user3237: In chess tournaments, when you win you get 1 point, when you draw you get 0.5 point, when you lose you get 0 point.
So we have to use two additional symbols to represent the score of a player: the radix point and the digit "5".
Or sometimes we use three additional symbols: " 1 / 2 ".
My question is: why don't we just multiply everything by 2?
When you win you would get 2 points, when you draw you would get 1 point, when you lose you would get 0 point.
This would simply have the benefit of economizing symbols and making the scores shorter. No more ".5" or "1/2".

user3270: Because it's a long-established convention and changing it at this point would be much more trouble than it's worth.
In the words of Gerald Weinberg 

Things are the way they are because they got that way


user3386: Each game of chess is worth a total of 1 point.  The winner takes the whole point, the loser gets none of it, and a draw gives each player an equal portion.
This makes it easier to create player statistics, because each game is worth exactly 1 point.  Divide their total score by the number of games played and you get a percentage of games won/lost.
To some degree this is the same as asking why we use pi rather than tau in mathematics.  For some operations pi is easier to work with, for others tau is easier to work with.
While a 2 point system would make some things easier, it would make others harder.

3237: <p>In chess tournaments, when you win you get 1 point, when you draw you get 0.5 point, when you lose you get 0 point.</p>

<p>So we have to use two additional symbols to represent the score of a player: the radix point and the digit "5".<br>
Or sometimes we use three additional symbols: " 1 / 2 ".</p>

<p>My question is: why don't we just multiply everything by 2?<br>
When you win you would get 2 points, when you draw you would get 1 point, when you lose you would get 0 point.</p>

<p>This would simply have the benefit of economizing symbols and making the scores shorter. No more ".5" or "1/2".</p>
 3270: <p>Because it's a long-established convention and changing it at this point would be much more trouble than it's worth.</p>

<p>In the words of Gerald Weinberg </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Things are the way they are because they got that way</p>
</blockquote>
 3386: <p>Each game of chess is worth a total of 1 point.  The winner takes the whole point, the loser gets none of it, and a draw gives each player an equal portion.</p>

<p>This makes it easier to create player statistics, because each game is worth exactly 1 point.  Divide their total score by the number of games played and you get a percentage of games won/lost.</p>

<p>To some degree this is the same as asking why we use pi rather than tau in mathematics.  For some operations pi is easier to work with, for others tau is easier to work with.</p>

<p>While a 2 point system would make some things easier, it would make others harder.</p>
