24 vs 14: The Great World Championship Showdown
In the Kasparov era, World Championship matches were epic marathons – 24 games (or more) drawn out over weeks. Karpov and Kasparov traded blows in 24-game duels, and even offshoot events like Kasparov–Short (1993) scheduled 24 games were often decided long before the finish . Today, however, FIDE’s championship is a lean 14-game match (up from 12 in 2018). The format shift has ignited fierce debate. Magnus Carlsen himself admits he “never favored…such a short match” , but he was “positive” when FIDE bumped 2018’s 12-game match to 14 games (deeming it “less random” ). Others see no problem: Fabiano Caruana and most top GMs have argued that a 12-plus-tiebreak format is “near perfect” for crowning a champion . Meanwhile former champion Anatoly Karpov grumbled that “12 games…still not enough. At least 14–18 games are needed” for a “full-fledged fight” .
Old Battles, New Rules
FIDE’s format evolution has been dramatic. From 1951 through 1991, champions faced challengers in long struggles (often 24 games). Since 2008 the classical match has shrunk: Carlsen vs Anand (2014) and Carlsen vs Caruana (2018) were 12-game affairs, with all games drawn in 2018 leading to a rapid playoff. Starting in 2021 FIDE extended the scheduled match to 14 games . Carlsen’s 2021 title defense against Ian Nepomniachtchi – slated for 14 games – ended in 11 because Magnus clinched it early . (The next cycle, 2025–26, again stipulates a 14-game match .)
Critics of long matches note history rarely sees the full slate played. For example, when Kasparov crushed Short 6–1 in 1993, the match (24 games scheduled) was essentially over by game 7 . Maurice Ashley points out that any significant early lead in these mega-matches usually foretells final victory . Indeed, Ashley’s postmortem of past WCCs showed that every title leader at the halfway (12-game) mark went on to win (the lone exception being Leko–Kramnik 2004). In his view, “the better player will usually win a match of any (decent) length” – making endless games superfluous. He also warns that today’s audiences “will not maintain much interest in a match that lasts over a month” , especially younger fans. In short, long matches can be anticlimactic, even if classical purists relish the slog .
Champions Speak Out
Top players have been vocal on both sides. Carlsen is perhaps the loudest advocate of change. In a 2018 interview he urged FIDE to “spice up” the championship with faster games and more playing opportunities . “I would like…more games in the match to give more room for experiments and taking chances,” he said, arguing rapid/blitz tests “quick calculation, intuition and instinct” over rote preparation . He once lamented that a short classical match rewards ultra-safe play: if the margin is small, players play for draws, diminishing excitement. Thus Carlsen welcomed any extension: after FIDE moved from 12 to 14 games, he noted it would “make it less random” (and thereby fairer). He even floated radical ideas: for example, playing two games per day at faster time controls , or a knockout World Cup–style format .
Not everyone agrees with Carlsen. “The present system…works well,” countered GM Michal Krasenkow. He advised a compromise: “12 is too few after all…16 would be perfectly adequate” . Fabiano Caruana and other elite GMs (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, etc.) have privately stated the 12-game match plus rapid tiebreaks is “fine” to “near perfect” . In that camp is GM Maurice Ashley himself, who concluded that a short match with rapid tie-breaks “holds water” for now .
On the other side, stalwarts like Karpov firmly denounce short matches. Karpov declared that at least 14–18 games are needed, especially when players are evenly matched . The worry is that too few games yield too many draws. Dutch GM Anish Giri echoed this from outside the champion’s circle: “So many draws in such a high-profile match could scare sponsors away,” he said after London 2018 .
FIDE’s Official Moves (2024 and Beyond)
As this tug-of-war continues, FIDE has tweaked the format without altering the classical length: the 2024 Ding–Gukesh match will again be 14 games . The regulations for 2024 introduce faster time-controls and incentives for fighting chess, but keep the core schedule intact . For example, the classical time control now gives only 30 extra minutes at move 40 (down from 60) and removes a second time-increment stage – a subtle push for quicker decision-making. Tie-breaks are also accelerated (15+10 instead of 25+10) to produce results, and cash awards now bonus $200,000 per win to discourage safe draws.
Fatigue, Fairness and Spectacle
Why all the fuss? In a sense, it comes down to purpose. Supporters of long matches argue they reward the best player by grinding out small advantages (Karpov’s fairness argument) and allow time for comebacks. Detractors counter that today’s fans want instant drama, not 20+ draws. 20-somethings who binge Twitch chess might indeed tune out after a week of draws, as Ashley warns .
Whether future cycles adopt 12, 14, or more games, the debate itself has energized the chess world. For now, FIDE’s bet is on 14 games (with faster clocks and prize tweaks) . But with Carlsen and Kasparov planting seeds for radical change, we may not have seen the final move in this format duel.
