Football score system is nonsense
3 July 2008 15:28 PM CET | Last modified: 15:42 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
Last week in Romania a tournament was held where a total of three points could be won with one game. Also at the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, a victory will yield three points. Does this footballization of chess make make any sense? I don’t think so.
From June 21 to 29, an open tournament in Mangalia, Romania was held, and won by European Champion Sergey Tiviakov. The tourney was “featuring a revolutionary new scoring system” as the tournament website enthusiastically states. Here’s what they did:
If the game will have a winner, he will get 3 points and the loser 0 points. If the game will be a draw the players will play an Armageddon blitz game (white 5 minutes, black 4 minutes, white has to win to get 2 points, in other 2 cases, black win or draw, black will get 2 points and white one point). In this case even the main game is a draw at least the players cannot split the points equally. After the main game the players will have to choose again the colors. A special arbiter will be assigned for those blitz games, which will be played in a special corner of the playing hall, if the playing hall is large enough in order not to disturb the rest of the players, or in a special room, where only these blitz games will be played. The number of victories in the main game is the main ranking system for players with the same number of points at the end of the tournament. The second tiebreak system will be the average of the opponent’s ratings.
What on earth does this have to do with classical chess? To start with, I never like it when different types of chess are combined, for example to decide a tournament winner. Because that’s what they are: classical chess, rapid chess and blitz are three completely different types of chess, or rather, different games.
Everybody knows that different skills apply in such variants and the Dutch IM Manuel Bosboom might belong to the world’s top 25 in blitz, while he’s FIDE rated 2439. And so it’s ridicolous to combine classical and blitz chess to create a score of “one game”. (On a side note: why are FIDE ratings used in the pairings of Swiss blitz tournaments? Because there’s no alternative - FIDE’s promised to come with a blitz and rapid rating lists years ago, but we’re still waiting for them.)
One of the participants in Romania was GM Erwin l’Ami. Here’s his opinion about the “revolutionary system”:
I only won three games, drew five and lost one. Because of the blitz I managed to finish third, since I won all my five blitz games.
But still I don’t think they should repeat this system because it’s not very pleasant - to put it mildly - to hear people playing blitz while you’re playing a serious game.
Besides, the desired goal - avoiding quick draws - isn’t reached at all. The blitz games didn’t incluence the “normal” games at all. And in general I think people exaggarate when avoiding short draws. It seems to be fashionable to avoid draws at any cost, and I fully agree with the article that was written by Arne Moll recently.
Finally, I wonder if it’s correct that I’m collecting a prize based on winning five blitz games…
Lastly, we have to talk about those three points for a win. Changing the scoring system to 0, 1 and 2 doesn’t make much sense in chess but apparently these days some tournament organizers want to experiment with the football score of 0 for a loss, 1 for a draw and 3 points for a win. In a press release, the organizers of the Bilbao Grand Slam Final stated the following:
For the first time in a world's elite tournament and surrounded by a strong international controversy, the Final Masters is going to apply the football scoring system, earning three points per game won and one point per draw, though players will not be allowed to agree a draw being the competition's referee who will determine it.
Players, journalists and chess fans are almost universally positive about the Sofia Rule. (Although personally I prefer the “no draw offers before move 30″ alternative because sometimes it’s embarassing to see top GM’s blitzing out moves in dead drawn rook endings.) But the Spaniards apparently don’t think it’s enough to prevent “boring chess”.
It’s no surprise that the football scoring system is introduced at top level in a football-minded country like Spain, but hey, señores, wasn’t winning the European Championship enough? And, did you notice that it doesn’t make too much of a difference, if a win yields two or three points? The Europan Championship would have had exactly the same quarter finalists if a win in the group phase would have earned two points. Go and calculate, and you’ll agree.
But of course we should compare it to a chess tournament. The best one to pick is the M-Tel Masters, which is also a six-player double round-robin. Below you will see the final standings of the 2008 and 2007 editions, with the classical system and with the “football system”.
M-Tel Masters 2008 Final Standings
| Place | Name | Rating | Country | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ivanchuk, V | 2740 | UKR | * * | 1 ½ | 1 ½ | 1 1 | 1 ½ | 1 ½ | 8,0 |
| 2 | Topalov, V | 2767 | BUL | 0 ½ | * * | ½ ½ | 1 1 | 1 0 | 1 1 | 6,5 |
| 3 | Radjabov, T | 2751 | AZE | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | * * | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | ½ 1 | 5,5 |
| 4 | Cheparinov, I | 2695 | BUL | 0 0 | 0 0 | ½ ½ | * * | 1 1 | ½ ½ | 4,0 |
| 5 | Bu Xiangzhi | 2708 | CHN | 0 ½ | 0 1 | ½ 0 | 0 0 | * * | ½ ½ | 3,0 |
| 6 | Aronian, L | 2763 | ARM | 0 ½ | 0 0 | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | * * | 3,0 |
M-Tel Masters 2008 Final Standings (3-point system)
| Place | Name | Rating | Country | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ivanchuk, V | 2740 | UKR | * * | 3 1 | 3 1 | 3 3 | 3 1 | 3 1 | 22 |
| 2 | Topalov, V | 2767 | BUL | 0 1 | * * | 1 1 | 3 3 | 3 0 | 3 3 | 18 |
| 3 | Radjabov, T | 2751 | AZE | 0 1 | 1 1 | * * | 1 1 | 1 3 | 1 3 | 13 |
| 4 | Cheparinov, I | 2695 | BUL | 0 0 | 0 0 | 1 1 | * * | 3 3 | 1 1 | 10 |
| 5 | Bu Xiangzhi | 2708 | CHN | 0 1 | 0 3 | 1 0 | 0 0 | * * | 1 1 | 7 |
| 6 | Aronian, L | 2763 | ARM | 0 1 | 0 0 | 1 0 | 1 1 | 1 1 | * * | 6 |
M-Tel Masters 2007 Final Standings
| Place | Name | Country | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Pts | Victories | S.B. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Topalov,V | BUL | * * | 1 1 | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | 0 1 | ½ ½ | 5,5 | 3 | 27,00 |
| 2 | Sasikiran,K | IND | 0 0 | * * | ½ 1 | 1 0 | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | 5,0 | 3 | 24,25 |
| 3 | Mamedyarov,S | AZE | 1 ½ | ½ 0 | * * | 1 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 5,0 | 2 | 25,25 |
| 4 | Kamsky,G | USA | ½ ½ | 0 1 | 0 1 | * * | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 5,0 | 2 | 25,00 |
| 5 | Nisipeanu, LD | ROM | 1 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | * * | 0 1 | 5,0 | 2 | 25,00 |
| 6 | Adams,M | ENG | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 0 | * * | 4,5 | 1 | 23,00 |
M-Tel Masters 2007 Final Standings (3-point system)
| Place | Name | Country | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Pts | Victories | S.B. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Topalov,V | BUL | * * | 3 3 | 0 1 | 1 1 | 0 3 | 1 1 | 14 | 3 | 27,00 |
| 2 | Sasikiran,K | IND | 0 0 | * * | 1 3 | 3 0 | 1 1 | 1 3 | 13 | 3 | 24,25 |
| 3 | Mamedyarov,S | AZE | 3 1 | 1 0 | * * | 3 0 | 1 1 | 1 1 | 12 | 2 | 25,25 |
| 4 | Kamsky,G | USA | 1 1 | 0 3 | 0 3 | * * | 1 1 | 1 1 | 12 | 2 | 25,00 |
| 5 | Nisipeanu, LD | ROM | 3 0 | 1 1 | 1 1 | 1 1 | * * | 0 3 | 12 | 2 | 25,00 |
| 6 | Adams,M | ENG | 1 1 | 1 0 | 1 1 | 1 1 | 3 0 | * * | 10 | 1 | 23,00 |
Whether one player is playing a fantastic tournament and wins most of his games, or the participants finish very close to each other, in both situations the three-point system gives exactly the same final standings!
Of course it’s not exactly the same, because in Bilbao players will know that a victory will make a two-point difference to a draw, but there’s no reason to believe that in general they will tend to avoid draws by this. With a draw their opponent and rival in the tournament also just wins one point, right? Since the three-point system was introduced in the mid-nineties in football, it has never been proved whether it had led to more attractive matches.
My conclusion is that the “football system” is nothing more than another publicity stunt, created by Spanish organizers who, influenced by the flush of victory of last Sunday, decided to add a football-ish aspect to the game of chess. Isn’t their public aquarium enough attraction?
Interessante analyse.
Schaken naar het voorbeeld van voetbal modelleren is sowieso dom
omdat voetbal “brood en spelen” is , een simpel spelletje dat gepaard gaat
met massahysterie, slemppartijen, ordinaire emoties enz….
Het schaakspel is een nobel spel met een enorme complexiteit
en dient derhalve niet gereduceerd te worden tot één of ander spektakelstuk.
Het kappen op zogenaamd saaie spelers als Leko en Kramnik getuigt m.i.
niet van bijster veel intelligentie.
Mensen die zeuren over remises en een gebrek aan spektakel vergissen zich van sport en zouden hun interesse moeten richten op voetbal of basketbal.
Just one comment, your assumption of the organizers being influenced by the result of the euro is plainly wrong. If I remember correctly, last year the tournament in Bilbao was a blindfold with Bu winning ahead of Topalov and other top GMs, and they used the football scoring system then, way before the euro.
Yes, linking Euro ‘08 with the three-point system wasn’t really seriously meant. Of course one cannot decide on a major change in the score system in a period of just two days.
I always thinked the 3 points system is retarded.
Add to this the +1 points with blitz game after a draw and you get the best possible combinations to ruin our noble game even more.
What a shame…
“omdat voetbal “brood en spelenâ€? is , een simpel spelletje dat gepaard gaat
met massahysterie, slemppartijen, ordinaire emoties enz….
Het schaakspel is een nobel spel met een enorme complexiteit
en dient derhalve niet gereduceerd te worden tot één of ander spektakelstuk.”, schrijft Steven hier.
Visies zoals deze zijn in mijn ogen nou precies de reden waarom schaken nog steeds niet de miljardensponsors kan trekken zoals een spel “met ordinaire emoties”. Dat elitaire vind ik maar flauw en vooral getuigen van zelfoverschatting van ons nobele spel. Een beetje relativeren mag ook wel.
Voor de rest vind ik die 3puntenregel ook belachelijk, net als de hype om zo fel in te hakken op snelle remises. Ik vind dat men vooral eens zou moeten kijken naar de toptoernooien: Wijk Aan Zee en Linares geen remiseregel, maar wel schitterend schaak. De Sofiaregel heeft zijn nut, maar ik denk niet dat al die antiremisemaatregelen zo hard nodig zijn.
I played in the german U25 youth championship in Willingen two times, where they also give 3 points for a victory. In both tournaments I played not different and I wouldn’t say the other players tried harder to win the games than in normal chess.
I think 3/1 points is better than 2/1 points.
It makes playing a ’solid’ tournament strategy inferior than playing to win.
It certainly does no harm.
“it’s not very pleasant - to put it mildly - to hear people playing blitz while you’re playing a serious game”
one may believe, but, well, it only means that bltz games should be played in a different room (and probably this second room would attract spectators more than the main room)
3-1-0 Does make a difference, but only for players who’d finish equal with regular scoring.
So it’s really just the same as using ‘most wins’ as tie-breaker, like they do in Linares, and like in Linares it seems to have virtually no effect on playing style or number of draws.
Applying the 3-1-0 points system to a tournament already played to see if the outcome would be different is flawed. The idea of the new scoring system is that it changes the motivation of the players (i.e. they are more likley to play a volatile style of chess a la Morozevich). You can’t just apply it to a tournament were no such motivation existed to show it wouldn’t alter the results.
The only way to see if it is valid is to try it, therefore I commend the organisers of Bilbao having the courage to give it a try. Let’s wait and see how a few tournaments using this system turnout before passing judgement!
It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. ~W. Edwards Deming
He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson
If it doesn’t make any difference, why do you have a problem with it?
P.S. If they want attacking chess, how about 1 point for a win, and zero points for a draw or a loss?
The difference the change in scoring system has made in football is that top teams have to go for the victory against the bottom teams. A draw is too costly. They still tend to play it safe against other top teams, because the three points you can gain with risky play are also three points you can gift them if you go too far.
So if it were to have an effect, it would probably be to increase the importance of games between the top three and the bottom three of a tournament. But my guess it is won’t make a bit of difference either way. You have to play the position you have, which is not the same as in football, where the play is very fluid and you can always “go forward”, as it were.
Sorry if I am repeating the dutch comments, I am not yet fluent.
@ Dan - I know it’s flawed - that’s why I wrote the penultimate paragraph. And Mr Deming and Wilson wouldn’t have agreed to a change that makes no sense.
@ Jean-Michel - Exactly, a team can change its strategy but and individual chess player won’t do that - it’s “unhealthy” chess to start an attack out of nothing.
@ Peter
I read the penultimate paragraph, I was agreeing with your statement . The comparision was flawed and pointless. Not sure why you still chose still chose to publish it as a main feature of your article?
The change obviously makes sense to enough people that the most popular game in the world football has adopted it…. Ever thought YOU actually might be missing something (i.e. this is a potenitally positive change). The only way to tell whether the change will have a positive/negative/neglible impact is to trial it; wouldn’t you agree? I mean you may well be right it might turn out to be pointless, then again it could be a positive there’s no harm in trying. Innovation is a process of trial and error.
I thought my point was clear: it has been tried before, and it didn’t lead to more attractive play (the main goal of the change of the system). And it won’t make any difference in the chess world either.
I’ll have to leave it at that. On my way to Dortmund now!
This Armaggedon tiebreak game in the event of a draw is nonsense. Personally, I’d rather play blindfold chess without the Armaggedon. Now that is saying something!
I don’t think there is or has been anything wrong with chess or its traditional scoring system; it has served us well through the entire 20th century. The only difference this 3-1-0 system could make is to introduce a tempation to gain more points through prearranged decisive results (especially so in double round-robin tournaments), which would be a lot uglier that prearranged draws. I also wholeheartedly agree with Peter in that mixing classical chess and blitz is [self-censored]; these are very different games and especially switching from one to the other can be very troublesome.
Problem is not a system, problem is a players who don’t even try to play. For example recent game between Kramnik and Leko.. They played just theory, they didn’t made any moves by themselves and agreed draw. It’s like mocking of spectarors and organisers.
Organisers should consider these factors before inviting players to tournaments.
If Kramnik-Leko was theory then they obviously were not aware of it, for they both had about 12 minutes left at the end. Looked more like Kramnik’s suicide attempt to me, followed by a really narrow escape.
I would love it when the so called footbalsystem will be standard in chess competition. Iam sure players like Leko and Kramnik can play more interesting, unbalanced openings, and this system certainly will encourage them to do so.
More Shirov, ivanchuck and Moro style will emerge at level chess!
Furthermore, the mother of all games of course is football. No question about that.
Chess is older than football.
yes, for me, I think that 3.1.0 is a nice choice to determine winners. I am from algeria. my country qualifiers on worldcup football in 1982. in this time, the winner had 2 points, draw 1 p, and loss 0 .look, you win 1 match, you loss 2; you have 2 points. another team draw 3 games, it has 3 points. the draw go to the quarter, the only win go home. but yet: with 3 points and 2 goals in difference or only +1 goal in difference. the only win qualifying you in the quarter final, the team with 3 draws go home.in our case, we goes home with 4 points, italy qualified with only 3 points.the system with 3 points is best then 1 point. the 3 football system allow the win, but the 1 p system favorise the draws. and I suggest that the draw offer will be annuled, is like the not fair-play combination between opponents in football. the points in chess is like that 8+10+10+6+6+10 for the king: the sum is 50 p . the draw offer will be accepted in 50 moves. what did you think!!
I think your post is incorrect for the following reasons:
1) If you play 3 draws from 3 games you didn’t lose, so you are a good player, if you lose more than you win, you met with stronger players.
2) Football is a team game, chess is an individual game. If you play football, you must count to the others. If the team is afraid of something, they play it safe, and there is no time to modify the strategy. If you have new chances in chess to win you won’t want a draw.
3) A draw usually is more correct than a win, if you fight against draws, you fight against good moves.
4) Chess fans are just watching the games (except the players). What did they do for chess to deserve the right to change the rules?
—deleted—
A draw is a logical result to a chess game and itself shouldn´t be condemned.
But in today´s top level chess one gets the impression that some players fight only half of their games. For example, the Kramnik-Leko match was an infamy, since they drew all and everything, even highly interesting and unbalanced positions with pawns up and so on.
A 3-point-rule could change the tournament standings for players displaying such dull behaviour.
The argument the 3-Point-rule to have no ranking effect might prove right -under certain circumstances- but it surely CAN.
By the way, that rankings with most of the players beating each other will not be affected looks rather like a good argument FOR a change, doesn ´t it ?
I think it´s sportative to reward active players that take the risk to play on and see notorious rest-takers rather in the lower than in the higher mid of the rank.