Draws and Chess

I'm not completely ignorant of chess, but to say I've got any more than a passing knowledge of it would be a bit misleading. (I know for a fact that one reader of this blog knows a good deal about chess, so I'm curious as to their take on this post. We'll call him T. Johnson...no, Tom J.) I enjoyed playing it sporadically when I was younger, and would still enjoy playing it now, but there seem to be matching problems and, of course, a limit on the hours in the day. Oddly enough, if I were to play ten games of chess right now, I think I'd perform better in the first game than the tenth...though that's another discussion for another time.

Anyway-- there seems to be a widespread problem with the chess world of too many draws in high level chess. Of course, this isn't a structural problem with chess per se, just people's preferences for the outcomes they'd like to see. Nonetheless, part of sport is spectator, so that aspect does need to be taken into consideration.

Hockey had this same problem a few years ago; people thought overtime was boring and resulted in too many ties. Back then, teams would play, and the winner got 2 points, if the two teams tied they each got 1 point, and the loser got zero points. At the end of regulation time, if the game were tied, teams became extremely risk averse. Settling for one point in most scenarios was better than risking for two and possibly coming up with none. Thus, overtime play became extremely defensive and fans were none too pleased.

How did the NHL deal with this? Modify the payoffs. (They also changed the number of players on the ice to enhance the openness, but I believe the rule changes to have had a far larger impact.) Instead of coming up with zero points for an overtime loss, teams instead retained their one point. Winners in overtime still get their two points. Basically, you've now got nothing to lose by going for a win in overtime. To think-- incentives matter! Ties went down, offensive play went up in overtime, and fans on the whole were pleased with the result. Changing the structure of the payoffs changes the outcome.

Why can't something similar to be done with chess? If people want to see more wins, why not make wins more valuable? At some point, I presume you could make wins so valuable such that no one would want to offer a draw. If it's really that big of a problem-- and maybe it isn't-- this seems like an obvious solution that maintains the integrity of the game. Though perhaps there would be a large resistance to a change even on this margin...

Could it also be that since a number of these draws occur when there are a lot of pieces on the board-- the only time I'd draw with my brother is when we each had a king and a king only left-- well established players are saving their mental acuity for a time when it is most valuable to expend a lot of it? Athletes oftentimes speak about giving 110% on every play, but that's pretty clearly not the case. Running backs could fight for every inch on every play, but sometimes it is best to accept the play for what it is (or isn't) and retain your energy for another opportunity. Pitchers don't put everything they have into each pitch-- starting pitchers, especially. Ultimate fighters aren't going all out at every second of the match either-- they wait for the right time to make the large expenditure of energy. Why should chess be any different?