As a competition it will, like all competitions favour the set of people with more of the right resources. that's what competitions do.

Think of any competition that has an even chance for everyone and you've got yourself a random draw. Are you saying you want this to be more like a lottery? I'd say that's not your intention but it's the reason I suggested that you haven't given enough consideration to the nature of "competition".

In motor sports the team that wins has the money and brainpower to create the fastest cars and put in the best drivers. in sports it's the ones with the best coaches, players, diet, etc, etc.

Here money, technology and expertise are not resources but there are others. This competition will be won by someone who invests a considerable amount if their time into playing games. To amass points you need a fast turnover of moves plus time.

For a Rook one possibility is having hundreds of games. One move per day in 1000 games is, say, 1500 points (assuming some percentage of tourney matches). The players whose BK style is to have hundreds of games will thus have an advantage. How is a 50-match Rook supposed to compete against that? Is this fair? No, the 50-match Rook doesn't stand a chance because they lack one resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with 100s of matches to make it fairer to the others?

But Rooks with 100s of games are still only competitive if they spend a lot of time making moves in those games. How is a working Joe who has family and social commitments on several nights a week supposed to compete with those who are home-based or otherwise have plenty of time on their hands? Is this fair? No. These time-restricted people don't stand a chance. They lack another resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with time to play to make it fairer to the others?

Rooks without 100s of games can still compete if they have a smaller number of games with high-turnover opponents. In fact it's the only way that they can compete against the 100s-gamers. Fast-playing opponents is another resource in the competition. How can someone with mainly sloth-like opponents compete? Unfair again, surely. Speedy opponents is a resource.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with fast opponents to make it fairer to the others?

Now, if these are the resources and some competitors are resourceful enough to gather more of what's needed, is that anti-competitive?

Is it wrong to find and play speedy opponents? What if it's a friend? Does that make it wrong? Friends who are willing to help are another resource. That's unfair to those who canot gather similar support.

So, would you eliminate or penalise those with friends capable of making a contribution, to make it fairer to the others?

If, in finding that speedy opponent, they happens to be another competitor, is that morally out of the spirit of the competition? In the absence of people online who are willing to play fast, what is more natural than to harness a competitor for some mutual points raising?

Notice that this argument has been applied only to Rooks. You want to attack Pawns for some reason but Pawns are essentially Rooks who lack the multiple-games resource that Rooks have. If you're against Pawns then you must be against Rooks, too, for their competition is the same but with one extra resource.

You seem to be saying that the competition's resources are loopholes and you want to close them.

And that's why I say you haven't thought this through.