On Apr 21, 1:05 am, " wrote:
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)

Kasparov gave two reasons for
sticking
with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:

1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
saw no reason why the challenger shouldn’t have to vault the same
obstacle.

2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
book a playing hall, which isn’t possible in an open-ended match.

Kasparov’s argument makes sense, yet Fischer’s point is still valid.
Only wins should count. This way, a champion can’t cling to the title
by
playing for draws.

And this explains why the format remains. Someone gets to be
champion, no way are they going to lower the bar in any way for the
challenger. So, it looks like it is now stuck. And this explains
why things are the way they are now. Perhaps a reigning champion
retiring would end up allowing for changes. Perhaps FIDE, etc...
could say that, the moment the reigning champion is dethroned, new
rules will be in effect. Perhaps combine both.

But, so long as people think the current approach with the reigning
champion maintaining their title on a draw is in effect is ok, then I
doubt there will be any changes. I am sure there is also
rationalizing it, so that people don't have to look towards change.

- Rich