If WCC is totally drawn, ...???
That's how it should be! The challenger has to defeat the champion decisively in order to become the new champion.
That's how it should be! The challenger has to defeat the champion decisively in order to become the new champion.
That is how it used to be, except then the match was 24 games long, not 12 games long. I personally would have no objection to going back to this. But the players themselves at the top rank in contention for this, including the World Champions themselves, disagree. That's why Fischer's proposal - the winner would have to win a fixed number of games, no matter how long it took - was eventually accepted for a match between Kasparov and Karpov. That match lasted for 48 games, though, and the criterion was not met in that time, showing this method was unworkable.
I am uncomfortable with the use of rapid games, blitz games, and Armageddon as the way to break ties. I have proposed other alternatives, but they are of a highly controversial nature.
Yes Fischer never envisioned someone gaming the rules the way Kasparov did. After getting badly outplayed in the match, he decided to just draw game after game until his opponent collapsed from exhaustion. In those days, Karpov was known to have stamina problems (he tired visibly towards the end of a couple of his matches with Korchnoi), so Kasparov decided to just keep playing drawn-out games until Karpov dropped.
