First of all, Gerard, congratulations on the result, which is quite a feat! We can take it as an indicative result that 32-28 in our classical game is the best opening move, something I have suspected for a long time.
I think the question of reducing draws is important. The simple rules, board and pieces of draughts can be a strength. We can explain our rules within 5 minutes, and after that, nobody should forget. If we can create a complex game from such simple rules, this is elegant and attractive. The problem is that if at the highest level games almost always end in draws, the simple rules work against us - it will just appear we are playing a simple game. Worse, a simple game for simple souls. With such a bad image it will be difficult to promote the game, because eventually, the negative feedback will cause most people to lose interest.
This is a reason I have been for quite some time in favor of alternative rules that would lower the percentage of draws (and I believe it is quite similar to the reasons why Henk promoted the Delft rules). There are different ways to go about it, including breakthrough, killer, alternative counting rules (resulting is small and big victories depending on material at the end), and different board sizes & forms (e.g. 9x11, 10x11, etc). One can even consider reducing time available, although to me this does not look like the right approach to make the game structurally more attractive: reducing the time to think seems a poor way to create a game of thought (there are other reasons for limiting time which may be more valid, for example that it could be more attractive for the spectator and more "modern", but I digress).
Within the "breakthrough" family, I like to keep the possibility of combinations that involve giving the opponent a king and then using the king during the combination. With some of the others, I also like keeping some of our old strategic principles, so that if you get a king at a high expense, which is then captured at low cost, you will in the end lose. One way of doing this is use the rule that the player who obtained the first king still on the board in the final position wins. Compact, simple rule.
I see draughts as a family of games with common principles and rule sets, with details differing between the family members. Tournaments and championships can then be organized in different members of the family. Similar say to billiards or bridge.
What I think needs to be done now is experimenting in actual GMI-only tournaments with these alternative rules, and find out what attracts the most media attention, is preferred by spectators, and can draw in the most funding. How to finance these tournaments? If there is interest here and people to work on it, I believe it should be easy to crowdfund an experimental tournament cycle, and I would be happy to work on that together with others.
I see this as complementing actions such as those by Marcel on the distribution of low cost game materials. Materials is important to popularize at the bottom, and image is important, to make the game more attractive and keep those we get interested.
