Should All Games of World Championship be Armageddon?

World Chess Championship games have not been boring but still even after 6 games doesn't exactly spell great entertainment.

So I was thinking that what if all games were Armageddon, where white 45 (or 30 or something) mins more than black at the start, and also after each time control (40 moves and 60 moves), and in turn if Black atleast drew black got 1 point and white had to win every game. There would be no such thing as draws (except forced ones like stalemate and unavoidable 3-fold repetitions).

So after almost every game there would be a winner and that would make the match a lot more exciting. What do you think?

Again I am NOT saying that they should play only 5 min armageddon games.

No, let them play long time controls, but even in that give white a clock adv. of say 30 mins or 45 mins or whatever, with the rider that he must win. Black starts with 1hr 10 mins, but he only has to not lose to get a point. When they reach 40 moves, White would get 45 mins extra where as black would get only (say) 25 mins extra and after move 60 white would get another 15 mins while black would get only 5 more minutes.

This way the games won't be blitz, and even so white will have a big adv on the clock and must win, or black gets a point.

I am not saying play an armageddon after the game is drawn. The only way to draw would be three fold repetitions and stalemates.

It's to determine the best chess player in the world, not to be entertaining.

Wanting chess to be more exciting is ironic, considering the amount of cricket lovers in India.

So you agree chess is not exciting?

Also wanting chess to be more exciting is natural, considering the amount of cricket lovers in India

IMO it's both.

It's determining the best player, and it's also entertaining.

But IMO the attempt to make it entertaining to a wider audience by sacrificing quality via e.g. fast time controls is a mistake.

Instead, if you want it to be more exciting, if it is 5.5-5.5, play the tiebreaker first so that someone might try to win the last game. However, even this pollutes it by forcing them to play unnaturally.

It ain't broke. Don't mess it up.

(Actually it is broke - in the sense we have this idiotic tie break, but the main event is just fine).

swiss, 13-15 rounds  (instead 12 rounds match), no tiebreaks in event of equal points

top 50 players by rating included

+best womens, best juniors, best cadets, veterans ....

good, but really good prises for various categories in tournament (to keep competition hot up to last round)

best top (WCH) prize, like in nowdays match

and there will be lots of interesting and fighting chess to see, why? because to become champion in such event you have to make wins!

reference: chek IoM tournament, check European Open championship, Check swiss tournamets in general

Yes. Or we could give them clubs to beat each other while playing armageddon in order to make it even more entertaining...!

Rather than Armageddon I would like a couple of blindfold games added.

I don't know how many of you got the point, perhaps all of you did, but I would like to reiterate regardless, in case the point of this thread was missed.

I am not saying that they should play 5 min armageddon games.

No, let them play long time controls, but even in that give white a clock adv. of say 30 mins or 45 mins or whatever, with the rider that he must win. Black starts with 1hr 10 mins, but he only has to not lose to get a point. When they reach 40 moves, White would get 45 mins extra where as black would get only (say) 25 mins extra and after move 60 white would get another 15 mins while black would get only 5 more minutes.

This way the games won't be blitz, and even so white will have a big adv on the clock and must win, or black gets a point.

I am not saying play an armageddon after the game is drawn. The only way to draw would be three fold repetitions and stalemates.

PS - This clarification has been put into post #1.

Lets say we work out the times (I'm not sure 90 minutes vs 60 minutes is much of a handicap) but putting that aside, it would be an interesting exhibition match. The sorts of preparation and strategy required would be interesting... but it wouldn't show who the best chess player is. The title is "world champion" not "most entertaining player"

I'm still in favour of hearing more from people like IM Shahade. I recently was going through some old podcasts from Ben Johnson and found IM Shahade's take interesting. He wasn't speaking about the WCC but was just talking about making chess more entertaining in general and the eventual holy grail of tv (although, I don't actually know anyone who watches tv anymore). He feels reducing the time controls in Classical chess would make it more entertaining without significantly reducing the quality. 

All that said, I'm in favour of leaving the WCC as-is. We just need high quality people to commentate and explain what is happening to patzers like myself.

I got it the first time JayeshSinhaChess. I just don't think the current system is broke. What I want to see is high level human chess at its finest, and we have been getting that. As I said before, the tie-break is idiotic but other than that it isn't broke.

@Cavalry - Actually speaking of commentary, any commentary team, especially in long controls where there is a long wait between moves, must include a patzer (or atleast a semi-patzer) on it, to ask the patzer questions and have them be explained.

I for instance watch Peter Svidler commentary if he is doing it, and he goes, well, this this and this and this is obviously the response, and I am like hold on. Why is that move so obvious and what about this move this move and this move which all seem fine fine.

I feel a patzer on board will greatly benefit the commentary and make chess more accessible to the rest of the humans.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to get 100 GMs together or something, and have them brainstorm ideas.

Maybe throw in some IMs, I dunno.

But Greg Shahade is an idiot, so no, not him

(and yes, I read his slow chess should die a fast death blog entry)

Something I'd like is have GMs vote on interesting (and equal) positions from chess 960.

(That's important because some positions are not equal, and some are too easy to figure out or so I've been told)

Then you narrow it down to something like 5 or 10 positions. Each player is given these a few months (a whole year?) in advance.

Then they play each of them twice, once as white, once as black.

Opening prep is part of why we have so many draws, but removing it completely cheapens the game and isn't a good solution. I think this is an interesting balance.

I think a 12 game match is a bit short when comparing past world championship matches. 

If 12 games, then instead of the current tiebreak system, how about the first player to win a classical game after the 12 game mark.  

You want excitement go watch mma,  There you get ring girls, violence, and alcohol. 

Chess is what it is.  Its a thinking mans game.  If you need it t be more "exciting" than maybe its not for you.  This match has been exciting (for me)  I would say that i think Fischer was correct in having a certain number of wins determining the winner.  This whole ser number of games, and then speed chess determining the winner is a bad idea.