The 2021 FIDE arbiters manual states the following in “Article 10: Points” after rule 10.1:
“Another scoring system from time to time used is for a win 3 points, for a draw 1 point and for a lost game 0 points. The idea is to encourage more positive play. Another is win 3 points, draw 2, loss 1 and forfeit 0. This is to discourage forfeits and may encourage children particularly as they gain a point despite losing. Yet another is win 2, draw 1, loss 0. This avoids ½ on the results sheet.”
I didn’t know about the second one above before seeing it in the arbiters manual. I like the idea of discouraging forfeits with this method.
I think a TD Tip along these lines after rule 4D, Scoring, would be good to add to the US Chess rulebook. Perhaps something like the following (I left out the last listed in the arbiters manual since I didn’t think it was necessary. I also left out the part about the second one encouraging children since that’s like encouraging participation trophies):
TD Tip: Other scoring systems are occasionally used. One such system is 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This encourages players to play for a win more. Another is 3 points for a win, 2 points for a draw, 1 point for a loss, and 0 points for a forfeit. This discourages forfeits. Regardless of the scoring system used, the results should still be reported in the standard 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a draw, and 0 points for a loss for rating purposes.
Good point. That scoring system probably isn’t necessary to mention and the TD Tip could instead could be written something like this:
TD Tip: Other scoring systems are occasionally used, such as 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This encourages players to play for a win more. Regardless of the scoring system used, the results should still be reported in the standard 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a draw, and 0 points for a loss for rating purposes.
Has the reporting system changed so that TDs are reporting points now, rather than results? E.g. W 6. I don’t understand why this would be useful for a TD to know.
Why not just eliminate this section of the rules altogether? Organizers are always free to invent their own scoring systems (e.g. for prize purposes), as long as the results are reported to U.S. Chess in the standard manner of 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw, 0 for a loss.
The rulebook mentions alternate pairing systems in individual rules. Alternate scoring systems should probably get the same treatment. This proposed TIP might be pitched to the Delegates as a new rule (or to the Rules Committee).
As a rule it would include things like: it is a major variation as far as the need for publicity goes; the results reported for ratings would be the standard Win=1, Draw=1/2, Loss=0; it may not be supported by a pairing program.
The 3/1/0 option and the 3/2/1/0 option are kind of doable with current pairing programs if you accept them as 1.5/0.5/0 or 1.5/1/0.5/0 entries. Only the odd numbered rounds would be paired. The even numbered rounds would have an extra half-point bye for everybody that needs that extra half point to get the score in sync (winners in the odd numbered round for 1.5/0.5/0 or non-forfeiters for 1.5/1/0.5/0) while everybody else gets a zero point bye. Tie-breaks may be a little funky.
Good idea. If it isn’t presented to the delegates this year as a new rule, we can go ahead and add it as a TD Tip for now.
I like these points and have added them to my proposed TD Tip.
TD Tip: Other scoring systems are occasionally used, such as 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This encourages players to play for a win more. Regardless of the scoring system used, the results must still be reported in the standard 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a draw, and 0 points for a loss for rating purposes. Using an alternate scoring system would be a major variation requiring adherence to rule 1B2. Alternate scoring systems may not be supported by a pairing program.
Permit me to make a guess. Tim has made this same comment in several threads, and there is a reason for that. We already have the concept of variations to the rules and the requirement to notify players of such variations. What more is needed? Do we really need to enumerate each and every possible specific variation? No, we do not. Nobody wants a foot-thick rulebook, 99% of which is TD Tips. Many of us think that the number of TD Tips in the rulebook is already excessive. We don’t need to add another new one every 5 minutes.
I for one would like to jettison all of the TD Tips from the rulebook. Having them in a separate document is fine, but since TD Tips are not rules lets get them out of the rulebook. How many “Arbiter’s Tips” do you see in the FIDE rules?
No, we don’t need to enumerate each and every possible specific variation but if the TD Tip adds good value like this one, then I think it would be good to add.
I’m getting the impression the number of people who think most suggested TD tips (not to mention many of the ones we have) add nearly as much value as Micah does is very small.
The trouble is that what would be “good to add” is a judgment call, and your judgment tends to be a good deal more generous in this respect than that of most people. I lean more toward Scott Parker’s mindset. Let’s have a nice concise rulebook (this is a case where emulating FIDE would be a good thing) and move the extensive commentary somewhere else. We shouldn’t have to search through a forest of TD Tips to find the rules.