Proposal of new WCC Match Format

Over the last few weeks, and especially the last few days, there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the many obvious shortcomings of the format under which the WCC match is currently played. The most common, and valid, of the criticisms are that (1) a 12-game match is too short to really allow the players enough breathing room to take significant risks (let alone encourage such risks), and (2) it is difficult to view a match decided by rapid chess (much less blitz!) in the same way as one decided by classical chess. Below, I've outlined a proposal for a match format which I believe is close to ideal, within the parameters of what today's players, sponsors, organizers, etc. would ever realistically agree to take part in.

  Here goes nothing:

1. The match would consist of 16 classical games, played at the same time control as in this year's WCC (40/100+30, 20/50+30, SD/15+30). Rest days would be scheduled after games 6 and 12, and colors would alternate after all but one round; rounds 8 and 9 would repeat colors.
2. Scoring would differ from the traditional 1,0,0.5 system, with each game worth 5 points, as opposed to 1. Possible results within this system are 5-0 (win for White), 2-3 (draw), and 1-4 (win for Black).
3. The first player to reach a score above 40 would of course win the match immediately. However, if neither player were to achieve this within 16 games, a playoff would be necessary.
4. Playoffs (if necessary) would consist of 3 Armageddon games. These games, however, would be played at a classical time control very similar to the one used in "regulation". Rules for classical Armageddon are as follows: 

• The time control from games 1-16 is modified in two ways. Firstly, there is no 30-second increment until move 61. And secondly, while White gets the usual 100 minutes for moves 1-40, Black will get much less than that (see below).
• The "5-point scoring" system from the regular match is abandoned (as one might expect). Since Black will have draw odds in every game, games will have only two possible outcomes and the scoring will be rather self-explanatory.
• Before each game, players must place a bid (in minutes and seconds) on the amount of time they will accept for their first 40 moves. The player who bids lowest receives the Black pieces, draw odds, and exactly the time they bid to make moves 1-40.
• If a 3rd and final game must be played, a rest day (3rd of the overall match) would be scheduled immediately before it.

Notes:

-- The way in which the rest days are scheduled does more than just allow for more games in the same number of days. It also ensures they will all occur on the same day of the week (a minor convenience in many cases).

-- The "5-point scoring" system more or less encourages the player with White to go for an all-out winning attempt in just about every single game. The reason being that, in 3 games with White, 1 win and 2 losses score higher than 3 draws - and (in 4 games with White) 1 win and 3 losses are equivalent to 4 draws.

-- Remarkably, the "bidding system" described above (for Armageddon games) seems to rarely be talked about despite its obvious superiority over the typical "coin toss" Armageddon system. And even more incredibly, I don't believe I've EVER seen the rather intuitive suggestion of classical Armageddon anywhere before.

I do apologize for the ridiculous length of this. As much as I would love to hear lots of people's opinions on the above, I will also totally understand if no one out there has the time to slog through something at least 10-15X longer than a normal forum post.

Why is a win as white worth more than a win as black? It might actually make some sense if it were reversed- i.e., with a black win being worth more because it is a rarer thing.

The holder of the title shouldn't automatically be in the next World Championship match, they ought to fight for their place like every one else.

^ It's true that one Armageddon game would be sufficient. I just find it hard to believe that no one at all would object to the idea of one game alone deciding the whole match, with it being a world championship and all. For instance, imagine the public outcry that would ensue if they were to forego the 4 rapid games and 10 blitz games in today's playoff, to just get straight to a decision via the planned Armageddon game!

I think I do see your point though - basically, with classical Armageddon, it isn't really one game deciding the match, but rather the extension of the 16-game match to a 17th game.

Well, because at the 2750+ level, it is the player with White who ultimately determines whether there will be realistic winning chances for either side in a game. As Black, you can't really force a top-20 GM to take any serious risks with White if they are so cautious as to be perfectly content with an uneventful draw.

So the idea of modified scoring was meant to reduce White's risk in positions that are sharper, richer, more double-edged, etc. in an attempt to make that player more inclined to enter such positions :)

The 5 point scoring makes no sense. By making a win with white worth more than a win with black, and giving black more points than white in the case of a draw, all this does is ensure black plays for a draw 100% of the time. Who would want to watch a match where every game one of the players has already settled for a draw before he game has even begun?

The OP's system is stupid.

On top of that, saying first to 40 wins is a complete hoax.  I want Black first in his clown system.  That way I get my 8th White before he gets his.  White wins the first 15 games.  In the normal system, I'm up 8-7 and need a draw the last round.  In this clown's system, I win the match since I'm the first to 40, up 40 to 35!  Opponent never gets his opportunity to play his game as White in the last pair of games!

Better solution!  Forget Armageddon!  Take on the "No draw" format that one tournament that I think was in New York, but don't quote me on that, did, and make that the tie breaker.

You play the normal 12 game match.  If it ends as a 6-6 tie, you draw for colors in the tie break.  At that point, you play 1 game of "No Draw" chess.  Here's how it works:

Time Control - This this is the world championship, it should be long.  Game in 3 Hours.  Because of the format, multiple time controls is not possible.

If White wins, White wins the Match!

If Black wins, Black wins the Match!

If a Draw occurs, they play again, immediately (this whole event would take slightly over 6 hours total - tops!), switching colors, and both players have whatever time is left on their clocks.  This process will continue every time a draw occurs, switching colors each time.  So if it takes 5 games to decide It (first 4 are draws), Karjakin will have had White in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th games, and Carlsen in the 2nd and 4th.

So, just as an example, let's say Karjakin draws for White first, and Carlsen gets Black.  Both players have 3 hours.  After 49 moves, they agree to a draw.  In that time, White spent 1 hour 47 minutes and 14 seconds.  Black spent 2 hours 6 minutes and 52 seconds.  Karjakin has 1 hour 12 minutes and 46 seconds left.  Carlsen has 53 minutes and 8 seconds left.  They turn the board around, reset the board, Carlsen gets White, and Karjakin starts White's clock, which currently has 53 minutes and 8 seconds on it.  They continue this process until one player wins or one loses on time!  There is no insufficient mating material because it could end in a draw and then continue with all pieces left, so a flag is a loss, no matter what!

Lets get it back to the old school way.  

24 games.

3 postponements.

In the event of a tie, the champion keeps his title.

if the champion loses, he gets a rematch within a year.

If you really want old school, let's go prior to your format.

First to 6 wins the match, draws count zero!  Round 13 coming up.  Karjakin 1 - Carlsen 1

I would actually be ok with that format too, as either of the guys playing would die of old age before getting to 6 wins.    I just prefer the 24 game match format more.  

As Black, 2750+ GMs will play for a draw 100% of the time regardless of the scoring system used, unless their opponent really pushes for complicated positions where it is extemely difficult to play directly for a draw. Of course, that is only assuming said opponent has a similar rating (it may be a different story vs. a significantly lower rated opponent).

Top 20 players these days are only willing to try to beat each other when they have White, and the biggest problem is that, even then, they often want to minimize risk just as much as they want to play for a serious advantage.

Really old school is even better, first six matches of in all 85 games and then agree to continue at some later point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bourdonnais_–_McDonnell_chess_matches

I read that McDonnell lost a game with rook and two pawns vs rook after hanging his rook. And they played without any time limits. Imagine what people following it on the Internet would say about such things nowadays, when going from +0.24 to +0.11 is considered a horrible blunder...

I'm going to quote myself directly from the 1st post: "The first player to reach a score above 40 would of course win the match immediately."

There may be a misunderstanding here...

I have been watching the world championship games, and the vast majority of the comments are simply repeating what a chess engine shows them, without any idea of what it means, or able to explain the analysis.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.....Think of it this way...try explaining this system to someone who is not a chess enthusiast. If it takes longer than a couple minutes its probably too complicated.  That said, the road to the WC (grand prix, world cup, candidate...and oh yeah, ratings) is complicated enough. 

Really though, why do we need to "encourage" them to take risks....this match is going into a rapid playoff! maybe even blitz or armageddon! that sounds risky enough dont you think.  Carlsen is the best chess player right now, but if he were going to lose, it would be in a match that has been reduced to 4 games, or even pairs of games in the case of blitz.

I would absolutely prefer a 24-game match over a 16-game match. Since I was unable to come up with a way to [feasibly] fit 24 classical games into a 3-week schedule, though, I was a bit worried that such a proposal would be met with the usual "sponsors/organizers won't pay for that" comments.

It's too bad that, for whatever reason, the idea of arranging for the event to be played at a much less expensive venue (to reduce the cost per game) will apparently never receive serious consideration.

probably because its not just the costs of the venue...and not just costs period. There are other logistical consideration, and I'd imagine that prices increase at an exponential, not linear rate per day as the match is extended