what should the format of the world championship be ???

And the candidates tournament as well. going off this pohttp://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/boring-world-championship?page=1st I agree with post #1 it should be longer than just 12 games and applying no draws before move 40 would be more ideal in the candidates to me.

I dare say that in candidates the only draw that should be allowed is by stalemate !

Best of 24 games

I like 30 games, first to 6 wins, if tied after 30 games and no one has 6 wins, the champion keeps his title. That provides a lot more chances for great games mixed in with draws. Puts pressure on the challenger to win, because a tie score means he goes home without the title.

Play until one combatant leads by 2 points. Period.

One game, winner take all, no draws allowed.

Draws are 0 points, first to 7 wins.

Best of 24 or best of 18 are both improvements over the current system. 

But who's going to pay for that?

How many standard games of chess did Carlsen lose in the last twelve months? And you want the winner to win how many games?

Yeah I don't think Carlsen has lost 7 games in the past 2 years.

Best of 24 games (or more). First to n wins leads to cautious play and many draws (see Capablanca-Alekhine, Karpov-Korchnoï 1981, Karpov-Kasparov 1984). 

If you think that the world championship is boring that doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It means you need to find something better to do with your time. The players and organizers of the WCC do not have an obligation to "entertain" you.

Powder Puffs at 10 paces....

Oh, wait, that's what they're doing now.

very true

Why 30 ?

I think "first to n wins" should lead to less cautious play, since draws get you nowhere.

In the 1984 Kasparov-Karpov game, Karpov won 4 of the first 9 games, so under the current format it would have been a decisive 8-4.

Karpov-Korchoi 1981 had 8 decisive results in 18 games, which is proportionally equivalent to a bit over 5 decisive results in a 12 games match (would anybody bet we'll get that many decisive results in the current match?).

And even Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 had decisive results at a rate above 3/12, which is how many we got last year.

Yes, there were many draws in all these matches, but that's because many games were played and draws are frequent in general.

They found five million dollars to pay the players, how come they can't find the money to hire a venue for six weeks to hold a proper match? The answer is they could, but they are terrified that if the match 'drags on' for a month or more people with only a passing interest would just stop watching and wait to read about the result instead. For most people in the world the Chess is irrelevant, they just want to know who wins.