Armageddon

"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 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.

1. If the score is tied after 12 games, colors will be drawn and four rapid games will be played. The time control for these games will be 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.
2. If the score is tied after the four rapid tie break games, colors will be drawn and two blitz games (5 minutes plus 10 seconds increment per move) will be played. If the score is tied after two blitz games, another two-game blitz match will be played, under the same terms. The process will repeat, if necessary, until five blitz matches have been played.
3. If the score is tied after ten blitz games, a single sudden-death "Armageddon game" will determine the champion. The winner of a draw of lots gets to choose the color to play, with white given 5 minutes and Black 4 minutes. Beginning with move 61, a three-second increment will be added following each move. If the game is drawn then the player of the Black pieces is declared champion.

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.

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.

In Armageddon, which side has the advantage and why?

Yes! I think this version of the cut-and-choose protocol is just what Armageddon needs to be fairer, even if there is practical experience showing the 5:4 ratio is about even.

Welcome

Please provide the option of playing armageddon game on chess.com

Live tournaments are often decided by tiebreak points, which is annoying because playing opponents that doesn't resign after losing a game is sheer luck.

Deciding the first place in a Armageddon game'll be really cool.