Section 4 – World Champion’s privileges

The tradition would impose that the reigning World Champion has to defend his title against the most reliably strongest challenger. This is not just a privilege to stimulate a lazy champion to play to defend his title, but often also a way to produce the highest level in quality of games, and then a more reliable champion. Many people, as many top-players too, compare a world chess championship to other sports world championships, in which the reigning champions have just a bit of privileges, if none at all: but chess is different from other sports because to produce the best level of play in a chess match, many games in the match (at least 12) are necessary, especially to reliably beat the best player in the world, but to organize more than 1 or 2 of such matches consecutively would be a difficult task, very strenuous for the players, reducing their strength and then the level of play, so also 1 single final has been considered as a world championship, while in other sports eighth-final + quarter-final + semi-final + final means simply that the champion has played just 4 fair games against 4 challengers (in chess it would mean that he has played at least 48 games).
Why not a double-round-robin with the World Champion?
If the reigning World Champion IS the chess entity TO BEAT, then a single match with him is the most reliable, and it’s better he hasn’t wasted time and efforts for any risk in qualification tournaments (not as the challengers), otherwise, if more players are somehow peers, a tournament is more reliable, fairer and faster. If he won his title with 2 points more than the challenger in the previous Cycle, then probably he is still holder of a “chess entity to beat”, otherwise 3 challengers are anyway sufficient to produce a reliable World Champion, with 3 fair matches: 2 semi-finals of which 1 with the reigning world champion and 1 final, much like world championships in other sports (the mentioned WCC Final Four Event, in the first lines in Section 2).
However, my proposal is democratic and all the players involved might not agree with me, or they might not be interested in the reliability of the World Champion, preferring an ultra fair tournament with the World Champion included (Grand Slams?), or preferring an old style privilege by which the World Champion is involved just only in a final against a challenger at every Cycle (this last is an option that some Wold Champion would begin to fully agree just only after he has won the title).
So I propose this last questionnaire for the 8 players of the WCC Candidates Tournament (which could have been replaced by a simple WCC Tournament, as I specify in grey in the questionnaire), related to the future rights of the winner of the WCC Final Four Event (which could have been replaced by a classic WCC Final Match, as I specify in grey in the questionnaire):