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?

In those days, the championship was decided by a one-on-one match, not
a tournament. It seems reasonable that, if nobody can beat the
champion, the champion retains his title. I agree that it's not an
ideal situation but what else could be done?

Tie-breaks are all very well but it seems a bit fatuous to have the
world champion of the next three or four years decided by a blitz game
or something like that. For some of the championship matches in the
past, they played until a winner emerged (say, first to win six games)
but that led to the infamous 1984/5 Karpov-Kasparov match that was
terminated without result after 48 games. The idea of joint champions
is vaguely appealing until you start wondering how the next
championship will be decided.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Happy Chicken (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a farm animal that makes
your troubles melt away but it's
invigorating!