16 games sounds about right. This would be least disturbing to the yearly tournament schedule for the participants and for other organizers. Even with rest days, a world championship match with a 16 game maximum would last less than one month, more likely about three weeks in length. The old 24 game matches took about a month and a half to finish because of rest days, medical timeouts, and adjournment days that were set aside.
He was also a supporter of Stalin, so what did he really know? 
For those who write such ridiculous things such as , “Never again,” and “Never again is right!” may I remind you that the problem was not with the format, but with the players. Bobby PLAYED TO WIN EVERY GAME, and rarely settled for a short draw, unlike the Soviet players, who were accustomed to treating a draw with Black as a “victory.” A match going to the first player to score six wins would work if more players were like Bobby, and not like the former players from what the former POTUS Ronnie RayGun called the “evil empire.”
As long as they continue to be paid to make a draw, they will continue to do so.
It is absurd for anyone to deny that Chess has lost out in the market place of ideas simply because fans want a winner, not a “drawer.” That is one reason the game of Go has rivaled the popularity of the “Fischer era” recently while Chess has continued to decline in the view of the public.
The problem with Chess is the endemic problem with the culture of Chess, which MUST be changed to one whereby only the winner is rewarded. Without this change in culture Chess will continue its inexorable decline.
“Winning” by Santana
One day I was on the ground
When I needed a hand
And it couldn’t be found
I was so far down
That I couldn’t get up
You know and
One day I was one of life’s losers
Even my friends were my ac-cus-ers
And in my head
Lost before I’d begun
I had a dream
But it turned to dust
What I thought was love
That must have been lust
I was living in style
When the walls fell in
When I played my hand
I looked like a joker
Turn around
Fate must have woke her
'Cause lady luck she was
Waiting outside the door
[Chorus:]
I’m winning
I’m winning
I’m winning
And I don’t intend on losing again
Too bad it belonged to me
It was the wrong time
And not meant to be
It took a long time
And I knew for now
I can see the day
That I breath for
Friends agree there’s a need
To play the game
And to win again
There are so many positions that are drawn from a technical point of view. For example, in many R+P endgames, being ahead a pawn is not much when the other player has better Rook and King activity in compensation. Defensive strategy has improved considerably since RJ Fischer played his last classical game. Winning on demand is a dream, requiring a mistake, and maybe more than one, from the opponent in order to win. Demanding that players be heroes all of the time is asking a lot. You cannot make something out of nothing. A draw means you live to fight another day in a high stakes match. It is easy for spectators to be heroic; they don’t suffer the psychological and financial consequences of pushing others to go for the glory. In the martial arts, good defense is prized. Attack and defense balance out when players are evenly matched.
Playing in team matches I’ve been the beneficiary multiple times when an opponent needed to win a drawn position and overextended himself in the attempt.
It’s a lot easier to beat somebody that is playing for a win in a position that doesn’t justify such play.
One can write any number of apologia but the fact remains some players play Chess to not lose, in lieu of playing to win. This is taught at all levels of Chess. Yet when one plays any other game one is taught to PLAY TO WIN!
There was a player in the South decades ago, Robert Pruitt, who was known as the “Drawing Master.” I cannot recall, but I do not believe he became a NM, possibly because he drew far too many games. He participated in many five round swiss events in which he drew all five games. He was the “Master of the Draw.” He was ridiculed unmercifully by another Southern player who is now known as the Legendary Drawing Man. The Legendary one is well known for offering draws, refusing to take “No” for an answer. For him to not lose is a “win.” This is what he teaches his students. Unfortunately, there are many others like him.
Granted, “There are so many positions that are drawn from a technical point of view.” It is one thing to play to win and end with one of those kind of draws; it is another thing to “play to NOT lose.” If it is in the best interest of a player, some will do so. That is the problem.
Teach any child both Chess and Go and they will choose to play Go because when there is a draw in Go it makes headlines around the world, as it happens so rarely. The beginning of the end of Chess as a popular game began when the offer of a draw was allowed. As I stated earlier, it is the current culture allowing the proliferation of draws that has damaged Chess in the popular view. The Fischer vs Spassky filled every facet of news in 1972. I just did a search of the New York Times and received absolutely nothing on the current WCC. Not one article! Get your head out of the sand long enough to read GM Kevin Spraggett’s blog to get an idea of how bad is the situation. There is a reason, maybe many reasons, why there is such a lack of interest. Chess has been consigned to the dustbin of history in the popular imagination. Here is one article in the news recently:
npr.org/sections/alltechcons … chessboard
“And that’s the way it is, Sunday, November 20, 2016.”
I would argue that the opposite is true, given the advent of sudden death time controls/lack of adjournments. Theory has advanced, practice is not as good.
Alex Relyea
“There is a reason, maybe many reasons, why there is such a lack of interest. Chess has been consigned to the dustbin of history in the popular imagination. Here is one article in the news recently:
npr.org/sections/alltechcons … chessboard”
i don’t understand why people continue to post these computer vs human articles. wasn’t it just recently that a computer completely demolished one of the world’s foremost go players in a match?
name an endeavour that is not an art where a machine cannot beat a human?
cheers, …scot…
See this post.
Bill Smythe
Has the clock struck midnight on Carlsen? Finally, a breakthrough with a Karjakin win. It should be a very interesting finish. Let’s see if Carlsen will now have to test the QID, or instead remain content with 1 e4 e5 games.
Well, finally a win.
Positions that seem boring are often very interesting. Carlsen and Karjakin are proving this.
Britain votes to cut ties with Europe, Donald Trump gets elected US President, and now Karjakin is on the verge of beating Carlsen for the World Chess Championship. The Apocalypse is surely upon us.
Four games are a lot to draw even, but game 8 was pretty stunning.
How bad was 51 Qe6? It allowed a mate in 35:
51. … h5 52. Qa6 h4 53. gxh4 Qc3 54. Qa7+ Nf7 55. h5 Qe5+ 56. Kg1 Qa1+ 57. Bf1 a2 58. Qf2 Kg8 59. h6 Nxh6 60. Kh1 Nf7 61. Qe2 Kf8 62. Qc4 Nd6 63. Qa6 Kf7 64. Qe2 Qb1 65. Qh5+ Ke6 66. Qh6+ Ke5 67. Qg7+ Kxe4 68. Qg2+ Ke5 69. Qg7+ Kd5 70. Qg8+ Kc5 71. Qg1+ Kc6 72. Kh2 a1=Q 73. Bg2+ Kd7 74. Qe3 Ne4 75. h4 Qe5+ 76. Kh3 Qg3+ 77. Qxg3 Nxg3 78. Kh2 Kd6 79. Kh3 Nf5 80. Kh2 Nxh4 81. Bh3 Ke5 82. Kg3 Qg1+ 83. Bg2 Qxg2+ 84. Kxh4 Kf4 85. Kh5 Qg5#
This is from: analysis.sesse.net/
This can be found there now: Carlsen–Karjakin, analysis after 52… a2
Black mates in 13
Exploring: 53. Qa6 Qd4 54. Qxa2 Ng4+ 55. Kh3 Qg1 56. Qb2+ Kg6 57. Bf3 Nf2+ 58. Qxf2 Qxf2 59. Bg2 Kf6 60. e5+ Kxe5 61. Bc6 Kd4 62. Bg2 Qg1 63. Bb7 Ke3 64. Bc6 Kf2 65. Bf3 Qxg3#
798,427,993 nodes, 37,060,341 nodes/sec, depth 56 ply (47 selective), 13,581,550 Syzygy hits
Dare I ask who the anti-Christ is?
“Making The World Great Again”!
A song for the last real game of the 2016 WCC:
youtube.com/watch?v=R-Fu-k6_bgU
A statement by IM Greg Shahade pertinent to game ten:
She is in seclusion.
Mr. Parker’s apocalypse is not yet imminent since the match is tied.
On a more serious note, does anyone else think it absurd that the “classical” world chess championship is going to be decided by rapid, and possibly blitz games? If the blitz world chess championship ended in a tie do you think they would do a play-off via classical time controls?
GM Yasser Seirawan has advocated changing from a 12 game match to a 13 game match, with the player having the extra game with black also having draw odds in the match. I’m not convinced this is the best solution, but at least it’s an idea that beats the current format.