The first suggestion, advocated in Daniel King's book of the match, adapts the standard US solution to all problems: if something doesn't work, throw money at it. The idea is to have a large proportion of the prize money linked to decisive results in individual games. Each draw increases the pot for the next game, like a rolled-over lottery.
While that might enthuse the spectators, however, it will hardly motivate the players, who know very well that a world title is worth far more than the winner's purse.
Another idea, supported in Raymond Keene's book, is to replay draws at fast time limits. Which could turn a 20-game match into 7 slow games and 13 quick games. Fun to watch, but no test of true chess skill.
Here's the best all-American answer, combining the essential ingredients of money and speed: a draw scores 1/4-point to each contestant and - here's the clever bit - the contestants personally refund the entry fee to the spectators. The remaining half-point is then contested in a rapid replay. Another draw would add 1/8-point to the scores and put more money in the spectators' pockets. Well, it would stop the booing.Reuse content