Nobody agrees to it. You could either keep going with the color scheme you've already got (with or without another color switch day). Or you could draw lots again at the beginning of the overtime. To make it REALLY interesting, you could draw lots for EVERY overtime game.

Pairs of games is too much, since brevity is the primary consideration these days. One win takes it, with no chance to get even. If we're willing to have a world championship won in a Blitz game, we can't balk too much if it's won by someone who had one extra White.

Shipov's commentary is available here: http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=1553

It's a pity his commentary is hardly known or being read.

The best tie-breaker is to toss a coin. The Chief Arbiter should toss it, the defending Champion should call it. Much, much better than playing rapid or blitz or both. That might be exciting for the spectators, but it's a stupid way to pick a World Champion.

Huh?!

Tossing a coin to decide the winner of a World Championship Match is *better* than playing rapid and/or blitz games to decide the winner of the Match?!

Inky, you ARE joking, right?!


Chess Fan

I'm not joking, CF. It makes just as much sense as playing anything other than a regulation OTB tie break. Someone suggested that. They do it in hockey. The first one to score after regulation that ends tied is the winner.

If they don't do that, then a coin toss makes as much sense as anything. You don't really believe that blitz games show who is the better player, do you? Even giving the current Champ draw odds is better than that.

Well, wait a minute. I still think Smyslov's Roulette Wheel is better than a coin toss.

Here are the tiebreakers we've discussed. I'm trying to arrange them in my order of preference (and I'm not kidding here).

• Single Classical games
• Pairs of Classical games
• Draw Odds for Champion
• Vacate the title
• Some form of tiebreak point system
• The current system (Rapids/Bitz/Armageddon)
• Coin Toss/Roulette Wheel

The Single Classical games is the best for me. Sofia Rules and no timeouts. They play until the first victory.

I'd take pairs, but think it makes players more cautious. It wouldn't be my first choice.

Draw odds are going back up in my estimation. But the challenger only has to win by 1, not 2 as Fischer wanted.

Vacating the title would mean that the winner of the next candidates automatically became champion, as in 1975.

For tiebreak point systems, I'm thinking of maybe the Cumulative system (add up the scores after each round, which would mean that the person who scored the first win would probably win the match). Or maybe something like the second Portisch-Spassky match, where Portish won because his win had been with Black.

I put the current system next to last, but I'd only put it that high if the tiebreaker is played before the match. With it the current way (after the match), I actually put it lower than a coin toss.

Coin toss. You know, that's not as crazy as it sounds. I know that was the tiebreak system in the 1974 Candidates (even though it was never used), and was probably the method in other candidates. It was definitely there in 1983.


I'm overthinking this. Let's just bring back draw odds and be done with it. Despite its flaws, that system served moderately well for a century.

Make 'em play pawn and move. That'll do it.

What's pawn and move?

White moves first, Black removes his King's bishop pawn and plays down a pawn. It makes it much harder to draw for Black, so he is usually better served by playing all out for the attack.