What do you think about the Round Robin rules ?

Consider for example the candidates tournament.

It seems to me that the rules as they are right now are far from optimal.

Due to the high number of draws, we are now in a situation in which after 10 games out of 14, there are as many as 5 players within half a point.

It has happened several times in the past that more than two players were tied for first at the end of a round robin.

There are rather simple changes that would make such a scenario a little bit less likely.

One possibility, for example, is to give 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw ad they already to in many soccer leagues.

What do you think?

GMs often draw, regardless of the system

I think it was tried in some tournaments without any effect on the draw rate.

I don't want to change the draw rate, but I do believe that winning a game and losing another should count slightly more than drawing two games.

@esmiro said in #4:
> I don't want to change the draw rate, but I do believe that winning a game and losing another should count slightly more than drawing two games.

It's a valid point of view, proposed in some form or other many times before, and it would probably make for games which are more interesting for onlookers. But players who are particularly skilled at solid play would be heavily penalised. Different players would reach the top than the ones who do now, and it would almost be a different game.

A practical objection would be that it might encourage corruption. Two players who have a drawish game and are both set for a bad result might be especially tempted to say "Look, let me win this one, and I'll let you win the next time we play, that way we don't get penalised in our scores."

@Brian-E said in #5:
> Two players who have a drawish game and are both set for a bad result might be especially tempted to say "Look, let me win this one, and I'll let you win the next time we play, that way we don't get penalised in our scores."
Even more so in a double round robin tournaments where each pair plays two games against each other, I'm afraid.

Corruption of that extreme level is already in the realm of possibilities right now, since players can already make a pre-game agreement and fix the game for whatever reason.

Then, yes, there is the possibility that they'd be slightly more motivated to do so, but if we start from the assumption that whenever possible players will fix the game, then no chess rule can really solve the problem.

For any tournament to work, there is always the need for a certain degree of trust that most players are ultimately in good faith, otherwise there is no anti-cheating technology in the world that can really reassure us.

"Corruption of that extreme level is already in the realm of possibilities right now, since players can already make a pre-game agreement and fix the game for whatever reason."

false the rules say you cant and fide has punished people for doing it.

"no chess rule can really solve the problem." go read the fide rules on player conduct

@for_cryingout_loud said in #8:
> false the rules say you cant and fide has punished people for doing it.

Obviously, I was not claiming that fixing the game is legal, but rather that in principle it is possible for the players to make their agreement without necessarily getting caught, which is the point the other posters were also making.

I think the double elimination format is best. the round robin is too harsh on losers, forcing them to play after they no longer can win