well being a CCM (for what it's worth) i followed the discussion a little.
To get rid of the draw problem some years ago i suggest to abolish the 50 move (or nowadays 85?) draw rule in endgames, and apparently this suggestion has been implemented by ICCF (at least in the last world cup final, without much fuzz, but it hardly changes anything in the draw score, apparently,
So , for what it's worth (with lots of stubborn (computer) chess players in this forum i don't expect applause), in addition , (also to to the suggestion by mr Nickel) i
would suggest to setup a new chess variant to diminish the draw problem , at least in correspondence chess (i would call it 'chess renewed', or something like that).
1) stalemate 3/4 points, not such a bad idea
2) have one piece more than a king, 3/4 points
(for other endgames similar rules are possible but then we should also
still allow for fortresses etc, so i would be careful with such ideas
3) as was discussed on the Rybka forum, if you mess with chess rules,
you also should do something about the structural advantage for White
(even although chess still is a draw, due to the large drawing margin)
And this leads to an idea of removing a pawn, possibly/preferably the
f3 pawn for White, in order to
3A) get even chances for White/Black
3B) reduce the importance of opening theory for the time being.
Combine 1-3 above, and you certainly have modified chess rules
and if adopted, the engines of course (just like chess960 or FRC)
should get an option to calculate with such rule nr 2, with rule nr 1
also depending on experimental results; rule 3 is my invention
(as part of the already existing chess variant (fair-chess).
And it's ofcourse the biggest invention in chess ever made,
(except maybe for the rule change for queens, some centuries ago):
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fairchess/
So imho as new variant it wouldn't hurt anybody just to try it,
and for the rest it's a matter of democracy, if the majority likes it
and it's get played, then you can argue endlessly but it *will*
evolve as a new chess (and improved) chess variant.
Possibly (much) later even for human players !
PS personally i have most doubts about rules nr 2, but we
will have to see how things evolve. It's pretty obvious in
ICCF chess that we are getting towards a draw result
(and yes, that's because chess is a draw, but i'm not going
this discussion now in this place (sigh) at the moment (*)
(*) except for this little brain wave:
ideas that if you cant' get an opening advantage but
somehow later magically could squeeze black into a lost
endgame are BS (again : Zermelo, if first players can win, then
there must be a 'strategy' for a win (nope DC, this is not a
tautology but a deep understanding about such games as chess
and 4inarow For 4inarow there has been found a winning method for
the first player starting from move 1,2, etc.; look it up.
in chess the only winning method would be to get an opening
advantage, but we now know that such advantage is too littel
to win the endgame. Look at this Chinese database for example
(even although with an old Sf, with the SFNNUe this axiom
(chess=draw) wouldnt' change; ask Kaufman.