Yasser Seirawan - A Radical Solution Final Thoughts

by Yasser Seirawan
12/31/2016 – After the World Championship match between Sergey Karjakin and Magnus Carlsen Yasser Seirawan proposed a "Radical Solution" to change the format of the World Championship match. It triggered an enormous discussion. Readers sent in hundreds of comments, Emil Sutovsky and Maurice Ashley published different proposals. Now Seirawan sums up his final thoughts on the World Championship format.

ChessBase 14 Download ChessBase 14 Download

Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more!

Along with the ChessBase 14 program you can access the Live Database of 8 million games, and receive three months of free ChesssBase Account Premium membership and all of our online apps! Have a look today!


Yasser Seirawan (Photo: David Llada)

A Radical Solution Final Thoughts

Dear ChessBase readers, dear chess fans,

I really must beg for your indulgence. When I wrote my original article, “A Radical Solution,” it was a knee-jerk rant of sorts. Reeling from the “thirty-five-minute punch,” of Game 12 in the World Championship Match (WCM) was simply too much of a disappointment for me to bear. With the whole world tuning in to watch a dramatic final game of a competitive sporting duel we witnessed instead a dud masquerading as a classical game, leaving me greatly annoyed. The players can’t be faulted - it was the match rules that were to blame.

After 30 moves and 35 minutes Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjakin
agreed to a draw in game 12 of their World Championship match.

Okay, one rant is fine, a second is pushing the boundary of fine etiquette and a third is well-and-truly over the top. Agreed. Hence my request for your kind indulgence as I genuinely find the issue to be far too important to pass over as things currently stand. Let’s get started.

Firstly, a very big thank you to both GM Emil Sutovsky and GM Maurice Ashley for contributing with their articles about the format as well as proposed changes to the WCM rules and regulations. Feedback on this vital topic is much needed. If both “market forces” and “the evolution of the game” are contrary to what I propose, that will be that, and my angst will quickly be buried by the sands of time. That said, please allow me to share some final thoughts on this crucial topic.

To sum up...

To sum up my views, as elaborated in my previous articles:

1. The WCM is the crown jewel of the chess world. We should aspire to a system that allows for matches like Botvinnik-Tal (1960) and Spassky-Fischer (1972), which inspired generations of chess players, including me.

Mikhail Tal vs Mikhail Botvinnik

2. Chess has one of the richest histories of any sport in the world. We should be proud of this history, and respecting the WCM rules both honors past World Champions and ensures the future of chess.

3. Chess should not give in to the fast-paced, modern age world of near science fiction that we colloquially call the “information age.” Chess cannot compete with the limited attention spans that Hollywood and other societal forces have capped at ninety minutes to two hours for movies, three hours for sporting events, and less for other things, such as political discourse. I don’t accept that to keep up we must play faster (!), decrease the number of games played (!) and force a result (!) by the time our nightly news source is uploaded, and that failing to do so means the extinction of our beloved sport.

Really? Are these the challenges that we face? To save our crown jewel we must change it beyond all recognition? Perhaps I’m merely having a bad period or simply exaggerating the challenges we face? That in fact while things may not be perfect with our WCM and cycle system they are reasonably fine. I think not.

4. I’m highly critical of the entire existing World Championship cycle, although I’m aware that my dislike of the cycle won’t change anything.

Which brings us to the WCM itself. My fundamental position is that the WCM should consist of classical games only, and that Rapid and Blitz should not be used to break a tied match.

My friend PCA President Emil Sutovsky proposed playing a Rapid/Blitz chess tiebreaker before the Classical games even begin. This creative idea ensures that a Rapid/Blitz tiebreak would be part of every WCM, not just tied ones. Since I don’t think Rapid/Blitz games should ever be part of a WCM, tied or not, I have to respectfully disagree with Emil’s proposal.

Maurice Ashley’s article reported the views of the world’s elite players on the current WCM regulations and the role of tiebreaks featuring Rapid and Blitz chess. I don’t question the accuracy of his article (that the vast majority of the world’s elite players are “okay” to “fine” to “supportive” of the current system (2016). I would be surprised if it were otherwise - it is difficult to compete at the highest levels of chess while questioning the legitimacy of the way chess is organized.

So where do I stand on all of this?

A. The WCM is too short

The WCM should not be a twelve-game contest. Twelve games are not enough.

The realities of the world today are such that a 24-game match is simply not going to happen. I get that. I suggest 16 games, as a compromise (but read on).

Placing our crown jewel in context: a month from now the second longest running traditional tournament in the world after Hastings, the 79th Tata Steel tournament, will be held in Wijk Aan Zee, Holland.

The sea in Wijk aan Zee

It will be a 13-round (game) event. It has not bowed to the demands of being shorter, faster and quicker to be “better”. Tradition still counts for something. The Candidate’s Tournament, the prelude to the WCM, is a 14-game event. Not Zurich 1953 by any stretch, but still long enough to get a worthy Challenger. Yet the WCM is shorter than these and other events, and is considerably diminished by these comparisons.

The argument that WCM organizers prefer a shorter (12-game) match doesn’t hold water. The additional costs of a longer match, in percentage terms, are not significantly higher and the extra games in fact can be very helpful to the organizers, as publicity builds and ticket sales increase as the match reaches its zenith.

All credit to Maurice Ashley for sharing the very strong criticisms from the 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov, whose views of the current WCM format were positively dismissive. No longer being a potential participant in a WCM, Tolya could take a longer-term view than the current top players:

“…12 games is not that mockery on chess we observed during the knock-out system - but it is still not enough. At least 14-18 games are needed for full-fledged, creative fight: then the rivals have an ability to risk; whilst in a short match of the rivals whose strength is equal, the game is usually just hold, while the opponents are just trying to catch "a fail-safe chance." ... “I'm firmly against of mixing different forms of chess. Determining the Classical World Chess Champion in rapid, and all the more, in blitz is just nonsense."


Furthermore, let me boldly state the obvious: the 12-game WCM of today is no longer an epoch-making, world-defining sporting event that holds the chess world enthralled. The WCM no longer stands out as the ultimate pinnacle of intellectual excellence. It is simply too short, both in absolute terms and in comparison to other events, including some national championships.

B. The World Championship title is losing prestige

Some of the feedback from readers after my two previous articles included opinions such as “why bother with a WCM? We have a rating system that tells us who is the best in the world.” and “neither tennis or golf have a world champion; we don’t need one either.” When chess fans express such sentiments, it is the severest of warnings.

The chess world is fortunate, because Magnus Carlsen, the current World Champion, is also the highest rated player in the world and no one can question the legitimacy of his status as the planet’s top player.

Magnus Carlsen after winning the strong open in Qatar 2015

But it is quite conceivable that the World Champion may not be the highest rated player in the world and it would be bad for chess if the rating system became more important than the title. This was foreshadowed in the mid-sixties, when Tigran Petrosian won, then defended, the World Championship title, despite some mediocre tournament results. But no one questioned the importance of the World Championship title - if someone was really better, a 24-game match was there to prove it (and Spassky did in 1969).

If one wishes to quantify this problem, consider that the prize fund for the Carlsen-Anand match in Chennai, India in 2013 was 2,650,000 Euros. The prize fund for the 2014 match was much less at two million Euros, and may in fact have actually been only one million Euros. The 2016 prize fund was the minimum one million Euros or rather $1,060,000 USD. The smallest prize fund of the 21st century for WCM’s. Is this rapidly shrinking prize money due to “market forces” or is the WCM simply no longer the prestigious event it once was?

C. These developments are not coincidental or inevitable

To recap my concerns: the WCM as an event shorter in length than ever before; it is shorter than the Candidates tournament that precedes it, as well as other events; it isn’t even close to the intellectual challenge it once was, because it doesn’t allow a full-fledged creative fight (Anatoly Karpov); the WCM is seeing steadily diminishing prize funds.

Throughout my career as a chess professional I’ve heard frequent laments of how chess does not get enough main-stream media coverage; television has ignored our sport more or less completely (excepting Norway); sponsors are not lining up to create great events because we don’t get enough exposure; chess columns are losing precious inches or being discontinued altogether.

The solution, so I’ve been told, is that if only we could get the spotlight of the world to shine its attention on our noble sport we would be discovered and chess would be transformed, as it was in 1972.

Fischer vs Spassky, Reykjavik 1972

We just need a golden break. What better place than the financial and media capital of the United States, New York City? Queue drumroll please, may I present Game 12 of the match. Trip, stumble, fall, splat. That was so comically disastrous I can now look back and laugh. If that represents our best effort while capturing the world’s attention I’ll have to rediscover checkers. I’m told it is challenging.

We cannot set ourselves up again for such a tragic fall. We cannot have a repeat of Game 12. As an ardent chess fan I cringe at the impact on potential sponsors. We simply have to do better in the future.

D. My proposal

Limiting myself only to the rules and regulations of the WCM I’d like to offer a clear, no-nonsense, proposal for the 2018 WCM that builds on my previous two articles.

While I was quite pleased with my original proposed solutions for improving the WCM, it was greatly enhanced by exchanges I had with my dear friend, Bruce Harper (fellow co-author and co-inventor of “S-Chess” - which is another topic altogether). I’ll let his own words speak to his suggestion, which I adopt:

“I get the concept that you unbalance the score from the start, so a drawn match is not mathematically possible. This is done in Go, where the “komi” (handicap) is, I believe, now normally set at 5.5 stones. This is based on the assessment that the first move in Go is worth something like 5 points, but by including a half point in the komi, a tie is not possible (since the actions of the players can only be measured in full points). So if the game is close, one side or the other will win by .5 points, but someone will win.

No draw in Go (Screenshot of Crazy Stone, distributed by Unbalance)

Your idea is essentially to introduce a komi into the WCM … Who gets the komi is random (under your proposal), and the other player gets one extra White in compensation (although it is not full compensation). 

Where I suspect the proposal could be improved is in deciding which player gets the advantage of the komi (which is greater than the advantage of the extra White). Drawing lots strikes me as unsatisfying, when one player has the accomplishment of winning (and possibly retaining) the World Championship title, and the other has the accomplishment of emerging from the Challenger system. On the theory that the Champion must be defeated for the Challenger to win the title, it might be better to just say: 

a. Play a 17-game match.

b. The Challenger gets the extra White.

c. The Champion retains the title in the event of a tie.

d. The Challenger chooses when to play the extra White game.

I added d. because we know that the extra White is worth less than the draw odds in the match. So it seems appropriate to enhance the value of the extra White by giving the Challenger the power to determine when that game is played. Some notice would have to be given, which would be something like within one hour of the end of the previous game or by 8:00 pm on the day of the previous game.

This would mean that the Challenger would always have two White’s in a row. But the Challenger would determine when he or she would get two Whites in a row, which is better than either getting the extra White out of the way at the start or deferring it to the end. I think from the spectator point of view it would be more interesting as well.”

As Mr. Harper makes clear, and I agree with him, the draw-odds advantage in favor of the Champion is greater than the benefit of the Challenger having an extra White. The chances of winning with White are slightly greater than with Black, but a win is certainly not guaranteed! However, giving the Challenger the flexibility of when to play the extra White game is quite a benefit as well. And it definitely spices things up.

Tradition is served by having the Champion retain the title in the event of a drawn match - to be the best, you have to beat the best. No Rapid or Blitz tie breaks. Just one extra White for the Challenger, to be used as the Challenger sees fit. When the Challenger makes his or her push with the extra White, the chess world will take notice, and the Champion’s advantage of “draw odds” will be somewhat balanced.

While there is no perfect system, given the pressures of our modern-day realities, I strongly believe these proposed changes will help restore the luster of our crown jewel and would urge the FIDE to adopt them for the 2018 WCM.

Magnus Carlsen with the "Crown Jewel" of chess





Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

stierlitz stierlitz 1/1/2017 01:54
I agree with 17 games, but only if the 17th game is played in case of a tie after 16 games. If one player wins the 16 game match then it is over. If not then the challenger gets white in the 17th game and has to win it, otherwise champion retains the title. The 17th game would be an armageddon in classical time controls with draw odds for the champion. Alternatively who will get draw odds in the 17th game can be decided before the match for example by rapid and blitz mini match. In this proposal the challenger doesn't have the extra white which he can decide when to play. But only the one in case of a tie after 16 games. This will ensure that at least one player will try hard to win the match in 16 games. There will be fight.
XSammaelx XSammaelx 1/1/2017 01:39
@bbrodinsky: "I suggest a variant of the Electoral College system..."

Good idea! We'll only really count games 2, 4 and 7, and whoever wins the majority of those will take the title regardless of who wins the most games overall. Brilliant!
Aighearach Aighearach 1/1/2017 01:36
A funny story, when Yasser was about 14 years old, my father was watching him play blitz against Johnny Walker for 50 cents a game, and there was some dispute about where a piece had been. (Johnny Walker was a well known hustler)

Yasser didn't argue about it, he just pushed the quarters across the table and set up the pieces. See, the thing was, Yasser was going to get all your quarters, hustling a game wasn't good enough. You still lost all your quarters.

Me, I don't really understand why draw odds is too much to give the Champion. History didn't show it to be a problem.
bbrodinsky bbrodinsky 1/1/2017 01:09
I suggest a variant of the Electoral College system...
XSammaelx XSammaelx 1/1/2017 01:04
@A7fecd1676b88: "Carlsen's most recent performances do not support this 'best player on the planet' claim. Carlsen is currently, 'first among equals', at best.
Thanks for playing."

I'm guessing you must not be particularly fond of Carlsen to read so much into so little when we're talking a player who has been, more or less, parked at #1 for half a decade. He has not been in good form of late, but his class is pretty well established.
A7fecd1676b88 A7fecd1676b88 1/1/2017 12:47
@planner99 --- Well, if that is your logic, I feel sorry for your portfolio. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. If it was, Gary Kasparov would still be world champion.
At the risk of stating the brutally obvious, Carlsen's most recent performances do not support this 'best player on the planet' claim. Carlsen is currently, 'first among equals', at best.
Thanks for playing.
XSammaelx XSammaelx 1/1/2017 12:33
Not too bad.

On the up side Seirawan's new solution maximizes the number of classical games (A#1 important) and is relatively simple and accessible (I've read a lot of convoluted ideas). And it seeks to limit the reigning champ to not too great an advantage.

On the down side it would still afford the reigning champ an, in my opinion, undue advantage. Even if the challenger could spring the extra white with only a few minutes notice, I doubt this fully compensates for tie odds.

Still, I'd take Seirawan's proposal over the current system any day, and I'm in 100% agreement about how these lightweight modern championships have diminished the event's prestige. I also agree with him that ratings are not a suitable replacement for title matches - only a match can decide how two players really stack up one-on-one.
rgorn rgorn 1/1/2017 12:26
"... having the Champion retain the title in the event of a drawn match - to be the best, you have to beat the best."

This simple formula not only eliminates the need for tie breaks, it also defines the challenger's task. When you accept that the challenger has to win to become the new champion, there's nothing you have to compensate him for. In fact, an extra White would give him an unfair advantage. One can only prove superiority under equal conditions.
saguni saguni 1/1/2017 12:24
Does Yasser remember the 13th game of 2000 World Championship match between Kasparov and Kramnik? Trailing by 2 points and with only 4 more games to go (just 2 with white pieces), Kasparov played a 14 move draw. How is that any different from Game 12? Game 13 in 2000 in fact provided much more incentive for Garry to play for a win and he still didn't.

I'm not implying 12 games is sufficient; just pointing out that Seirawan is too rough on Game 12 of this year's championship...
billvan61 billvan61 1/1/2017 12:12
We can debate this all year, sniping and carping and snarking. Meantime, nothing gets done and our game suffers. If we think a perfect system exists, we're wrong. Let's take the best parts of Mr. Seirawan's proposal and push for them. We have nothing to lose the but the currently flawed system. If the best parts don't bring the changes we, the chess community, seek, let's continue the process of improvement. But let's act. Does anyone really want another 12 game match where nothing is risked and we get book-theory for 20 moves?
captainboing captainboing 12/31/2016 11:56
I like this proposal. I would just add fewer rest days. No need for so much rest days, they all are professionals and to be on World championship match you have to be in good phisical shape as well.
Maturner Maturner 12/31/2016 11:48
Yeah that proposal is better than what we have now.
planner99 planner99 12/31/2016 11:30
Carlsen has a blitz rating over 2900 now too, he leads all ratings lists....not bad for someone not the best in the world:)
planner99 planner99 12/31/2016 11:23
". Any claim by Carslen to be the planet's top player is a very thin claim indeed. Come on. "

Carlsen wins Tata Steel, Norway Chess, Bilbao, the World Championship....come on equal points at the top in both the rapid and blitz and has the highest rating in classical and rapid....what drugs are you on?
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 12/31/2016 10:36
GM Seirawan clearly has not read the comments to the germane chessbase articles on the subject. He appears to have only read Maurice Ashley's and Sutovsky's pieces/opinions. Without perusing the plethora of opinions, it is natural that he did not come up with an optimal solution.
reddawg07 reddawg07 12/31/2016 09:27
I totally agree with the 17 game proposal. And an extra white for the challenger who has the choice of when to play the extra white. This way we eliminate the rapid chess games to break the tie, which has no place in the world classic chess championship. Like in the past championship matches, a tie would mean the champion retains his title.
A7fecd1676b88 A7fecd1676b88 12/31/2016 09:23
"The chess world is fortunate, because Magnus Carlsen, the current World Champion, is also the highest rated player in the world and no one can question the legitimacy of his status as the planet’s top player."

That is one of the lamest comments in this continuing series of Seirawan WC format rants...
Anybody who was not asleep during the WC actually noticed that Carslen was UNABLE to get a plus score in classical games against karjakin. And most recently, Carlsen did not win the Rapid or Blitz WC either. Any claim by Carslen to be the planet's top player is a very thin claim indeed. Come on.

imdvb_8793 imdvb_8793 12/31/2016 09:15
Again: have the champion compete hors-concours in the Candidates (being obligated to do so), despite also being seeded into the subsequent title match! He would still have the right to whatever prize money he earns, as well as, of course, a chance to secure for himself the rather significant advantage described below. If he finishes first, he gets draw odds in the match (he retains his title in case of an equal score), which he would play against the second place finisher, whereas, if another player finishes first, that player gets the draw odds in the resulting match against the reigning champion, dispossessing him of the title even should the match end in a tie... (Which would be entirely fair, since he will have won the Candidates, ahead of the champion.)

Clearly, people have some sort of problem with this proposal of mine, since nobody's going "OMG, what a great proposal! This is what they should do!!!" :) But I don't understand why nobody wants to tell me what that is, even though I've now suggested this solution in three different places... I'd be very interested to know what Yasser thinks of it, but I'm not sure he's ever read it, despite my efforts to bring it to his attention.
abaljeu abaljeu 12/31/2016 09:00
I like the komi idea. I want every game to have one player who is behind in the match and needs to press to catch up. I'm good with the champ getting that half point. I'm also okay with a rapid pre-match to earn that half point. Playing an odd number of games with challenger getting an extra white is fine but not necessary. Anything more sophisticated obscures the key idea; what's really important is forcing the players to fight.

I also think there should be more of a marathon to this competition. 6 games a week instead of 2 games every three days. Demonstrate your mental endurance, and enough of these no-action rest days.
nbeqo nbeqo 12/31/2016 08:36
IMHO The challenger must beat the champion in order to become a champion - No extras, no favours - simple as that! I do not understand why is everybody trying to complicate such a simple task?
Yolac Yolac 12/31/2016 08:22
This is a good idea. The last WCM was short (being 12 rounds only) but it lasted almost a month because of so many rest days. A 17-round match could fit in those number of days.
jajalamapratapri jajalamapratapri 12/31/2016 08:21
Interesting how many things that were possible 50 years ago (like a 24 game chess match, visiting the moon) are no longer possible now. Humanity seems past its peak.
Denix Denix 12/31/2016 08:02
The issue that brought this article is about draws in World Championship matches. I'm not sure if I missed reading the solution from the above article, and if so I have to read it again.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 12/31/2016 07:53
"You could have the tiebreak using the classical time control but reduce the chance of a draw by not allowing three-fold repetition and counting a stalemate as a loss for the player unable to move. "

Or, in case of stalemate, play rock-paper-scissors. Would make about as much sense.
wittgenstein wittgenstein 12/31/2016 07:39
This is a very interesting and good idea! On the other hand, I would prefer 18-24 games and simply the challenger should have to win if he is to become the new world chess champion. Otherwise, the champion has defended his title (citadel), and remains world champion! The problem is that, in this situation, the draw odds is no privilege at all. We should stop with all this political correctness. If you are to conquer something, you have to win.
twamers twamers 12/31/2016 07:34
An interesting article. The statement that the current match (12 games) is too short I fully agree with as I agree that Rapid or Blitz games have no place in the Classical match - ever. I'm pleased Karpov has been dismissive of the current system. That said I don't like odd number of games idea either. The match should be 18 games if we are really saying 24 is nowadays off limits. On a draw the Champion keeps the title. Really if the challenger is the best player then they will win over 18 games. I'd simply like to see a Classical match of a decent length that encourages enterprising play. I like Carlsen and do think he is the best player in the world but these very short matches with rapid/blitz interventions will do nothing to cement his place in the great list of champions who played much longer matches (of course this is not the players fault it is the poor system we have now).
aristocles aristocles 12/31/2016 07:16
You could have the tiebreak using the classical time control but reduce the chance of a draw by not allowing three-fold repetition and counting a stalemate as a loss for the player unable to move.
volna1975 volna1975 12/31/2016 06:19
I still prefer Sutovsky's idea which consists in playing the tie-break before the match. The tie-break does not determine the match winner, it simply ensures the match is not tied after the last game which will lead to fighting chess.
begamot begamot 12/31/2016 04:45
In this day of computer dominance, preparation is extreme and, thus, a great equalizer in matches. You simply cannot beat a prepared opponent. This match was proof of that. 12 games is certainly enough. Don't drag things out to where it becomes a test of endurance. I suggest determining the color played at the board... two pawns, pick a hand... with the proviso that the loser is the automatic winner in any game of his choice. So, in the second game, should he lose, he can choose to win instead. And if he wins, we're back to square one. The idea is... don't let the players be certain of their colors... impede preparation.
walling walling 12/31/2016 04:43
@LetsReason Can you tell me when and where that was tried and what you are referring to? Thanks
kenneth calitri kenneth calitri 12/31/2016 04:20
First - - - I am in agreement that a 16 game match is the right length. It gives both players the opportunity to recover from early-mid match losses. See Korchnoi v Spassky 1977 Candidates Final; great match where Spassky came back from 3 or 4 game deficit.

Second - - - I am not in agreement with anything else Yasser proposes. I would instead propose the 4 game rapid playoff but with Game 60 and 10 or 15 second increment. This time limit will strike a balance between classical and G25 rapid. If tied after 4 games they continue with 2 game Game 60 mini-matches.

Third and final comment - In retrospect Karjakian would have been better off to have struck back in the twelfth game in an attempt to win it there and then since it was likely Carlsen was opting for the playoff where he would have the advantage. Call me crazy but the Schliemann would have been a great try to whack Magnus in the 12th game. Win, lose or draw in a that game would have made Karjakian look like a star.
abhayanniya abhayanniya 12/31/2016 04:14
I dont think I agree.Why should the challenger get an extra white bcoz that would be infirior to the reining world champion.
LetsReason LetsReason 12/31/2016 04:05
@walling That has been used before and the series has gone on forever...even forcing breaks and restarting fiascos. I think it is a truer test but becomes logistically troublesome.

I think Yaz is brilliant ("brilliance" is a relative thing, yes?). He has always seemed level-headed to me concerning his rationale. These ideas he present make sense and are worth trying. I mean...we've "tried" everything else lately (last couple decades).

As an aside: I do hope that if they implement the VR 360 cameras again (and they should), PLEASE place some perspectives in the kibitz and announcer areas. I would love to see the ambience of the kibitzing and to be able to look around at the people talking us through the match. Putting a single VR 360 camera at a chess board for seven hours is kinda ignorant in full view.
Mr TambourineMan Mr TambourineMan 12/31/2016 04:02
If it's any consolation to you, Yasser, this would then mean that before the last round has Carlsen. 5,55p and Karjakin 5.45. And then it might have been a little easier to swallow the fact that at a tie, the champion retain his belt.

So a little personal thing. I want to thank you for your Yasser efforts to merge the different World Champion titles that we had in the early 2000s. However, it was understandable that when joined to a title you have to have a playoff at a draw. But then when the titles were merged should have gone back to the old system.
walling walling 12/31/2016 03:42
First to 6 and win by 2 like tennis. Of course you have to play like at Wimbledon without tiebreak. Can you imagine a chess match like Isner vs. Mahut?
How awesome would that be?
Mr TambourineMan Mr TambourineMan 12/31/2016 03:37
If we start to use the Komi (as in game of go) we in chess should choose to change the points the players get different results and nothing else like odd numbers of games, extra White and so on.

It's pretty well known that white with today's systems scrape home about 55% of the points. So this is where komi should be when we draw as a result. Komi = 5% extra points for black.

Draw for White, he gets 0,45p
Draw for black he gets 0,55p

But it can not stop there. All chess players know that it is harder to win with black and relatively easier to win with white. Therefore, the need Komi scores adjusted even when someone wins. With komi of 5%, we get the following:

White wins
White gets 1 point plus its Komi (-5%). thus 0,95p
Black may 0p plus its komi. thus 0,05p

Black wins
White loss so 0p plus komi (-0.05) gives White -0,05p (yes a negative score)
And the black win give him 1p plus his Komi at +0.05 So 1,05p

this is a fairer scoring system so I guess that FIDE will do everything to prevent this system
arizona49 arizona49 12/31/2016 03:36
In the bicycling world, the "World Champion", who wins a one-day race is a nobody compared to the Tour de France winner, who has gone through an ordeal. That is what people respect.

And people will pay to see an ordeal: television networks routinely show marathons, and people watch. It is not enough to know who holds the world record (like a rating). People want to see the competition.

Thank you Yasser!
walling walling 12/31/2016 03:31
Why not just play like tennis? First to 6 wins but you have to win by 2. This is to ensure that you have to break the other player's serve to win(win as black in chess)
It's perfect in tennis. Why not in chess?
mdamien mdamien 12/31/2016 03:29
Mr. Seirawan, I am in complete agreement.
Semyorka Semyorka 12/31/2016 03:13
Why complicate the matter with option d ? With this extension the proposal will be rejected, I presume.
Make the matter simpler in this way: the challenger gets white in game one, and colors alternate until the end.
When after game 16 the score is still even, game 17 will be played - and only then. The challenger gets white, and the WC has to play with less time, let's say 15 minutes less. In case of a draw, the WC keeps the title.