As Seinfeld might say… “and what’s the story with a world’s championship match of only 12 games”? Sounds utterly ridiculous to me. I can see what happens here. Kramnik squeezes a win in game 3, and finds an opening that lets him draw the rest of the match. Anand could decide the same thing.
The purpose of a match is to determine who is the better player. At my level (2000-2100), 12 games would be sufficient. At that level, it’s silly. Need 24 in my opinion, that was the perfect amount. Better would be unlimted amount, win 5 or 6, but i understand the pressure that puts on the organizers and the site of the contest.
Twelve games? What’s next, 2 games followed by Armageddon?
Why two games? Let’s get right to the souped-up heebie-jeeb! The new motto for the royal game could then be: “Think long, think wrong.”
baconlog.blogspot.com/
blog.chess.com/nocab
There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke
A fast “Match”( 12 games), will bare many of the attributes of fast food, it makes one belch, and leaves a bad taste in every body’s mouth. It would seem for the Worlds Chess Championship there should be at least 24 Games. Just my take on it.
i agree, 12 games is too short of a match. it should at least be 24 games. and NO ARMAGEDON PLAYOFFS!!!
The idea of a 24 game match was a compromise way back when. In an earlier era when the great tournaments and matches were held at European spas, a lengthy event was entertainment and a draw for wealthy customers. Today such a match is an anachronism. Modern event organizers want a manageable expense and an event that meets the short attention span of the audience, most of whom are observing the match over the internet rather than attending the event. Sponsors want immediate impact and are less likely to promote an event that can drag on for months.
Agreed that 12 games is too short. But most important of all – the world championship should never be decided by anything resembling a blitz game or any number of blitz games.
Agreed - they ought to arm wrestle instead! 
Seriouly I do not like that type of playoff either. Seems like it totally misses the essence of the rest of the event.
Oh I don’t know…a 12 game match will have a lot less boring draws…
With such objections to match length, does that mean you guys will not recognize the winner as the real world champion?
All the best, Joe Lux
About the same way I accept the National College Football Champions, with some disdain. With no fair playoff system, it is hard to judge a National Championship Football Team. Without a fair number of games (24 or more) it is hard to determine a World Chess Champion.
But then the whole world is moving to fast food restaurants, drive thou banks, TV Dinners, Micro-wave this and that. It is a shame (IMHO) we have a generation of people, that does not know what “REAL” Food tastes like. But I guess if you have never had it, you don’t miss it. And that someday will be the same with Chess. There will no longer be, the “Great Gentlemen Artists” of the game, just quick trickster, hustlers. What a sad end to such a “Noble Game”. Just my take on it.
You may be right, Harry. But you try to move on and keep up with the times, when you can.
All the best, Joe Lux
The only reason that 12 games is too short is because the high draw rate in elite chess is a severe problem.
Yes, it kind of reduces my opinion of who is truly better. A 24-game match convinces me. A 12 game match, well, if the result is 1-0-11, well, that’s not convincing to me.
I would think the opposite. With so few games, the players would be so afraid to take any sort of chance that all the games might be boring. At least in a 24 game match, you can take a risk, lose a game, and not think the match is over.