Enter Your Reply

How about having some 'mutator' scoring system or Rules that can be
applied on top of just about any group of chess variants, and if the game
hardly ever doesn't end in draws, but checkmate, then these extra
conditions don't matter.  But, if it is more prone to certain conditions,
then the scoring system can handle these rare exceptions?  It is good to
design games that are less drawish and more decisive, but if you have a
popular game that is more draw-prone, why not differentiate the quality of
the draws and account for them appropriately.  In other words, you don't
just have set over all conditions that have the same score, but you have
more granularity.  They do this now in chess anyhow, awarding 1/2 point to
each player on a draw, and 1 point for a win.  This is two scores.  Why do
multiple varieties of draws (non-checkmate ends) have to all have the same
score?

A reason why I am discussing this now is look at normal chess.  What you
see is that the multiple varieties of draws are all worth the same 1/2
point for BOTH players.  Add that to the defending champion retaining
title on a tie in score, and you are going to produce draws.

Anyhow, this also goes to the person arguing for stalemate staying in the
game.  I will say that is fine, but why should it score 1/2-1/2 for both
players (count as a draw?).  What did the player who was stalemated
exactly do?  They get a draw due to the bungling of the other player,
which does nothing to advance the ending of the results?  How about
awarding the player who stalemated their opponent 1/2 point, but their
opponent doesn't get any points?  It still hurts to mess up like that,
but still respects the stalemate as a gotcha someone can mess up on.