am I the only person who hates Armageddon Chess?

[Joshua Gibbs]

Am I the only person who despises the idea of having Armageddon as a tiebreak?

I think the idea of a 9 minute game deciding the world championships is absurd, and I think it should be changed tomorrow.

[Paul Cooksey]

I would like to see them playing to 10 wins, with a 2 point wining margin. But unfortunately I can't afford to sponsor the match, so I'll settle for tiebreaks if necessary.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is no good system. This also applies in tennis, football, etc.
It used to be that the incumbent (here Magnus) retained his title if the match was drawn. That isn't very good.
People are too impatient these days for a match to stretch out for many days.
A good system, never tried, was suggested by Ashot Vardapetian. I called it 'First Blood'. One player has white in game one, the next two games the other player has white. If there are still no wins, the first player has white for two games and so it continues.
The winner is the first to win ONE game.
You could do that for perhaps a day of 10 minute games + 10 second increments.
Armageddon isn't chess at all, but a variant.

How about this wild idea. If Carlsen and Karjakin draw all 12 games, they share the title and a rematch takes place in due course.

[IanCalvert]

How about this wild idea. If Carlsen and Karjakin draw all 12 games, they share the title and a rematch takes place in due course.

Great.

An even wickeder idea, to disincentivise 12 draws, is that in the event of all 12 games drawn, so first ( or last??) winner cannot be used, the title should revert to the last , still alive, former champion . In this case Vishy.

[Stewart Reuben]

I think it would be better if it reverted to Steinitz.
But I did mean to write, draw all 12 games + tiebreak games, which would not include Armageddon.
The more reccent games have not been yawn-worthy.
There is no perfect system.

[Paolo Casaschi]

What about leaving the title vacant with both players having to join the crowd at the candidates for another shot at the title?
I believe that in boxing for example, it's not unusual for a world title to be vacant.

[Michael Farthing]

Leave a title vacant??????????????????
You CAN'T be serious, man!

The sponsors require a winner.

The sponsors! The sponsors! The sponsors are God.

[David Williams]

One possibility would be to play the Armageddon game first, so that one player knows he has to win the match to be champion, the other knows a drawn match will be sufficient. Or, possibly better, play the Armageddon game immediately after the twelve 'proper' games.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Leave a title vacant??????????????????
You CAN'T be serious, man!

On second thought, leaving the title vacant solves the problem at the WC final but it would not set a proper policy for the qualification rounds: if there's no outright winner then you really can't have no challenger.
Looking at history, I find that although controversial, this kind of solution has its merits.

[Joshua Gibbs]

What about leaving the title vacant with both players having to join the crowd at the candidates for another shot at the title?
I believe that in boxing for example, it's not unusual for a world title to be vacant.

I dislike boxing due to fatalities and life altering injuries, though im typing this whilst watching Benn Mclellan on YouTube work me out if you can.

I think its an excellent suggestion!

[Stewart Reuben]

Even Armageddon would be better than a lottery, even though it is a chess variant.
After an extended match, with many playoff games, all drawn, why not allow the public to vote on who should be the World Champion? Voters could be required to pay for the privilege and/or to demonstrate that they had been at the match or viewed the games online.
It is now nearly 20 years since I was a member of the World Championship Committee. At that time I never thought of the point that Armageddon is a chess variant. It never came up in the World Knockout Championships at which I was one of the officials. Matches were always decided in mini-matches before we got to the Armageddon stage.
I was also Chief Arbiter in Romania for an Open Swiss. There, if a player won the standardplay game, he scored 3 and his opponent 0. If the game was drawn, then they played an Armageddon game. The winner scored 2 and loser 1. If that game was drawn, of course Black got 2 points and Whte 1. Pairings and prizes were determined by the 3,2,1,0 system. Rating and title norms from the standardplay game.
That was my invention and it went well enough. There were no appeals or arguments. But it has never been repeated.

[Nick Grey]

Yes - I hate it for World Championships. Could go back to K v K where intervention on medical grounds. But too long yet fascinating.
Personally I see nothing wrong with 12-12 & World Champion retaining title.
I prefer 5 day test matches to one day cricket - you can blame Botham's Ashes in 1981 for that.
And the classic film 'Rollerball' where the corporations tried to get rid of their number 1 player by changing rules until 1 player left and surprise, surprise, he was the last man standing.

Then again I'm not wasting $15 either.