Originally posted by SwissGambit
I liked the old 24-game matches. They were long enough to force the winner to demonstrate consistent superiority.
My only issue with unlimited (draws not counting) matches is that the title may be decided by sheer stamina. Matches at that level take a severe physical toll.
Unlimited matches can go on for months - witness Alekhine-Capablanca, 1927 ( ...[text shortened]... ter game 48 (!). The latter match lasted from September 10, 1984 to February 8, 1985 - 5 months.
Yes, you're probably right, when you get to that point, it becomes more ironman than chess perhaps.
I think they should probably go back to the 24 game matches. The reduced format to 12 games changes the character of the contest immeasurably. I think Kasparov himself commented on how much of an uphill struggle it was when playing Kramnik, after Kramnik got a lead on him, as with the 12 game format there was almost non-existent chance for recovery, especially when playing against a very drawish player like Kramnik.
The old 24 game format at least ensured that there would be more than one act in a match, and made for a less risk-averse championship contest, imo. With the 12 game format, you could conceivably steal a march on your opponent, and then try draw every other game. At least after 24 games, you could be assured that the winner of the contest was a deserving one.
EDIT: by the way, great RHP scripts, SG! Just installed a few of them now after noticing the link to them on your profile. Very very useful - thanks 🙂