IDK if anybody mentioned this already, but I always believed that longer games give a more concrete answer as to who is better and who won more solidly, even if maybe by just one point. It gives both players chances for comebacks, or warm ups in case one of the under performs. Something that should be needed as well was a two point lead after a certain amount of games are played, as to not end in draws and so that no extra games are needed.
Example: after 15 games are played, and no clear winner has been set (he would need to have, idk, a 4 point lead over the other player during said first 15 games), then a 2 point lead would be needed to become a winner.
This way, incredibly long matches arent needed, and the winner could be set possibly quickly and effectively.
Incredibly long matches aren't needed?. If a 2 point lead is required a match could go on forever. Look at the story of the first Karpov Kasparov championship.
IDK if anybody mentioned this already, but I always believed that longer games give a more concrete answer as to who is better and who won more solidly, even if maybe by just one point. It gives both players chances for comebacks, or warm ups in case one of the under performs. Something that should be needed as well was a two point lead after a certain amount of games are played, as to not end in draws and so that no extra games are needed.
Example: after 15 games are played, and no clear winner has been set (he would need to have, idk, a 4 point lead over the other player during said first 15 games), then a 2 point lead would be needed to become a winner.
This way, incredibly long matches arent needed, and the winner could be set possibly quickly and effectively.