Interesting article here
chess.com/article/view/time … chess-tour
This shows the folly of having a classical world championship match decided by rapid and/or blitz games if tied after a certain number of games.
I think everybody agrees that there needs to be more classical games in the World Chess Championship match. Inside of 12 games, it’s clear that both players missed opportunities to win a game or two. But having more games, perhaps 24 at the classical time control aught to double the chance that at least one player won’t miss an opportunity to get a point. After that, the leader will almost certainly go for lines prone to being drawn, but at least there would be a clear winner.
Nobody is happy about classical matches continually being won in tiebreaks.
I agree. I’d only add my preference for the champion keeping the title in the event of a tie.
I second Mr. Lafferty’s proposal. “To be the best, you have to beat the best” seems like a good rule.
Alex Relyea
Possibly except for the one winning them. 
It’s worked for years in boxing…
Carlsen has pretty much demonstrated that he can draw almost any game he wants to, and he’s far from the only world-class player with that ability.
Like most people, I’m not happy with blitz games deciding the World Championship (nor am I happy with penalty kicks deciding the World Cup), but I’m not sure the players’ schedules and financial arrangements will support open-ended matches, though I hope they at least increase it to 18 games.
Did you forget the smilie?
Why do you ask?
Boxing? Seriously? Perhaps the most corrupt sport on the planet?
After all, you can’t have more than one entity awarding a championship. 
Just what is the difference between the IBF, the IBO, the WBC, the WBO and the WBA? 
Different issue. For years, regardless of the governing body, boxing has operated with the rule that to take the title from a champion, you have to win. A draw on all cards or one card for each fighter with the third card drawn, the champion keeps the title.
Completely different issue. Can you guys really not see that?
Or have the champion’s title vacated for failing to fight often enough, or failing to fight the “right” opponents (where “right” was subjective), or have your agent/promoter create a new organization which excommunicates the old champion, …
Did it “work” for chess when Alekhine defended twice (five years apart) against Bogoljubov (but never against Capablanca)? Bogoljubov had to defeat Alekhine to claim the title, so that’s AOK?
To say that that’s the rule in (professional) boxing when a champion actually defends is accurate. To say that it’s “worked” is not. (Let us now wait for the inevitable response from Brian that he didn’t mean to put any positive connotations on the use of “worked”.)
It’s extraordinarily rare nowadays to give a champion (in any endeavor) draw odds. In fact, most “world champions” get little if any advantage in defending. (Sometimes seeding advantages—the FIFA World Cup champion automatically qualifies for the next World Cup, Davis Cup champion (and runner up) gets a bye in the next year). Aside from (professional) boxing, the only thing I can think of offhand is the Ryder Cup, where the holder retains the cup in case of a tie.
I’ve not seen any statistics on it, but it seems to me like there are nearly as many boxing titles vacated as there are defended. They can be vacated because the champion moves to another weight class, because the champion refuses to fight a designated contender, because the champion has fought for a title sanctioned by another organization, etc.
I’d say the concept (to be the best you have to beat the best) at most just barely works for boxing.
It’s accurate to say that it works. The hope is that the match and decision are honestly made just like there is in chess with cheating. Cheating happens in many aspects of life. The concept of a draw ending a contest in favor of the champion has long been accepted and used in sport. Like it or not. The choice is yours.
My apologies if this isn’t the answer you were expecting…
Whether or not boxing is corrupt says nothing at all about whether its concept of having to beat the champion to take his title works or not.
On the other hands, football, soccer, cycling, car racing, track and field, tennis, golf, baseball, Scripps Spelling Bee, the National Science Olympiad, Bridge, etc. all announce a champion without requiring the winner to beat the previous champion.
Boxing was explicitly held up as a shining example where beating the current champion works, and yet he multiple bodies awarding a championship casts some doubt on that.
The list of sports that have used ties to decide in favor of the defending champion is very short. Aside from boxing and chess (historically if not currently) what other sports use that method?
Most sports have the ability to keep on playing until there is a winner. In boxing, arguably, health becomes a factor. In chess that argument is not as strong. In some, like soccer, the game is changed to induce a tie-breaking result.