradigm.
I agree with this. Faster time controls visibly reduce draws. The trick is to preserve the quality of the games.The problem isn't incentive, it's that at least with five hour games the game is too drawish. I think that balloted openings makes the most sense, with chess960 a close second. Opening preparation is just too much of the game now.
I doubt chess960 with its hideous castling rules will seriously catch on, but I do like the idea of experimenting with balloted openings, for some events at least. This may have a better chance of succeeding, but I'm surprised it hasn't been attempted yet in OTB games. Not that I know of, anyway.