New Format for World Championship

There has been a lot of debate about the way Carlsen defended his title. Obviously everybody else (besides him) isn't happy with how the world Championship ended in 12 draws. But how could FIDE avoid something like that Happening again. I would like to discuss your ideas on how the format could be changed.

I have got two ideas which are radically different:

#1: Combine classical chess, rapid and blitz from the very beginning, for example like this: Day 1: Classical Chess game 1, Day 2: Classical chess game 2, Day 3: rapid 1 + 2 and blitz 1, 2, 3, and 4. Day 4: Rest day, and so on. At the end the scores of the three formats are added 1 point per Blitz, 2 for rapid, 4 for classical. (In other words: classical chess 50%, rapid 25%, blitz 25%).

Consequences: In this format, you could only win the title if you are good in all three time controls. Also, you might lose some Points in blitz and that puts pressure on you in the next classical game, so all of a sudden, one of the players isn't happy with a draw anymore.

Backdraw: The world championship is no longer based on classical chess exclusively.

#2: Forget about the tiebreaks. 16 or 20 games of classical chess and whoever is the winner will get the title world champion. But in contrast to the world championships in the 20th century, the defending champion is not allowed to keep his title in case of a tie. In that case, the title goes back to FIDE and the next year there will be a round robin tournament to determine the new world champion.

Backdraw: There will be years without a reigning world champion.

I'm interested on all of your thoughts on these ideas and of course on your own ideas.

My proposal is the world champion defends the title against 3 challengers. The players play 4 or 5 rounds. 1st place wins the title. In case of sharing 1st place, the defending champion retains title. No tiebreaker rapid or blitz games.

well, I have also thought of giving openings to the players, but unlike 2016 there was a big variety of openings and especially the Sweshnikow-Sicillian has not the same bad reputation as the Berlin-Ruy-Lopez. 

Bad odds could be partly fixed by playing two games in one opening. So if there is a slight advantage for black or for white in that opening, both players benefit in the same way. However, it is still not completely fair, because an opening might a pet opening of one player, so he gets more from it then the other. Imagine Tigran Petrosjan would have to play the kings-gambit ...

But the main reason why I don't like this idea very much is because it is so artificial.

I think the idea that in a tie the position is rendered vacant is worth exploring.

However I do feel the best option is have one player play an extra white game. So for instance have 15 games, one player plays 8 whites the second guy 7 whites only. Draw of lots to decide who plays the extra white or let the defending champion decide whether he wants extra white or not.

The whoever gets 8 whites MUST WIN the match, and if its a draw the match goes to the person who played only 7 whites.

I don't get the need for such changes. Carlsen proved himself to be a better player by surviving 12 classical matches against world #2. Caruana knew he had 12 shots to grab the title, yet he couldn't use those opportunities properly. This is chess matches people, not a chess research. Winning is all that matters.