Shouldn't the World Champion of Chess be able to win at least 1 game out of 12?

I know there are Magnus fans, and there are people who are Team Fabi, but this isn't about who you are rooting for...My questions is: "Does it hurt the game of chess that the World Champion cannot win least 1 game out of 12?" 

Carlsen and Caruana just drew their 12th (and final) classical game in the World Championship.  Now, we will go to faster time controls to determine the champion.  And, in the last World Championship match between Carlsen and Karjakin, the results were much the same, with each player winning only one game out of 12, with the match decided in rapid play. 

I love speed chess (and played in a tournament hosted by Ben Finegold last week), but is this the best way to determine the World Champion?  This isn't the rapid/speed chess championship, after all...

I know the rules are already established, but I would prefer the match be called a draw (after maybe 20 games) with a required rematch between the champ and challenger in a defined time frame (3 months?).  Even if the match were called a draw and the champ retained the title, I would think that would be a more suitable outcome than determining the winner by rapid (and ultimately armageddon) chess.

I guess the champion has more latitude in defining the match rules than the challenger, so Magnus, as the greatest blitz player in the world, probably wants things set up this way, but doesn't this taint his legacy someway? 

Flame me if you want, but I just don't think the highest expression of chess is 12 consecutive draws.

There must be some changes for sure. 12 games is too short for one thing. Even Magnus said so himself.

Well that happens if you have two +2800 players who don't make mistakes... Apart from the last two games the games were very close and exciting...

I disagree with these comments.

1. Does this elevate Magnus in anyone's eyes?  No, it doesn't.

2. Does this help Caruana?  No, he didn't win a game either, even though he had some advantage in a couple of them.

3.  I think GMs at the highest level would prefer decisive results and some of them have said as much in their commentaries.

4. Chess enthusiasts like us - though we will watch chess regardless - enjoy more decisive games.  How many games from this WC are people going to be replaying in the future as "Immortal" games? Nada!

5. I think non-chess players/the general public think chess is boring anyhow, and this is doing nothing to change anyone's opinion.  Will more people watch the next chess championship or less? The obvious answer is less...unless someone is able to win a fricking game after 70+ hours of chess played.

6. The only group this may benefit are the chess engines because they will be able to show us how they would have crushed such mundane play.

Obviously, nwo5778 didn't believe his own comments and deleted them before I replied...

2800+ players do make mistakes as any engine will demonstrate. 

However, this match shows it is very difficult for one 2800-level player to beat another 2800-level player. 

I clicked on the thread because of the title. In reaction to the title, I would say that Carlsen came close, he just missed his chance in Game 1.

Does it hurt the game of chess that the championship had 12 draws? Absolutely.

But is that the players' fault? If they're both playing their best to win instead of draw, and to draw instead of lose, and they're evenly matched... then, depending on the rules of the game and the best strategies for that game that are a consequence of those rules, maybe a lot of draws are the expected result.

To play like Anderssen instead of like Steinitz is to lose.

To play riskier chess in hopes of winning is more likely to make you end up losing.

That's how life is, and it's useless asking the players to somehow play differently. You would actually have to change the rules of chess somehow to make the result of playing chess as well as one can be more exciting than a lot of draws.

Chess is a draw.

So good players draw.

Nah you shouldn’t lose your title without losing.

Yep

At the press conference, it was suggested more game. Suggestion: ole timey time controls (i.e 40 in 2 hours; next 20 in one hour, etc), flat classical, no increment. If score tied after 12-18 games, champ retains title. Discuss:

I agree with this.  

I never said you should take away a title if the holder didn't lose.  I just don't like rewarding a title to a champ or challenger who never wins (in "classical" chess).

The suggestion of games played without increment is a more reasonable "playoff" scenario to me.

I don't want Fisherandom determining World Chess Champions.  That certainly seems more screwy than speed chess to me. 

My solution is all games are Armageddon, broken into 2 game sets.  For games 1 and 2, maybe 20 moves for each hour for white, and 20 in 45 minutes for black.  For future sets of 2, if both players win as white in a set, the time for black is increased a bit, and if both players win as black in a round, the time is decreased a bit.  All wins, no draws.

He played for a draw so he could play at faster time controls.

I don't think this has been proven (possibly not disproved, but definitely not proved).

Draws may be the most common result at the highest level, but any crosstable showing patzers vs. patzers, masters vs. masters, GMs vs. GMs will show wins, losses and draws. 

Alpha Zero (thought to be rated 3500+) drew with Stockfish 72% of the time, but won the rest (28 wins, 72 draws and no losses). 

If there were decisive games 28% of the time in this match, no one would be complaining.