On Apr 21, 6:43 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
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.

How many other games or sports have 24 or more games in their
championship series to determine who the world champ is?

If 24 games is not enough, how many is enough? Are people supposed to
play 50 games? When you happen to add time control to chess, and have
a world champion, you turn chess as a game, into a sport. Since this
is the case, is it not important to see what other sports do?

And exactly how is more games going to make a difference if the
defending champion just has to draw to retain their title? Are we
supposed to wait for game 37 so that he bungles?

- Rich