First of all, the matches are too short. They should play more than 12 games. With these short matches, the importance of a single game rises, so the players compensate by playing relatively risk-free, "two results" variations.

I think this problem has an easy fix (at least in the championship match, not so much in the candidates matches): Bring back the Champion's privilege of retaining the title in case of a drawn match. This way, there is always a player that is in front and the other has to win. No one can just rest on the current result of the match.

As it is, both players are trying to play like Chelsea, not conceding a goal and praying to win the penalties (so to speak).

Ajezz,
what you're proposing is pretty much the same as having tie breaks before the match, except that way also the challenger could have this advantage (of winning in case of drawn classic match).
Karpov in that Kasparov-Karpov Lyon 1990 documentary called that rule "archaic" and I kind of agree.

I'm also in favor of at the very least 24 games. You're being paid millions FFS!!! Not too much to ask to play chess for one-and-a-half to two months straight, is it?

I don't think its primarily the players that are causing it to be less than 24 games. It's simply too costly from an organizational point of view.

Well pay the players less then .

This is a silly objection. Even in the current format one player can obtain an insurmountable lead after 11 games.

I'm a big fan of tie goes to the champion. It just seems very poetic, and makes achieving the championship all the more impressive.

Agree 100%.

I dont really care because its not like I understand the games anyway but this has no ****ing mystique at all. The world chess championship died when adjournments stopped existing imo.

tbh if we had adjournements nowadays it'd be stupid as they'd just immediately agree whatever houdini tells them

i'm pretty sure it is the players. Don't underestimate also the cost of the heavy-weight preparation teams. In Soviet times the players (at least the one favoured by the nomenclatura) could pretty much have super-GM support for free. Nowadays not anymore.

16 games would imo be a reasonable number of games. With this number i would support draw odds for the champion, provided he has to defend his title at least once every two years.

Not an insurmountable lead of 6-5 though. Don't understand why that makes the objection silly. They don't take the penalty shots at the start of the Champions' League final either I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other here, just trying to look from a different angle

Hahaha, wow. Chessbase's coverage of this event has been rather neutered to say the least - they've been going out of their way to be politically correct with their articles on this match. But it looks like the most recent joke of this event, the final classical game, was the breaking point even for them as it seems they've now suddenly taken a 180 and gone no holds barred.

+1 of course

its applyed in boxing too,etc

just seem natural, if u want to be the champ,beat the champ !
how can it be any different is incomprehensible for me, beside the idiot running the chess federation

To the tiebreaks......

I would usually favor the more naturally talented player. Anand was deadly fast in his youth. If he is willing to take risks he should he a profound advantage. If he is not willing to look the fool, then his main advantage will be gone.

IMO Anand should shut the door in this and take it

I just hope that FIDE has some clause in their contract that forces the world champion to defend their title or concede it. I suspect it's going to be tough finding a sponsor willing to dump millions for the next "world championship" after this. That, in turn, will be a great excuse for Anandefand to try to artificially lengthen their reign as "world champion."

it's not like in 1900 where the WC can choose when and against whom to defend the title. The next candidate's event is already scheduled...

and Anand probably did more than anyone else to help reestablish a regular world championship cycle. He even played Topalov on his home ground, i don't think more than half of the world's elite would have done that. To accuse him of such possible shenanigans is a bit unfair, and i don't think Gelfand would prolong his reign by this means either. He doesn't have that much to gain by waiting for an extra year or so.

OK, to top off this year's WC, let's just for the heck of it have it decided in an Armageddon game.

Starting in 1 minute 19 seconds.

Gogogogogogo!

Anyone know a better live stream than http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/live?g=20120530 ? It updates so slowly!

I'm not sure if you mean the stream of the players or the game itself. I'm watching the game on chessbomb and I have no complaints about the update time.

Nice first rapid game.

Evaluations jumping all over the place there in the middle game.

It's on Anand now to prove something with white. Ten minute time-edge already for him, but Houdini still thinks it's fairly equal.

I wonder if the sponsors of this short match feel that they have gotten their money's worth. The rapid IMO is the only thing that could save this match.

Already better than most of the games

At least not quick draw offers...

LOL Gelfand twirling that white piece very quickly is the best part of the video coverage Ive seen in days....

That was a very entertaining second game.