scoring suggestion for Chess to help minimizing draws

[nmb]

I'm working on a smaller version of a game derived from Chess and I am considering a scoring system which would limit the possibility of draws. It maybe applicable to Chess. Briefly, the idea is to score 3 points for a checkmate, 1 point for a stalemate , and 0 only in case of three-fold-repetition and 50-move rule. In addition, resinging would be equivalent to a checkmate and would lose 3 points; and, offering a draw would lose 1 point (same as stalemate) if the opponent accept.

[smrf]

To that problem I have introduced already a more promising solution: when someone is offering a draw, the opponent should also have the right, to simply switch the sides instead of accepting or refuting an intended draw.

[nmb]

To that problem I have introduced already a more promising solution: when someone is offering a draw, the opponent should also have the right, to simply switch the sides instead of accepting or refuting an intended draw.

Interesting. But what do you think about considering stalemate a "partial" lost (or win) not a draw? If I had to change the rules of Chess I would change the scoring and make it more difficult for a player to get away with a draw. I think your system does not go far enough in that respect.

N.B.

[smrf]

Well, I have no problems with the traditional stalemate draw scoring, because it evaluates a well defined end node of the game. I personally would also not have any problem with a reduced evaluation, but that would indeed change the history of chess without any need.

For me the problem is the inflation of draws by agreement or by the unability to realize an existing advantage. For those situations I have made my proposal. If one side (suggesting a draw) really is convinced, that both sides are equal strong or weak, there is no reason to refute a change of sides, if the opponent would not agree to draw.

[nmb]

Well, I have no problems with the traditional stalemate draw scoring, because it evaluates a well defined end node of the game. I personally would also not have any problem with a reduced evaluation, but that would indeed change the history of chess without any need.

For me the problem is the inflation of draws by agreement or by the unability to realize an existing advantage. For those situations I have made my proposal. If one side (suggesting a draw) really is convinced, that both sides are equal strong or weak, there is no reason to refute a change of sides, if the opponent would not agree to draw.

I think we are looking at the problem at different levels. For me Chess is a game not a sport. The purpose of a game is "having good time" while the purpose of a sport is "winning". Comittees are better than me for regulating a sport activities.

N.B.