Chess (often being classified as a sport) stands almost alone among sports in that its results are of a strictly ternary nature that is not quantified any further: The only possible outcomes are a win, a draw or a loss.
While the same is of course true for most team or combat sports, virtually all of them go a lot further by basing the result on some sort of point score, which says a lot more about the match than merely who won: A
6-0 win in association football is not the same as a
2-1 (the first being a "crush" and the second being a rather narrow win), and a
3-3 draw is not the same as a
0-0 one (the first one indicating a wild game, the second a tenacious one). Further in-game metrics such as "ball control" and "shots on goal" are often employed to paint a high-level picture for spectators.
Given that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of variants to chess rules exist, I should be surprised if no one has ever proposed an improvement to how chess is scored, but alas, I have not found any material on that subject. I'm looking for a new angle to see top-level matches from, where, when analyzing games, one often cannot help but feel that some are won by a larger margin than others, and similar insights.
Do any alternatives to ternary (win, draw, loss) chess scoring exist?