What if Kramnik or Shirov had won in 1999 instead of Khalifman? Would you consider them "legitimate" World Champions?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then you are prejudicing the winners because of their world rank/Elo rating.

I rarely see people complain about Anand's win in the 2000 FIDE World Championship, because they see him as a "top player." The big complaints are about Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov and, to a lesser extent, Ponomariov. One can't have it both ways...>

To reach a title match a player will have to win a minimatch knockout of the same sort that Kasim and Khalifman won, except that the field will be much more even this time. It is by no means certain that the best player is more probable to win such a knockout than he is to reach #1 on the rating list.

You heard it here first.

Serioulsy, I think FIDE should wake up and realize that there is a physicality/sporting aspect to WC chess--24 games against the same tough opponent is a huge strain, but a worthy test. The good folks at FIDE should put down the cognac and filet mignon for a moment, and search out a medium priced hotel with a large ballroom, something afordable for 6 weeks, and just let the boys slug it out for 6 weeks, a 24 gamer!

Same here – I am in favour of a 24-game match just like in the good old days. On the premise that a shorter match gives rise to some luck (wherein the lagging player finds it real hard to recover), if a 24-game version highlights stamina and will power and in case the older player cannot cope with the former, it only means that the new lion deserves to be champ. Age is always a factor, and to be a champion, one needs to show that one overcomes this factor (a la Lasker or Korchnoi); otherwise there ought to be a changing of the guard. Overcoming this is not impossible, as what the great Botvinnik showed many times.

All drawn games to be decided immediately by Armageddon (after 15 mins break). Standard win = 3 points, Armageddon win = 1 point. NO DRAWS ALLOWED.

Yes. You can even use it in a WC match. No more "I woke up 3 in the morning to see a 14-move draw. Damnnn...."

Apologies in advance to those who have been around here for years, and heard this before ad nauseum. But I just can't let such comments go unchallenged. So here I go sounding like a broken record again ...

The above logic appeals to us for hardly any other reason than that we chess players are used to it. If boxers or tennis players agreed to terminate a contest in media res and call it a draw it would be the sports scandal of the century. No wonder chess suffers as a spectator sport.

Without premature draws, how many games would the first Karpov-Kasparov match have lasted? Without premature draws, first-to-win six might have been viable.

The draw agreement rule is in place to allow players to avoid having to play on forever in a dead drawn position, and the rule exists for *absolutely no other reason than this*. Simply put, the spirit of the rule should be enforced: a qualified arbiter should give permission to declare a game drawn only if a dead drawn position, i.e. the type of position *for which the rule was surely intended*, has arisen.