World Chess Championship format sucks!

It is an interesting idea, but there should be EXACTLY 1 World Chess Champion at a time.

It'd also be really stupid if there were a current champion that spent the whole year practicing ways to just make any game a draw, then played in a championship, drew every game, and stayed champion.  Also, people are still getting better (albeit not by nearly as much anymore), so people getting to the point of being able to draw virtually anything is somewhat likely in the future.

Show some respect for the Champion and the World Chess Championship title.

Yes, I’ve always thought that the words “champion” and “challenger” each have some meaning.

I agree. I look at it like they are both challengers. Neither are champion, yet. Both are challenging the world title. The current champion is only champion of the past, not the future. The current world champion's reign ends once the new world championship starts. Once the first move is played in the championship, both are challengers and neither deserve any non playing advantage. The only advantage should go to who plays better.

But one of them IS the champion. Why do you want to pretend he isn’t?

WAS the champion. He has to prove he is still the champion by winning again. In a golf tournament, the reigning champion must beat every one else to retain the title. Once the tournament starts, he WAS the champion. Everyone is challenging the title at that point, even the past champion.

What makes you say "WAS the champion"? Have you read/hear it anywhere?
Golf example does not mean anything, I can provide many other examples where a draw results in "retain" of title.

Because BOTH are playing for the championship, not just one. Yes I have read or heard that one of the two people playing for the world championship has been the champion. 

There probably are many examples of where the current champion retains the title in the case of a tie, but is chess one of them? Maybe it is, and if it is, then he IS the champion and doesn't have to worry about beating anyone. But if it's not, then both are challengers for the title. Both earned their spot as challengers. One earned it by beating all other challengers in a series of preliminary tournaments, the other earned it by being the previous champion. Both earned it, both are challengers for the title. 

I look at it this way, if the world chess championship is determined by who wins the most games or has the most points, then both are challenging each other. The fact that one of them was the past champion doesn't mean he gets to keep it automatically. It just means he must challenge someone in order to keep it.

Heres a bizarre idea...how bout the Champion should have to defend the title every single time he plays and he must play a minimum 50 games a year. so if he's in a tournament and he loses a game who ever beat him is the champion, even if its only till his next loss. I mean it's not like he loses a lot presently.

So to be world champion, you have to win every single game you ever play? Even Bobby Fischer lost sometimes.

Because that's too many. That's why. I dont think it makes sense to have a world championship game every tournament. That seems way too cumbersome. Maybe instead have the championship once every year, like most championships, and just play a minimum of games, say 15 or 20, and whomever has the most points wins, tiebreak decided by who wins next.

Your idea isn't unprecedented though. The worlds best golfer is decided each tournament, each week. And there is a minimum of events too, just like your idea. I think it's about 24 per year.

You are a bit early for this, Caruana would need to get black in Armageddon and draw, otherwise he has to beat Carlsen.

Personally I don't see it as boring  I think the Champion should have tp play against the winner of the TCEC Super Final and let the engine evaluate the match.

Seems like we might as well just see.

The candidates process is incredibly tough, and any sitting champion is lucky they don't need to re-qualify for the championship match. So adding a provision that the champion retains the title in the case of a dead-drawn match unfairly tilts things in the title holder's favor. This is especially the case this time because every classical draw brings Carlsen closer to non-classical time controls where he probably holds a large advantage. How about we just vacate the title in the case of a drawn match after 12 games? Also, any prize money, or most of it, would be left on the table for the next cycle, and both candidates would need to re-qualify. The provision of leaving all (or at least most) of the money on the table would provide incentive for players to play for wins.

Finally an idea that deserves serious consideration. Funny though, I don't think we have any say in the matter.

The World Chess Champion has earned his position. The status quo of most things is usually the default, until actually demonstrated otherwise. The burden of proof usually lies with that against the status quo. 

In order to be the world champion, you should have to actually beat the world champion. The burden of proof lies with the challenger to demonstrate he is worthy to take the title away. Not just draw with him. 

As the great Wrestler Ric Flair always said... "You want to BE the Man? You gotta BEAT the Man!! WHOOO!!"