"Armageddon: a single game guaranteed to produce a result, because Black has draw odds (that is, for Black, a draw is equal to a victory). To compensate, White has more time on the clock. Common times are 6 minutes for white and 5 for black, or 5 minutes for white and 4 for black. This can also be played with a small increment." Qoute by Wikipedia.
I have never heard about this till today.Does anybody have any experience with this? Would you play it,if it would be an opcion in chess.com live games? I probably would ,as black,since at my level,white pieces are not so big advantage.
Thx for your comments
It's a commonly used tie-break in the US, whereas in Europe, nummerical ones (Buchholz, Sonnenberg, Progress) are more commonly used. It will also be a tie break in the WCC Anand-Topalov match, should the score be undecided even after the rapid and blitz tie-break games.
I'm not into blitz at all: I get into time trouble in rapid games (2x25 min is not enough for me OTB, though it is here-probably because I concentrate less). So I wouldn't play any game where I start with a single digit number of minutes on the clock, and that includes Armageddon.
I also like to play games with double digits on my clock.In my opinion,best chess is produced in longer games,when time is not such a big factor. Altough,the ability to think and calculate fastis also a mark of a great player.
Armageddon rules are typically a tiebreak of last resort after rapid and blitz games fail to break a tie. The first time tried was 6/5, but this seemed to favor Black with the draw odds. For a short time, 6/4 was used but this seemed too good for White. 5/4 is generally used now and is thought to be as close to even odds as can be achieved with Black only needing the draw.
Roll the tape...
Armageddon is useful because it ensures a decisive result (not a draw) within a limited time. It's a bit like penalty shootouts in soccer. I don't see any reason in theory why it shouldn't be used with longer time limits, but I suppose in most competitions it comes into play when there is a tie at longer limits, and little time left to complete.
I wonder how much the draw odds change strategy? At my level, not much, but I suppose masters and above are much more confident of their ability to draw against very good opponents, so the requirement to win as white is quite a burden.
One interesting variation is to let the players decide the time handicap. The total time is fixed, say ten minutes, but one player decides how much white gets, say six, and black gets the rest, four. Then the other player chooses whether to be white or black.
Is it possible that armageddon rules would be used in a world championship match,if after all the games we still didnt have the winner? I know Anand is wery good in blitz games,dont know the strengt of Topalov there.In such a short games,one minute more seems a lot of time,on the other side,if draw is equal to win,this is big advantage too...
Here are the tiebreaks for WCC:
The match regulations specify a series of tie breaks.
Taken from Wikipedia.
Thanks for the info.Imagine if after all those games.we still wouldn have a champion,and one last game would decide.I would really like to see that.
Armageddon ... within a limited time. ...
One interesting variation is to let the players decide the time handicap.
Yes indeed. Bids by the two players is the *only* fair way to allot time to the two colors, in Armageddon Chess for tie-breaks.
It is weird that some Tournament Organizers take it upon themselves to decide or divine what is the fair amount of extra time that White shall have to compensate for Black having the draw-odds advantage. I doubt these T.O.'s have a magic oracle that tells them the exact right answer.
I have been in a situation when I have to go in to armageddon and I was black. I had 4 minutes and my opponent had 5 minutes. I don't agree with this. Yes it gets a result but what if you just play 1 5 minute and get a result. Soon someone will win. Yes someone only gets black and not white but that is the same with armageddon.