"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 1:39 am, "David Kane" wrote:

I don't think the principle that the champion retains the title
on a tied match is wrong. The problem in chess is that in a
relatively short match (24 games then, 12? now),
it is mathematically a big advantage. It is easy to take steps to
that bring the drawn match probability down to the 1% range. Once
that is done, I don't think that giving the champ draw odds is
unreasonable.

What are the benefits of having the reigning champion retain the title
by means of a draw? How does it increase interest in chess, foster
its growth, and encourage a more competitive form of chess? Please
explain that.


When you are designing a competition (or anything), there are a number
of objectives. You'd want it to be credible (i.e. identifies the more
deserving player) and exciting, but there are also logistical considerations
(competition can't last forever because there are costs of holding the
competition etc.) So it is a tradeoff. Accepting that, say 1%, of the
time the competition may not be decisive is very minor and is a defensible
choice.

The problem, as I've said, is that in a short match, the tied match
possibility is not at all small. That's a real problem, and can be reasonably
addressed by various tie-breaks. Unfortunately, the real world is
going the other way - matches are getting shorter thereby increasing the
champion's advantage.

Of course, for various reasons, we've seen the prestige of the
WC devalued greatly over the past decades.