I've never been a fan of 'Armageddon' as a way of breaking ties in chess, preferring to see sets of 2 games continue indefinitely. One reason for my dislike is that I've always assume that having draw odds is better than having the extra time (ie having the choice gives you an advantage). But the final game of the China v Ukraine Olympiad match has me thinking.
After the match as shared with two 3-3 results, a single Armageddon game was to determine the outcome. Ukraine won the toss and chose to be White (and start with 5 minutes). Black started with 4 minutes, but if the game was drawn, Black would win. What seemed to happen next was that Black decided to dig in for a draw, but wasn't able to move fast enough, as there was no increment. Eventually Black ran out of time, and Ukraine qualified for the next round.
Shevchenko,Kirill (2425) - Liu,Yan (2427) [A00]
2020 FIDE Online Olympiad chess.com (3.1), 27.08.2020
1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Bc4 e6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 Nc6 7. Nf3 d6 8. O-O Be7 9. Qc2 Nb6 10. Be2 O-O 11. Nc3 Bd7 12. Qe4 d5 13. Qg4 f6 14. Bf4 fxe5 15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Bxe5 Bf6 17. Qg3 Bxe5 18. Qxe5 Qb8 19. f4 Qxe5 20. fxe5 Rxf1+ 21. Rxf1 Rf8 22. Rxf8+ Kxf8 23. Kf2 Ke7 24. Bd3 h6 25. Ne2 Be8 26. h4 Nd7 27. Nf4 Nf8 28. Ke3 Bf7 29. Kd2 Be8 30. Kc3 Kd8 31. Kb4 Kc7 32. a4 b6 33. a5 Bf7 34. g4 Be8 35. Bb5 Bf7 36. Ba4 Ng6 37. Ng2 Ne7 38. axb6+ axb6 39. Kc3 Bg6 40. Nf4 Bf7 41. Bc2 Kd7 42. Bd3 Kc7 43. g5 hxg5 44. hxg5 g6 45. b3 Kb7 46. Bb5 Kc7 47. Bd3 Kb7 48. Ng2 Be8 49. Ne3 Kc7 50. Ng4 Bf7 51. Nf6 Nc6 52. Nh7 Ne7 53. Bb5 Nf5 54. Bf1 Ng3 55. Bd3 Nh5 56. Be2 Nf4 57. Bg4 Kd7 58. Nf6+ Ke7 59. Kb4 Kd8 60. Kb5 Kc7 61. Nh7 Nd3 62. Ka4 Nf2 63. Bf3 Nh3 64. Bg2 Nf4 65. Bf1 Nh5 66. Kb4 Ng3 67. Bd3 Nh5 68. Kc3 Nf4 69. Bf1 Kd7 70. Kd2 Ke7 71. Nf6 Nh5 72. Ke3 Ng7 73. Bd3 Ne8 74. Kd2 Nc7 75. Kc3 Kd8 76. Kb4 Ke7 77. Nh7 Be8 78. Bc2 Bf7 79. Nf6 Kf8 80. Ng4 Ke7 81. Nf2 Be8 82. Nd1 Bf7 83. Nc3 Be8 84. Bd3 Kd8 85. Ne2 Ke7 86. Nf4 Na6+ 87. Kc3 1-0
1 comment:
I think Armageddon is a terrible way to decide who progresses, or wins a tournament. I really do not see the logic in it at all.
The only basis I can think of is that organisers have to conclude the tournament by a set time. But this is rarely the case.
I agree that deciding a winner is better done with a mini match of two blitz games, but if time is a concern, then this can be slightly altered.
After say two blitz game mini matches, if there is still no winner, then who ever wins the next blitz game wins. The players alternate white/black for each game until there is a winner.
Either way of deciding a winner has to be more satisfactory than Armageddon, especially when black draws the Armageddon game and that deciding game is usually decided by clock punching monkeys, rather than some kind of actually chess.
Post a Comment