What I know, all author sport have sudden-death after each game. Like in Hockey the play best of 7 and al the matches has to have a winner, if no of the teams wins after regular time they continuing plying sudden-death until any team wins.
So why don’t we have the same I chess? Why can’t it be like so that every game has to have a winner? Some of you might say that in hockey there will never be tie so that’s another thing, but in football theirs quit often tie games and still when its tournaments the have to have a winner so the have shoot-outs. I think we so adapt the chess world to that as well, I think that WCC should be played best of 11 (as in ping pong) and the players ain’t aloud to take a draw (if not they are playing so the chess rolls says that this I draw. And then if there is draw they have to play tie-break before they can start the next round.
I think that this kind of game would changes the strategy of the chess players so there would be more interesting games and I think that’s what the chess world need to grow and become a bigger sport. I think that we need to keep the classic chess as the main chess in WCC because that’s what’s chess about, but still we need more aggressive chess to make sure that we will have more weiers. I truly get if your not really in to chess that’s WCC that looked like this years (2016) ain’t the funniest. Draw after draw that’s going to loose a lot of our new players, but if there would be extremely interesting games we would instead gain new chess players.
Now lets changes the form of WCC!