Back in the days of Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov, WCC matches lasted up to 48 games and had some intense play; sacrifices and attack and action in alot of the games. Nowadays, with a 12-game match, players play safe, dull and boring chess.

With first to 6 1/2 or 12 1/2 wins not including draws would make a much, much better match. Who would agree? 

Should we, the people of chess.com, get IM's, GM's, everyday players and great players of the past (Korchnoi, Spassky, Karpov, Kasparov) to appeal to FIDE with a petition to make WCC matches first to 6 1/2 wins, or 12 1/2 wins not including draws?

If you do not agree, why not?

Why does FIDE find that 12-game matches better? 

The longer the match the higher is the cost. I think they shorten the match in order to save money.

In the interest of better games, I'm sure FIDE could find some way to fundraise. 

Holding the remainder of the match in a hotel suite after funds have "run out" still sounds better than 12-games-and-quit.

At least we'd have a credible match. We'd still have the games.

Does it hurt anyone's feelings that Capa-Alekhine wasn't publicly held? Lasker-Tarrasch?

this is what I had suggested in another thread that have the 12 games in Moscow then if still drawns have another 6 games in Israel and anther 6 in India.

Chess governing body did not exist until after Alekhine's death. FIDE was created so that the Alekhine incident does not happen again. Alekhine avoided matches against strong opponents and he held the title until his death.

From Steinitz to Alekhine era, chess championship was held with private funding (either from the players' own money or from sponsors). Usually it was up to the challenger to raise the needed fund. I am not sure about Lasker-Tarrasch championship, but I am certain that Capablanca-Alekhine match was publicly held. News about the match circulated across media from various countries. I read that Capablanca always got the accomodation of starred hotels wherever he went for matches.

As I see it, there is no serious barrier if a longer match is really desired.

kco just offered up the use of his family room.

Capa-Alekhine had a few witnesses and no more.

brillant !

The 12 game thing is actually pretty silly. Consider that the kasparov/karpov match had 10 draws in a row at one point. I believe capa/alekhine also had 8 draws in a row. Imagine the lack of quality if after those ten or eight games the match would soon be decided with a blitz game..

pretty sure that idea does offend me somewhere. (the blitz tie breaker)

I hate the short match format too, but a mano-a-mano match is the only proper way to contest the championship in chess, and the money just isn't there to support a long match anymore.  And you can't schedule sudden death as classical games because they need to be in pairs to be fair (each with one White), and the venue can't hold the space for an indefinite period.

So anyone with a better idea or some money to sponsor a longer match should step right up!

I am just a begginer so i dont understand much - but i will say my opinion :

if more people will play chess it will get more money but when people want to get intersted and hear about a world competition they get intersted but when its - more then one game to someone who dosnt know lowers the excitment  the more the less exciting it is to someone who dosnt know

and the less he will want to follow it cause its long  - that is one side of it that i think needs to be considered

The players themselves aren't interested in playing longer matches, and the sponsors aren't interested in arranging them, so I don't think there ever will be played matches longer than 12 games again. Maybe it's time to just quit with these title matches, Anand-Gelfand hasn't been particularly inspiring for future generations. The only really memorable thing is Gelfand's blundering away a game in the opening, and very little reminds of the matches of the good old days anyway. They just keep getting shorter, and I don't think a winner of a double round robin with the eight strongest players in the world necessarily would be a weaker or less worthy Champion than the winner of Anand-Gelfand.