On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?


You seem to have serious terminology problems.

For instance, a match is not a "tournament". And
a tied match is not the same as a drawn game of
chess.

The tradition of retention of title in case of a tied
*match* seems to be a carry-over from the bad old
days, when players acted as though they regarded
the championship title to be a piece of personal
property.


-- help bot