tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post3283537222540889829..comments2024-03-29T18:31:49.454+11:00Comments on chessexpress: Now I'm not that sure ...Shaun Presshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00897215011002594039noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post-60000955282908482982020-08-29T21:29:20.152+10:002020-08-29T21:29:20.152+10:00I think Armageddon is a terrible way to decide who...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Garvin GRAYnoreply@blogger.com