I'm aware of the Bilbao 3-1 idea.

In football (called soccer by the ignorant) had a similar process. At first, a win was 2 points, a draw 1. This led to lots of draws and calculative football, which the fans loathed.
They implemented the rule that a win would be 3 points instead and since, the 'draw culture' has been in the decline. If the single point is 'enough' for a team's goal, they often still go for it, but that is less often the case than before. It's made football more entertaining with less 0-0 results during major tournaments.
Still, FIFA (world football association) and UEFA (its european counterpart) officials have been less than progressive about changing things that change something fundamental to 'the game'. They refuse to use cameras (which are already in place) to aid referees in major decisions, so as to prevent them from making the wrong one. I would think that if they did use the cameras, people wouldn't take as much dives, get away with offside situations and fouls, and football would be more like what it should be.
Another example is the desire to change from nominal gametime (90 mins in two halves of 45 mins) where the clock continues even when the game stops to a system of pure playtime (say 70 mins in two halves of 35 mins) where the clock stops everytime the game stops. Should they change the rule, I'm certain it wouldn't put a stop to 'stretching' (as it's called in dutch) where players will go down more easily pretending to be injured to make time and take forever to throw/kick a ball back into play, but it will make it ineffective if the clock doesn't keep ticking.

In my experience officials in charge of the rules are very set in their ways. Not allowing for any logical changes without years of debate. I think this is analogous for chess.

It´s very difficult to make an end of prearranged draws. How do you prove it? When somebody thinks after 5 or so moves that he doesn`t like to play and offers a draw, it´s allowed.

In a Dutch tournament the following game was played. 1.e4 f6 2.d4 g5 3.Qh5 mate. Black was of master-strength. But this was NOT prearranged! What happend? The blackplayer asked in an open tournament for a free round because he had ticket for a concert of Madonna. The organisation refused and this was what happend. He was in time for the concert......

In Europe the (former) Yugoslavs have a bad reputation. When they play against eachother in the last round of an open tournament they play until the other games are ended. Then they play the result with the most prize-money for them together and share it. Ofcourse this is not allowed, but how do you prove that this is prearranged? Many people missed a lot of money this way.

Sounds like they just don't seem to care at all about the fact that cheating is going on. Maybe you should contact the next step up (if one exists)

That's the thing I don't think there is a next step up at least in the USA. Maybe the answer is to start a competing chess federation. One with a decent web page and a magazine that isn't ninety percent advertisements. I actually enjoy the little cheap magazine the Iowa Chess Association sends me more then chess life. Being an American, I believe in the power of free markets. The USCF has no motivation to fix itself because it has no competition. It is a monopoly and has all the problems endemic to pure oligopolies.

Well I'm from Kansas and if I was any good I might consider joining your splinter group

I once saw two players, Master strength, (Low 2200's) Arrange, Check this out; "That one of the players would win!" they were in a completely drawn position and were 2 of 7 people tied for first, as theirs was the last game of the last round, If they drew, they split 1st prize money with 7 players, however, If one of them won the game they could then split the entire prize 2 ways.... This is exactly what they did, "Now these 2 did not know each other before this tourney", so there was know trust to work on, so one player wrote the other player a check for several thousand dollars, the receiving player verified the funds, and tossed the game...

They did "All of this" after having the situation explained to them by a third party street hustler, right under the noses of the Tds, and 30 spectators!

This is the first time that I have told this story.

So simply assuming that the directors are unconcerned is maybe not so fair, unaware is more likely.

"Clever Chess Players?!" Imagine that....