A New Format for the World Chess Championship

I have been meditating on the current World Chess Championship and the controversy surrounding it.

While what I am about to propose will hardly meet with universal approval, it is an attempt to satisfy almost everyone - to address what is lacking in the way things are now.

I am basing my thinking on the premise that the World Chess Championship is an event intended primarily to find the world's best chess player at normal time controls, since that was the only kind of chess played in the WCC until very recently. It isn't a "Chess Triathlon" where classical, rapid, and blitz are of equal relevance - instead, rapid and blitz have been brought in as tiebreakers.

Fischer wanted a format in which the champion wouldn't win on a 12-12 tie; he didn't face Karpov because this demand was rejected, but in 1985, the format he wanted was tried between Kasparov and Karpov - and they proved the naysayers right; playing until someone won six times not only could take forever, but was often likely to take far too long to be practical.

So, here we go:

The initial format of the World Chess Championship will be 24 games at normal time controls. If the end result is 12-12, then:

• the champion retains his title for the time being;
• there will be a rematch in the rematch format to be described below within a year;
• each player will be awarded 1/6 of the prize fund, the remaining 2/3 of the prize fund to be split between the players based on the result of the rematch (so the players are not profiting from drawing the first match so that there will be a rematch - they'll have to depend on kickbacks from whoever the venue is rented from for that).

And what will be the format of the rematch?

Again there will be up to 24 games at regular rime controls.

The first 12 will be played normally. If a player has more than 6 points at the end of those 12 games, he wins the rematch.

The next 6 will be played at normal time controls, but at draw odds. According to a New York Times column by I. A. Horowitz, draw odds rank below pawn odds. So, while I was going to have one player have draw odds, and the other player have Knight odds, that wouldn't quite work. But draw odds are bigger than odds of the first move.

So here is what I propose - it may have to be changed from experience to determine what is the most balanced: these games are played with Black receiving the draw odds, but in return, not only does he move second, but both his Bishops are replaced by Knights. If that isn't enough compensation for White for the draw odds, give White two moves for his first move.

But this isn't Armageddon. While each game has a win or a loss, there are six of them, so the result can still be a 3-3 tie. If it isn't a tie, then whoever is ahead wins the match.

And now the third stage, consisting of the final six games at regular time controls.

Here, the change I've proposed before for Chess will be applied.

Checkmate your opponent? Get a point split of 1.0 - 0.0.

Stalemate your opponent? Get a point split of 0.6 - 0.4.

Put your opponent in perpetual check? Get a point split of 0.51 - 0.49.

Can't even do that?

After you've captured every one of your opponent's pieces except his King, on your next turn, you may choose to replace one of your pieces by a Pawn. If you do so, and you manage to checkmate your opponent afterwards, then you get a point split of 0.501 - 0.499.

Now it should be very hard to get six draws in a row. But the players could still end up winning in identical ways so the points would add up the same.

If so, then, finally, a rapid, blitz, and Armageddon format would be used to produce a winner as in the current World Chess Championship.

So one has the best of both worlds:

The chess match ends after a well-defined amount of time.

A winner is produced who actually outperformed the other player.

Instead of just 12 games at normal time controls preceding the rapid/blitz tiebreak, there are 36 completely conventional games, and then another 12 games that are modified to increace the chance of a decisive result, but still played at normal time controls, so that normal time controls are given every possible chance of deciding the issue.

what have you been smoking? chess is a game of rich tradition, you want award someone for perpetual check? what about those positions where the losing side is down material and sacks a rook on g3 or g6 and gives a perpetual to save half a point, should that be awarded extra? One player starting with four knights? what is wrong with you. All of you people with crazy suggestions, dont try to change the game as it is. Go and play a game yourself, you will see its very easy to lose. These players are just so good, they dont allow the loss to happen with their legacy being at stake.
Whats next, give one player an overdose of laxatives so there finally is a decisive game?

So that's why Magnus Carlsen offered a draw in Game 12!

quadibloc, that would change everything about chess. It would change centuries worth of theory. 

Let's hope they never, ever, ever do what you're suggesting. 

Good suggestions would be: 

1) You are forced to start up playing a daring but playable opening such as the Dutch. I believe this is how they solve the draw problem with Checkers.  

2) Faster time limits leading to more mistakes and less draws.