Personally I would, but knowing that the top chess players are very predictable when it comes to their circles, I wouldn't really risk it not until it's in the championship game. Magnus has already expressed his annoyance about GMs continuously using book moves just to win, and with them knowing a lot of these moves, progressions, and all that sort of stuff, it's just a matter of who really read the theories more and who has a lot more creativity in their positions.
In the lower elos, say 2400 - 2700, it might be possible to bet on those GMs but they're very unpredictable compared to the GMs in 2800+. As what Hikaru Nakamura once said in his streams, those in 2400 - 2700s are still playing "unrefined" chess and they can be very unpredictable, and are more prone to errors compared to the 'refined' GMs in 2800+.
Of course, this is only if we're talking about betting on professional chess players. But if I were the one to play chess against other enemies? Hell no. I can't even surpass 1800 in online chess even if they say that it's a relatively easy elo to get through
A draw is the most common result between top players in the world. Soon the tournament will start in the Netherlands, Tata Steel chess tournament. I would never bet on blitz games, those games can go in any direction. At a classic pace of play, the better players generally emerge. There are also often games that quickly end in a draw. You should think of games between compatriots or that they can secure a shared tournament victory in this way. There might be some value in that.
True. Playing for draws is what the current meta is for chess, as most grandmasters are very familiar with endgames and such that it's only a mix of creativity to play from whichever position. In blitz, these GMs need to think 4 or more moves ahead in order to keep up with the pace of the game, whereas in classic they can employ their own thought process as if they're solving a chess puzzle online, which results into good moves and better plays.