I like what Keyur proposed. I was thinking that some people might object that the later games would be of poor quality, but these early, poorly contested draws are not giving anybody the kind of chess that would be ideal. What might be good strategy for surviving a tournament is not necessarily what makes for a good individual game. Tournament strategy is external to an individual game. The threat of a time pressured playoff is another externality to the current game, it is true. But at least this externality counterbalances the strategic tournament considerations. So, since we are not getting the "purest" form of chess anyway but instead boring chess,, why not try something new? Perhaps we would get a revival of bold and creative chess games. Or perhaps the players netter at shorter time controls would play even harder for a draw, and the poorer players at short time controls would play recklessly. Afterall, the final comsideration is to win the money involved which means winning the torunament will still be more important than a oarticular game, So if that means forcing a good classic chess player into a blitz game, then players will do that.

So complicated, but this does not have to be either/or. We can try the new idea and still have traditional tournaments too. If the new format results in more interesting games, sponsors will fund more tournaments like that, and I presume most but not all olayers would follow.

There realky is no reason not to try it.

Or once a draw is agreed , reverse the colour and play for the remaining time. Another draw, reverse colour and play for the remaining time and keep on going till there is a result!!

And maybe a 3-2-1-0 point system. 3 for a classic win, 2 for the winner of the tie-break and 1 for the tie-break looser. The tie-break could be a 5'3" blitz and then directly an Armageddon game IMHO.

I think adding potentially 4 games of rapid/blitz chess would be too much after a classical chess game. And for organizers it means a lot of stress. The live stream operators have to reconfigure the boards for each game and communicate with the players. To attract a new viewership it would probably be better to play shorter games.

As professionals, they should fight in any system :)

Hello Susan, as a big chess enthusiast I find your proposal very exciting for us, (the spectators), unfortunately I agree with an important word in this tittle: <drastic>. And I'm sure that even as great as this idea sounds, many players if not the majority, will not be so happy with this system, as for now, achieving a draw could be an essential part of their strategy when playing with stronger opponents. Do you think that Magnus Carlsen will agree to use this system? or how about Anish Giri?

Todos esos niños sabían quién era Bobby porque Bobby ES el ajedrez. Ahora está en el Cielo ganando a todos sus rivales. Se encuentra feliz porque en el Cielo no hay ni judíos ni comunistas. ¡Ahora nadie le persigue!