WC to be determined by fast chess - for shame!

It does seem a pity that we are not to see a longer series of classic games.  But there are monetary considerations I suppose.  From the player's perspective they have already forgone quite a lot of competitions preparing for the match and the match purse has shrunk to the level where it would start to hurt financially if the match stretched over too long a period.  And from the organisers perspective a longer match is more costly.

But perhaps the match conditions also pander a little to the short attention span of some spectators.

 Couldn't agree more. Even if there also is a group of spectators that talk about wanting to see first to ten wins matches etc it is hard to imagine how little interest such matches would gain after a few months :-) But as long as neither players nor sponsors want to see longer matches I guess it is just to accept that those days are gone, and in a few years I wouldn't be surprised if the title matches disappear entirely. Too many months of preparation, hiring a team of seconds, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that the average American cannot appreciate anything other than clear-cut, high-octane winning or losing situations? That they have attention-span deficits and cannot also appreciate complexity and profundity? Are these the real reasons chess is "dying" in America? If the average American cannot appreciate these things, why can apparently people from elsewhere in the world? Does it have to do with a diet of traditional American sports? Is interest in chess dying elsewhere in the world too? It doesn't seem to be.

The rooks will move as knight and vice versa.

I really like rapid chess, so can't complain about these play offs. A 4 game bonus.
25 10 is a nice timecontrol and with these guys quality is almost indistinguishable from their classical. If anything we can complain about the past 12 games and their quality.
So I guess it's not so much about the timecontrol rather the willingness to take risk.
To be fair the playing styles of these two guys together is also unfortunate. Karjakin has been digging himself in and not trying to win at all. Carlsen lost a game more than Karjakin won it. Carlsen typically atleast tries to play chess except game 12, but needs atleast a hope of something to go for. Is also a near perfect defender otherwise and you simply see the same happen in many other sports when you put two cautious defensive players or teams up against each other.
Next to going for some chess variant (960, 10x8 board etc. which won't happen for atleast another century) you simply need to select more diverse or daring players.
But that won't happen because of the nature of chess where cautious play = Elo, so I'm simply for a regular giant tournament with all qualified players like the candidates. But longer. And if one game is a 30 minute GM draw there's ten other ones to look at.

Life is meaningless.

Every leisure has a potential target.

Our goal should be to touch the greatest number of persons in this target, but trying desperately to do more than that would lead to spoil the game with too much money, too much media, etc.

how can the classical world campion be determined by rapid and blitz?

https://worldchess.com/nyc2016/round-13/

For everyone complaining about the short match, being fairly new to following competitive chess it's hard for me to imagine the match being any longer. I mean, bloody hell, it's been going on for nearly 20 days! That's pretty crazy when you think about, considering that most sports championships are determined in a single day or close to it.

I think the match length is perfect. If it was twice as long (as some people seem to want) then it would be hard to sustain people's interest.

Because some people who don't know anything about chess (aka FIDE) think it makes sense

I would wager that many of these people that are berating Chess960 have never played it beyond just a game or two.  At first it does feel rather alien, but the more you play it, the more you can appreciate its beauty.  The same principles that apply to classical chess, apply to Chess960.  Develop your pieces, control the center, secure your king etc.  I truly believe that whoever would win the Chess960 championship (if we ever have one again) would be the player with the most ability in chess, because at the end of the day, that is it what it truly measures.  

People hate change.  I get that, but watching this WC or top level GM tournaments where 90% of the games are drawn spells the death spiral for classical chess.  I refer to the so called "Professional" chess player.  There will always be a market for amateur chess, as openings do not carry the same weight, ie; I play a dozen openings equally bad, and I am always varying.   No one can prepare for this, nor would they want too, as we are playing for fun.  

Is there not one? What happened?

I thought there was a Chess960 World Championship every year.

No. The problem is the resolution and the deliberate pre-planned draw(s). That is totally unacceptable. Anyone that paid admission to be at that 12th game should demand a refund. Those clowns planned all along to have a draw and go to the ridiculous tie-breaker. They should play Classical chess until there is a winner, period. I will not be paying any attention to the tie-breaker today. It's meaningless. All we'll have is a World Chump that was too scared to try and win the REAL games. I certainly will never burn my money and time again on a Chess WC unless they change the rules. I resent watching  Ruy Lopez draws over and over and over again. It's ridiculous.

good point

Yeah, there should be more 1. d4 draws.