Armageddon tie-breaking

The recent U.S. Women's Chess Championship resulted in a tie after all the 'normal' games had been played. The rules that were in place for determining a single champion in the event of a tie called for playing two 15-minute games following the final round of normal games. If a tie remains, two 5-minute games will be played. If a tie remains, an armageddon game provides final resolution.

An armageddon game is a game with a total time limit between 10 and 12 minutes with no increment. One player (determined by chance) decides how the total time is to be divided between white and black. The other player gets their choice of playing white or black. The player of the black pieces receives 'draw odds'. In the event of a draw, black wins. Thus, an armageddon game cannot end without having a clear winner.

In the 2008 Women's Championship, Anna Zatonskih played black with 4 1/2 minutes on her clock. Irina Krush was white with 6 minutes. The winner of the game, and our new U.S. Women's Champion was Anna Zatonskih.

Prize money was divided equally as a result of the initial tie. Fast play-off games were used only to determine which player would be the official champion.

Clearly, the tie-breaking method used was fair, but was it appropriate? Does the method result in the better player being crowned champion? In my opinion it would have been better to allow for co-champions after all the normal games had been played. After all, the event was a normal time-control championship -- not an armageddon chess championship.

What's the solution for future events? In my opinion the same time control needs to be used for all games in an event. In other words, either accept co-champions at the end of the event or arrange for another match -- at the same time controls -- at some future date.