Tournament Details | Rutar Scoring System Test Tournament

About the Rutar Scoring System
Test Tournament 1

This event has been set up to test the „Rutar Scoring System“ as a new methode for tiebreaks.

It is an attempt to counteract the negative effects of the extremely high draw rates in correspondence tournaments, where it is often no longer possible to achieve a satisfactory tiebreak.

The basic idea is to evaluate the players' performances per game on a scale of 0 to 5 points in the event of a tie at the end of a tournament.

For this purpose, a draw with a material advantage is rated higher than a draw with equal material, while a draw with a material disadvantage is rated lower. (See details below)

The inventor of this Scoring system, Venceslav Rutar, is donating a prize fund of $1,000 for the test tournament.

Invitational tournament
Single round robin
Not ICCF rated
Prizes: 1^st $600, 2^nd $300, 3^rd $100
Start date: 15/11/2025
There is no end date.
ICCF standard time control 10 moves in 50 days with doubling after 20 days is used.
If a player exceeds allowed thinking time in any way, the player will automatically be scored with a loss. Under some circumstances all of the player’s games will subsequently be cancelled (if not already rated).
45 days of leave per year are available to each player.
There is no special leave in this event.
Linear conditionals can be entered.
This tournament does not allow claims based on the seven piece tablebase.
Draw offers are restricted to one offer per player every 10 moves.
If needed, adjudicators will be selected by the organizer.
Other participants can see the games live after 2 games are finished in the event. Live transmission is delayed by 5 moves. The public can see the games live after 2 games are finished in the event. Live transmission is delayed by 5 moves.

Tiebreaks
(a) according to the Rutar Scoring System (See details below.)
(b) if after “a” the tie persists, then the results of the tied players against each other;
(c) if after “b” the tie persists, points evaluation by the Sonneborn-Berger-System;
(d) if after “c” the tie persists, then the number of wins with Black;
(e) if after “d” the tie persists, number of wins.

Rutar Scoring System
In the tiebreak, all games are scored as follows:

Win: 5 points
Favoured draw: 3 points
Equal draw: 2 points
Disfavoured draw: 1 point
Loss: 0 points

Favoured draws are draws in which one side retains a material advantage and scores 3 points.

Disfavoured draws are draws in which one side suffers a material disadvantage and scores 1 point.

Material ratio:
Pawn = 1
Knight = 3
Bishop = 3
Rook = 5
Queen = 9

The material balance is only relevant for games that end in a draw. This is done as soon as possible after the game has finished.

Equal draws are all draws of games that end within 30 moves.

Special rule: Draw before the 31st move = 2 points. This is to avoid ‘opening tricks’ that aim to force a draw with a material advantage, for example by means of perpetual check.

Additional notes:

All participants are kindly asked not to prolong games unnecessarily if the expected outcome appears inevitable. (Linear conditionals may be helpful here to expedite the game.)

General notes:

The Rutar Scoring System is applied here in a modified version, specifically for urgent tiebreak problems in correspondence chess. Venceslav Rutar himself recommends his scoring system as a universal method in chess instead of the conventional classification of 1, 1/2 and 0 points. His specifications are much more detailed and comprehensive than those given here.

It should be noted that the primary application of his scoring system can lead to significant deviations from the traditional scoring scale, not only in the case of draws, but also in the ratio between decided and undecided matches.

For example:

1 win and 1 loss = 5 points,

2 'equal' draws = 4 points,

2 'favored' draws = 6 points,

2 'disfavoured' draws' = 2 points.

In our tiebreak test tournament, such differences can only occur in the event of a tie, but then ensure the desired differentiation.

How it works ...

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Practical tips for playing according to the Rutar scoring system

What is different compared to the traditional scoring system?
Since it introduces different values for draws in addition to wins and losses, both sides gain additional options to fight for advantages that are not lost in a boundless sea of equal draws.
World-class grandmasters such as Sam Shankland, Surya Sekhar Ganguly and Nils Grandelius have unanimously reported increased complexity in the game based on their experiences with rapid chess matches.
For the players, this also means that they are required to be even more precise when calculating variations, assessing positions and making plans, but this precision is also rewarded. Even if neither player can gain a decisive advantage and a draw seems inevitable, the game does not become dull or come to an abrupt end, but remains dynamic and exciting.

The Rutar Scoring System can therefore open up new perspectives, particularly for correspondence chess, which is threatened with the ‘death by draws’, without fundamentally changing the character of the game of chess and its rules. On the contrary, it is intended to enrich the classic game and as a logical adaptation to today's conditions in competitive sport.

How does Rutar Scoring affect White's advantage of obtaing the first move?
So far, only theoretical considerations can be made due to a lack of practical experience. Since all participants in our tournament have the same number of white and black games, equal conditions are guaranteed in this case. In addition, Rutar Scoring only applies to the tiebreak in our tournament, so that a single win can still decide the tournament victory or a high ranking, and courageous attempts to win should remain the highest priority. White would be well advised to pursue strategies that aim for both a win and a favoured draw. Tournament practice will show to what extent this is successful.

How to play the opening with White and Black?
If you want to play for a win with White, you should stick to your existing repertoire as much as possible, which you are familiar with and which has caused your opponents the most problems. Check which typical endgames and draw-like positions can result from positions being repeated.
Basically, you should ask yourself whether you are aiming for closed, semi-closed, semi-open or open positions. This may later determine how quickly endgames arise and what options are then available to both sides.
Avoid speculative material sacrifices that lead to draws with a negative material balance.

Occasionally, it is not the main variations, but neglected secondary variations that promise success. To find this out, a little creativity is required, which may be rewarded in the end, but in any case promises an exciting course of play.
Playing for a win with Black is significantly more difficult in the computer age than it used to be and depends heavily on how risk-averse and precise White plays. Here, too, it is advisable to stick to tried and tested methods and to examine the likely endgames and draw options at an early stage. Often, securing an equal draw can be considered a success, but if White overreaches in his quest for a win or acts carelessly, surprising winning opportunities may also open up.

Of course, you can also break new ground in the opening, but be aware that this may mean more work for you.
Your opponent's opening repertoire, which you are familiar with, can also be a decisive factor in your own choice of opening.

Should I avoid gambits because I might end up with a material disadvantage?
There is no general answer to this question, as the individual gambits vary greatly in terms of the risks taken by both sides. This is particularly true when it comes to the difference between White and Black choosing a gambit. In many gambits, White recovers sacrificed material, as Black has no other way to free himself. Chess engines can often assess this relatively reliably in the opening stage, say up to about the 15th move, even if they do not take into account the differences between favoured and disfavoured draws.

Similar to the fundamental question of how to open, it is advisable to base your decision on your previous experience and preferences and to review them, bearing in mind that, as indicated at the outset, there are major differences between the various gambits played by White, such as the Queen's Gambit, the King's Gambit, the Evans Gambit, Staunton Gambit, Morra Gambit, etc. and the less common gambits played by Black such as the Benko Gambit, Budapest Gambit, Blumenfeld Gambit, From's Gambit, Latvian Gambit, etc.

What do I need to keep an eye on in the middle game?
In the middle game, you must always be aware of possible or even imminent transitions to endgames, in which the material factor can play an increasingly important role. Through continued exchanges, especially after queens have been exchanged, the game takes on a more forced character, and the more open and tense the position is, the more this is the case. This is where the greatest opportunities and dangers lie for both sides, and you should not shy away from thoroughly checking all computer suggestions or confidently contributing your own ideas. Find out which drawish endgames are possible and which you should avoid at all costs. If your opponent is under pressure and wants to avoid a disadvantageous draw at all costs, this could even open up chances of winning for you. In this phase of the game, you should not be stingy with your thinking time. Try to read your opponent's game – what is he aiming for?

Can I rely on the well-known theory in the endgame?
Yes and no. Yes, in terms of wins and losses. No, in terms of the differences between favoured, disfavoured and equal draws. These can only be assessed through concrete analysis. Positional compensation for material disadvantage loses its significance in the final position. However, until this is reached, it can often come into its own and be converted into material.
In the final position, all chess pieces have the same value as at the beginning of the game, no matter how useful or useless they may seem. They have survived, and that is the only thing that matters now, at least here in the tiebreak. Since this is very unfamiliar to every chess player at first, we add some chess diagrams and exercises on another page to help you get started. They also demonstrate the high importance of analyzing precisely and thoroughly. But hasn't that always been part of the self-image of correspondence chess, to which it owes its prestige and fame?

When is perpetual check or a draw by repetition of moves good, and when is it bad?
That depends on the possibilities in a specific position and on the player's expectations and goals. Of course, no one wants to start a game knowing that it will end in a disfavoured draw, but if it means avoiding an impending loss, then a 1-3 tiebreak score is a welcome outcome.
It is important to always be aware of the category of draw that ending a game by repetition of position (or by the 50-move draw rule) leads to, and what options both sides have to force or avoid this. To a limited extent, this also applies in view of the special rule that all draws before the 31st move are scored as 2-2 for the tiebreak.

How can I use chess engines and rely on them?
Today's hybrid or neuronal network-trained chess engines are quite reliable in indicating whether moves will win, lose or lead to a draw, provided they have sufficient calculation depth. Even if users initially shake their heads in disbelief at some computer evaluations, in the vast majority of cases it will turn out that the engine's evaluation is correct. This also applies to games played under the conditions of Rutar Scoring. However, without additional programming, chess engines are unable to take into account the different values of drawish endgames. This also applies to endgame databases.

This lack of clarity also indirectly means that, depending on the position, there can be a large grey zone when it comes to the differences between slightly advantageous and strongly advantageous or disadvantageous moves. This is where the independent main work begins for correspondence chess players, who can nevertheless continue to use chess engines to check their divergent variations. Perhaps this is where one of the decisive keys to deserved success will ultimately lie.

When should I offer or decline a draw?
Decisions of this kind often depend on tournament tactics or personal considerations. This is no different in the Rutar Scoring Test Tournament. However, players should always be aware of how an agreed draw is scored in the tiebreak. This is clearly defined in the tournament rules.
In principle, a draw agreement is always appropriate if, in all likelihood, i.e. 99 % of the time, continuing to play will not change the score or the result of the game. As long as you can cause problems for your opponent, this will not be the case, and it is sometimes interesting or even instructive for outsiders to see how the game ended.
As a rule, you should always assume that your opponent can see everything on the chessboard and evaluate it just as accurately as you do. This could have a significant impact on how you deal with draw offers.

This document was prepared by Arno Nickel to provide specific advice to Correspondence Chess players. Additional general information is available in other postings.

Here are links to download previous documents written by Venceslav Rutar:

Draws Also Distinguish Better Chess Players.pdf

(22 pages, dated from August 14, 2025)

Comprehensive Rules for Venceslav Rutar Scoring.pdf

(3 pages, dated from May 25, 2025)

Enhanced Venceslav Rutar Scoring.pdf

(10 pages, dated from December 30, 2024)

Scrutiny of Venceslav Rutar Scoring.pdf

(4 pages, dated from June 7, 2024)

Online articles at ChessBase.com

Surya Ganguly and Sam Shankland to play match with unique scoring system

(by ChessBase India, Sept. 2, 2024)