If classical chess's future is dubious how can we make classical chess more interesting?

As Magnus Carlsen said that the future of classical chess is dubious. Also classical chess has been decreasing in popularity due to the COVID-19 pandemic in favor of blitz/bullet and rapid which is popular online. How can we make classical chess more popular and more interesting?

I think so

Nice solution what about we could for example have tournaments where the opening is randomly picked before the round starts to limit opening preparation?

Have random pieces that you have to use every 5th move, but you don't know what the piece will be until that move.

Just because they might know how to play it doesn't mean the games will be boring because you might not be able to have deep drawing opening preparation.

shove an apple down classical's throat so it dies faster

Every Opening and Every Opening advantage? I don't think so sure they might have deep preparation for quite a bit of openings and opening variations I'm just saying there are going to be nicks in the armor to make it more interesting.

you weren't supposed to expose me so quickly

A. It won't cancel out because of the fact that if they both have nicks in their preparation it will be more interesting as players might leave book theory sooner then normal.B: I'm saying that assuming that T.Ds aren't corrupt enough to accept bribes.

Well would T.Ds accept bribes in a top level classical Tournament under normal circumstances? 

A brilliant thought answer by @B1ZMARK

Well then there should be severe consequences  for offering and accepting bribes.

I believe that corruption isn't ok. But the difference is that they aren't powerful people capable of influencing votes though. Comparing chess to politics seems to be grasping at straws because FIDE isn't as corrupt as governments so they do punish players for cheating for example and could punish T.Ds.

I don't think that chess960 is the solution. However, it could amount to it.

A bigger board? New pieces? Kasparov also talked about it years ago.

There will probably not be such a drastic cuts in the near future, although i would welcome it. Integrate Chancellor and Archbishop for example would be great, but it would be another game.

100 years ago Capablanca (among others) declared that chess was dying because the proper way to play was known to every master and nothing new or interesting was on the horizon. Nimzovich, Reti and others soon proved them wrong. 

After World War II many people in the Western world said chess was fading away and only still vital in the USSR because the government pushed it aggressively. Today there is massive interest in chess in India, China, Africa and elsewhere it had not been popular sixty years ago.

Bobby Fischer complained that chess had become too dull because all the top players knew everything there was to know about the game, so he came up with the idea of Fischer random chess--the chess of the future.

When Kasparov lost a match to Deep Blue "experts" predicted that chess would soon die out as computers becoming unbeatable would destroy human interest in the game. Today computers are just a tool for chess players learning and studying the game.

Today's whiners believe classical chess is stodgy and not exciting enough for the new generations of players. Enough of them will come to chess via online blitz, etc and learn to appreciate classical chess. 

Chess started in India nearly 1500 years ago. Arabic players over centuries changed it into a more complex but very slow-moving contest. Medieval Europeans often used dice to determine which piece must move just to add uncertaity and excitement. Early-modern times saw a few rule changes that enlivened the game. 

Classical chess will continue to flourish due to the inherent intellectual and logical challenges it presents and the delight and satisfaction it provides its devotees.

How to make classical more interesting? change the tournament structure so wins are more valuable, or perhaps losses are less damaging. 

 

E.G

Winning worth more.

Win 3 points, Draw 1 point, Loss 0 points - > now a win and a loss is better than 2 draws and would encourage attacking play.

Loses less damaging

Win 4 points, Draw 2 points, Loss 1 point.

Once again a win and a loss are worth more than 2 draws.

That's the easiest way to shake things up. if you want more interesting games you need to lower the risk of going into the unknown. There will still be preparation, but it will encourage sharp lines which are difficult for both sides to prepare for.

 

We can reduce the frequency of draws by incentivizing risky play. Instead of scoring 1 for a win, 1/2 for a draw and 0 for a loss; we can score 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss.

That way a win plus a loss (3 + 0 = 3) will be worth more than a two draws (1 + 1 = 2). Players will be encouraged to take risks and unbalance the game in pursuit of wins.

If you change the game, it’s no longer classical chess.

It used to be when the best humans in the world played chess, you knew that it was the best chess possible. You gave them time to make the best possible moves because those would be the best chess games ever.

Now best players by far are computers. Humans no longer play the best games and it’s not even close. The question is, why even bother to save long times controls? It’s unwatchable. Who wants to watch a 12 game match featuring 12 five-hour draws? And it’s not even good chess compared to what is possible.

Kill it. Make it go away. No game should last longer than a movie. Kill it with fire.

@mpaetz interesting way to look at it.

U