yeah, a huge part would be whoever has the best sense of ten seconds in time while they're trying to play. And whoever can shape all their decision-making into the exact 10 second time frame. 5 mins would be much better, perhaps with 2-3 second increment. 

I find chess to be a less interesting game when time management is removed.

FischerTal wrote on 05/28/12 at 09:35:44:

At some high level chess events which have resorted to Armageddon Chess, the rules have excluded bidding-for-time by the two players.
This exclusion seems inept to me.

By what stone tablet from God was it revealed that 6 minutes for White -to- 5 minutes for Black was the proper balance for draw odds?
.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/28/12 at 04:05:15:


It seems several entries from "Who will win the Anand-Gelfand World Championship?" really belongs here instead, as they discuss the pretiebreak idea.

Have the tie break first, so then effectively one player is game behind, but psychologically it feels better that the final game will be a longer game.

Also try to sort out these Armageddon games where black has odds of a draw  in return for a time penalty, 

My impression is these sort of games have favoured black as maybe white has not been getting a big enough head start in time. Does anyone have any objective statistics on this though?

I prefer the blitz games to have increment if they are tie breaking something important, though I personally prefer to play without increment in typical blitz games 'for fun'

Or perhaps the best of five blitz games at a time control of 5 0. And the challenger must have a positive score against the defender to gain the championship title, since the challenger must prove that is able to win against the title holder, not the title holder should have to win against every contestant.

toss of a coin. Entices stronger player to avoid leaving his fate to lady luck

Edit - this was a serious suggestion but in terms of determining the World ch the only fair way would be to keep playing classical chess until a player scores 1.5/2 with Black and White. Problem is its not practical in this day and age where our heroes have to run off somewhere else for their latest money deal.

Chess is not and will never be a draw even on the super gm level. It takes over a decade of hard study to have that level of knowledge and technique. This idea that you could just routinely multiply the amount of knowledge you'd have to know by 1000 is just ridiculous... I thought we established that in the other thread. Even if the same amount of theory were learned, it would be a thousand times less powerful than chess, by definition.   

And this website is about chess, not chess 960, which is a completely different game and off topic here.