I don't play at any local club.  I have been thinking about joining, but I am not that good a player.  The only competitive chess I have played was back on my highschool's chess team.

The concept of "winning" anything is a pass-fail test.  When the Giants beat the Patriots on Sunday, a score of 35 to 34 is no worse than 34 to 0.  The Giants win, the Patriots lose.  Same with tourney or match play chess.  A win is a win, regardless of "margin of victory".  Margin of victory only serves the spin-meisters to spin their spew about "who is best". 

Regarding draws, and the inference that playing for a draw is somehow "unmanly" or "defensive", what would happen if a draw were weighted more heavily in favor of Black than White.  Example, a draw gives Black .60 of a point, and White gets .40.  Over a longer match, couldn't this possibly give more incentive not to play for a draw (obviously, particularly as white). 

No.

2-1 is a 100% edge in games won.

7-5 is only a 40% edge.

You can perhaps see this clearer If the match conditions were "first player to win 100 games" then the result of the first match would be 100-50, the result of the second match would be 100-71.

The winner of the first match is the stronger player.

um . . . have you forgotten about Kasparov?

My point is, using your logic, it doesn't matter.  If a "World Champion" is determined by either of your scenarios, the winner is the winner is the winner.

And, BTW, in your 2-1 scenario, assuming each player plays black once, that means that one player has played white twice.  If the player that plays white twice wins both his games as white, and the player that plays white once, also wins his game, it could easily be said that in such a short match, the player that had white twice won the match simply by the luck of the draw. 

The hypothetical 2-1 score we were discussing was the result of a 24 game match, so it actually was 2 wins, one loss, and 21 draws. Each player would have had white 12 times.

 Yes. 34-0 is a dominating victory. 35-34 is a squeaker that likely could have gone either way. The lead may have changed hands several times, unlike the 34-0 game.

My point is that either way, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you formulate it, no matter how you spin it, the team or individual that "wins" is the "winner".  If you then want to assign titles such as "World Champion", then it is up to subjectivity to determine relative aspects of the victory and the relative "strength" of one team or individual to another.  If we accept that Anand IS World Champion, you can't take that away from him.  We just may disagree if being proclaimed "World Champion" means that that person is "the best in the world".  Absent of any agree-upon measuring stick, the answer then becomes subjective. 

And, just by looking at the score, you can't tell whether the game was a squeaker or not.  One team could have come out to a 35 to 0 lead, put in their fourth string, and held off to win the game with the last eight points coming on the last play of the game, when the winning teams players were all on the sidelines drinking beer as the losing team scored a meaningless touchdown with no time remaining, and then went for a 2-point conversion, even though the 2-point conversion was meaningless because they still had no chance to win.  Not a squeaker!! 

actually for the voters in the coaches poll, it didn't matter which win they thought more convincing.   Voters in the coaches poll are contractually obligated to vote for the winner of the BCS championship game, for the #1 rank. 

Yeah you convinced me, 35-34 is dominance, 34-0 is a squeaker.

But don't many matches and tournaments have different time controls and tie-breakers but are still considered collectively as "chess"?  If the answer is "yes" and you still consider them "chess", then how is blitz a different game from "chess"...same rules, just different time-controls (no "you-can-take-the-king" rules).

Chess960 is nearly identical to chess...pawn structure is identical, the pieces are identical, the moves and the goal are identical.  Tactics, endgames, strategy, and opening principles are identical.  Hell, even castling and en passant are the same.  The only difference is the back row setup and resultant inability to memorize opening, but the logic and understanding are 100% preserved and 110% enhanced.  My logic is flawless.

Never thought of it like that, pretty good :)

Chess is hard enough on its own though, especially for us guys at/near the bottom.  No need to change things because some insecure GM from the 60s-70s coudln't handle the competitive nature of top level chess.

Besides... memorize openings?  Are you kidding?  Between the two of us how many opening moves do you think we know?  Less than 100?  Common

So, in a 100 game match, where one player wins the first 50 games by a landslide, forfeits the next 49 because he wants to drink beer, and wins the 100th game in easy fashion, the simple fact that the match was won 51 games to 49 makes it a close match?

Yes.  Because when talking about an opponent who is prone to forfiting half his games for the purpose of beer consumption, winning only 51 out of 100 is just barely enough

Well, beer drinking is the only reason I ever lose...

I like the idea of a 24 game match every 2 years.