Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>It is generally considered that white has better chances of winning in chess.
    This is due to white's initiative, since white gets to move first. The difference
    in chances seems to get more significant, as the level of play gets higher.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That is completely correct.</p>
  
  <p>But in an armegeddon game the expected draw ratio is just as important as the white advantage and much more variable over playing strength and time controls. 
  So the stronger the players and the longer the time control, the better it is to take black, because a draw becomes more likely. </p>
  
  <p>To give a real life example: A few years back Gata Kamsky became US champ by playing the black pieces with 25 min on the clock against his opponent's 60 min. That's quite a different ratio compared to the Carlsen-Anand tiebreak time control …
  Kamsky's choice was justified by the rather long time control and the high level of competition. With a 2:1 time advantage I (a 2100 Elo player) would have taken white any day.</p>
  
  <p>So there is a tradeoff between time control, playing strength and personal style in as much as they influence the expected draw ratio and the expected white advantage. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-02T03:55:18.817Z
Answers.Text: The longer the time control, the more advantage black has. In the field of computer chess, it's axiomatic that doubling the time adds 100 to the effective rating. For humans, the effect is slightly greater. And a +200 in Elo yields an expected score difference of 75-25 (+100 is 64-36). The first might be enough to tip it to White, the second definitely doesn't.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-12T00:31:33.997Z
Answers.Text: @Arlen do you have references for what you are saying? Thanks
Answers.UserDisplayName: Vladimir Vargas
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-07T14:02:59.857Z
Answers.Text: The win probability difference comes from the table in Arpad Elo's "Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" but I honestly forget where the doubling of thinking time equates to +100 Elo. I suspect it was from Levy's book on computer chess. I remember it from years ago -- a postal master was playing half a dozen computers at once. He referenced it when explaining why he was winning; the brain is able to use the extra time more efficiently than the computers were. It's possible advancement in algorithms has affected that projection since then.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-01T11:58:53.987Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-01T11:58:53.987Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <p>Armageddon Chess is a <em>fair</em> tie-break system only if the two players <em>bid</em> for how much time Black should have.</p>
  
  <p>Foolishly most times I see Armageddon specified there is no bidding. Instead the Tournament Organizer gazes into his magic oracle which tells him the exactly correct fair amount of time to give to Black (the T.O. is careful to never let us see the oracle for ourselves). This no-bid foolishness amazes me.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-10-13T07:05:19.010Z
Answers.Text: FYI, I expanded on your answer in [a standalone answer](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/32583/17203) because my expansion was too long for a comment.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Ratliff
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-10-21T04:31:36.370Z
Answers.Text: Should note that while armageddon chess with bids is fundamentally a fair game, that's including the bidding as part of the game, which being good at chess doesn't make you good at. What I mean is, while it's a fair game, it may not be a fair *chess* game
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cruncher
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-09T03:55:21.130Z
Answers.Text: @Cruncher do you mean maybe the reverse: it is a fair chess game but not necessarily a fair game because 1 side could be better at bidding than the other?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-09T04:06:23.117Z
Answers.Text: Ah so whomever has the advantage in a no bid situation depends on the players' individual preferences for what they would bid?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-09T17:38:02.223Z
Answers.Text: @BCLC What I mean is that bidding itself is a skill, and being good at chess doesn't make you good at bidding.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cruncher
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-09T17:44:05.187Z
Answers.Text: @BCLC Maybe another way to look at it is this. Almost any time advantage is going to have an advantage for *some* player. There is no way to determine what time is 100% fair. It won't always be clear which player has the advantage, but the moment the chess game starts one of the players has an advantage. Being good at bidding by guessing what your opponent will bid and knowing how much time you need to win is a skill that will increase your changes of having an advantage going into the chess game. But to reiterate again, *skill in chess does not correlate with skill in bidding*
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cruncher
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-11T08:06:02.170Z
Answers.Text: @Cruncher ah yeah thanks. i knew what you meant. i just wasn't sure if the way to express it was correct vs the vice-versa. like if I mix up right and write, but I know what you mean when I say I am 'correct' (i.e. I am 'right' not 'write'.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-03T06:29:37.087Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-03T06:29:37.087Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: GeneM
Answers.Body: <p>There is a recent <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329629571_Are_Armageddon_chess_games_fair" rel="noreferrer">academic paper</a> claiming that time controls in Armageddon of the 2018 World Chess Championship "<em>greatly favours black</em>" </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-16T21:08:14.770Z
Answers.Text: Interesting paper, but with a complete lack of comparison to any real data it's hard to say to what extent its conclusions are valid. In particular, the assumption that human strength can be compared to engine strength just by switching the engine time controls, and then that the ratio of time controls between engines can be directly transposed to humans would require more investigation IMO. One could also argue that using a single blitz tournament might lack statistical significance.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ATLPoly
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-15T23:37:45.977Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-16T00:12:32.217Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-16T00:12:32.217Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Wald
Answers.Body: <p>If you ask this question to any FIDE officials they will answer you that nobody has advantage. Because ultimately, tiebreaks have to be fair. If it's not fair, then no one will want to play it.</p>
  
  <p>However, in practical black has an advantage due to the psychological advantage to just hold the draw. In fact, to compensate this, there is a new system of players bidding for time in order to get the sides.</p>
  
  <p>For example, if A and B is to play off against each other. They will have to offer the time they are willing to take in order to get black, A offers 3 minutes for black against white's 5 minute; B offers 4 minutes to play as black. Hence A wins the bid and the game proceed with 5 minutes for white, and 3 minutes for black.</p>
  
  <p>Anyway, I haven't came across any statistics for armageddon tie breaks. But I am pretty sure that it depends on your style of playing to say that which side is advantageous. For an attacking player, white is obviously better, while for a defending player, black is probably a good choice.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-01T11:39:40.150Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-01T11:39:40.150Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brass2010
Answers.Body: <p>I expand on <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/8269/17203">GeneM's answer correctly noting that &quot;Armageddon Chess is a <em>fair</em> tie-break system only if the two players bid for how much time Black should have.&quot;</a>. (My additions are too long for a comment to that answer.)</p>
  <p>An armageddon tiebreak with an <em>arbitrary, externally imposed</em> time penalty for the Black/draw-odds player is <em>not reliably fair</em> because it may grant an advantage to one of the players because there is no guarantee that the arbitrarily chosen time penalty is the correct amount to avoid undercompensating or overcompensating White for accepting must-win odds. (If the time penalty for Black is too high, it overcompensates White; if the time penalty for Black is too short, it undercompensates White.)</p>
  <p>By having the players bid for the right to choose one's color, the arbitrariness is removed and the time penalty the Black player pays is one that that player voluntarily offered to pay. Thus armageddon with bidding is fair.</p>
  <p>Bidding has been used in the past (e.g, in at least each of the <a href="http://www.chessdom.com/kamsky-wins-us-chess-championship-after-armageddon-game/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2013</a>, <a href="https://uschesschamps.com/node/428" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2014</a>, <a href="https://uschesschamps.com/2015-us-championship-2015-us-womens-championship/information/regulations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2015</a> and <a href="https://www.uschesschamps.com/information-2016-us-championship/regulations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2016 US Championships</a>).</p>
  <p>For example, in the <a href="https://www.uschesschamps.com/information-2016-us-championship/regulations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">regulations for the 2016 US Championships</a>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>An Armageddon Game is defined as a game with base time of 45 minutes
  for each Player. Black will have draw odds. Each Player shall bid an
  amount of time (minutes and seconds, a number equal to or less than
  45:00) with which they are willing to play in order to choose their
  color. The Player who bids the lowest amount of time chooses his color
  and begins with that amount of time; the other Player receives 45:00.
  If both Players bid exactly the same amount of time, the Chief Arbiter
  will flip a coin to determine who shall choose their color.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>As an example of how the bidding can unfold, in the <a href="http://www.chessdom.com/kamsky-wins-us-chess-championship-after-armageddon-game/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2013 US Championship</a> the base time control was 45:00. Both players bid aggressively in hopes of getting the right to draw odds: GM Alejandro Ramirez (19:45) and GM Gata Kamsky (20:00). Ramirez' lower bid won, and he received Black with draw odds. Kamsky got the White pieces with the full 45:00 base time control but would have to win to survive. (Kamsky won the game and, with it, the US Championship for that year.) (Note that in this 2013 US Championship apparently the rule was that the winner of the bidding automatically gets Black. In later years of the US Championship, the rule was, properly, that the winner of the bidding could choose his color.) You can watch commentators GM Yasser Seirawan, GM Maurice Ashley, and WGM Jen Shahade discuss the bidding procedure and their thoughts about what each player should bid beginning around 30:32 of this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Ova9ucsHk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">YouTube video of coverage of the playoff round</a>. The sealed bids are opened around 48:20.</p>
  <p>It's not hard, nor does it take much time, to administer or implement such a bidding procedure, so I'm baffled why it's not used more in important tournaments.</p>
  <p>Some additional notes:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>I say that an arbitrary time penalty is not <em>reliably</em> fair because, of course, it's possible that—by accident, in the same way that a broken clock is correct twice a day—the arbitrarily imposed time penalty may turn out to be the same penalty that bidding would result in.</li>
  <li>Some implementations (and even some of my examples and explanations above) assume that the player winning the bid automatically gets the Black pieces with draw odds. But that assumes that it's always the case that the benefit of draw odds for Black outweighs the disadvantage of moving second. There's no need to assume that. Instead, the winner of the bidding should be allowed to choose between (a) White with must-win odds and less time than Black or (b) Black with draw odds and less time than White.</li>
  <li>It would be superior if the rule were, instead of (a) the winning (i.e., lower) bidder gets his own bid on his clock (i.e., in this case Alejandro getting 19:45 on his clock), that (b) the winning bidder receives the <em>other player's</em> bid on the winning bidder's clock (i.e., Alejandro would get 20:00 minutes on his clock vs. 45:00 on Gata's). This would be a form of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction" rel="nofollow noreferrer">second-price auction</a>, which has the desirable property that each player has the incentive to bid his true value. (Otherwise, as in the 2013 US Championship, each player <em>A</em> has an incentive to try to outguess his opponent player <em>B</em> and just barely undercut <em>B</em>'s bid, even if in fact player <em>A</em> would have been willing to accept even less time in exchange for Black/draw-odds.)</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-28T03:37:19.190Z
Answers.Text: Thanks, your answer gave me a lot to think about. I want to ask  if you could explain the second-price auction portion a bit more? I mean, what's stopping Alejandro from bidding a super-low 1:00 minute or even 0:30 to win the bid and still get Gata's 20:00 on the clock?
Answers.UserDisplayName: rhyaeris
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-30T00:54:51.003Z
Answers.Text: @rhyaeris, nothing is stopping Alejandro from bidding lower. However, note that Alejandro didn't know in advance what Gata's bid would be. if Alejandro did bid 30 seconds, as you suggested, he'd be in bad shape if Gata then bid 31 seconds, because Alejandro would then have only 31 seconds to Gata's 45:00. The system is designed to elicit "truthful revelation" in the bids. It's an optimal strategy to bid the lowest time you'd be willing to accept in order to get draw odds. Any lower and you wouldn't want that time with draw odds; you'd rather have 45 minutes with must-win odds.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Ratliff
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-05-01T02:14:05.477Z
Answers.Text: Game theory is not my forte but you explained it well. Thanks
Answers.UserDisplayName: rhyaeris
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-07T09:14:55.770Z
Answers.Text: Ah so whomever has the advantage in a no bid situation depends on the players' individual preferences for what they would bid?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-09T22:34:10.837Z
Answers.Text: @BCLC I’d put it: The *degree* to which either player is advantaged/disadvantaged in a no-bid situation (after receiving their color assignment) depends on the players’ individual preferences for what they would bid. But even if the two players had identical preferences, the player receiving Black (or conversely the player receiving White) could be disadvantaged—not because of differences in their preferences (which is assumed not to exist) but because the organizer’s choice of time differential systematically favors White (or conversely Black).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Ratliff
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-11T08:07:52.930Z
Answers.Text: Jim re your 45min example: it's actually not quite 45 because of increment [Time control conversion when it comes to bonus time after eg 40 moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41479/time-control-conversion-when-it-comes-to-bonus-time-after-eg-40-moves)
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-10-13T07:03:23.563Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-10-13T07:03:23.563Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Ratliff
Body: <p>It is generally considered that white has better chances of winning in chess. This is due to white's initiative, since white gets to move first. The difference in chances seems to get more significant, as the level of play gets higher. </p>
  
  <p>So, I suppose most grandmasters will choose to play white, whenever they are given the choice (especially in crucial games). </p>
  
  <p>(1) What is the general view on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess#Overview" rel="noreferrer">Armageddon tiebreak</a> in that respect? Is there a clear preference in tournament play, or are white and black equally liked in Armageddon? What are opinions on this at the top level?</p>
  
  <p>(2) Take the extreme example. In case of a tie after all classical, rapid and blitz games in a WCh match, there would be a drawing of lots, and the player who wins, gets to choose the colour in the Armageddon game. Which colour would be the choice of most GMs?</p>
  
  <p><em>Remark.</em> There are many variants of the Armageddon tiebreak. To avoid ambiguity, let us fix the time control used in the <a href="https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/FWCM2014.pdf" rel="noreferrer">rules</a> for the Anand-Carlsen WCh match 2014:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The player with the white pieces shall receive 5 minutes, the player with the black
    pieces shall receive 4 minutes whereupon, after the 60th move, both players shall receive an
    increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. In case of a draw the player with the black
    pieces is declared the winner.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-04-06T16:03:32.050Z
Comments.Text: I'd love to see some statistics. Someone with "big data" and a good filter could do it very easily. Please, if you fell like sharing, and have the means, consider post it here. Thanks!
Comments.UserDisplayName: DrBeco
Tags: <statistics><time-control><armageddon>
Title: Which side has the advantage in an Armageddon tiebreak game?
ThreadText: # Which side has the advantage in an Armageddon tiebreak game?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-01)
  
  It is generally considered that white has better chances of winning in chess. This is due to white's initiative, since white gets to move first. The difference in chances seems to get more significant, as the level of play gets higher.
  
  So, I suppose most grandmasters will choose to play white, whenever they are given the choice (especially in crucial games).
  
  (1) What is the general view on the [Armageddon tiebreak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess#Overview) in that respect? Is there a clear preference in tournament play, or are white and black equally liked in Armageddon? What are opinions on this at the top level?
  
  (2) Take the extreme example. In case of a tie after all classical, rapid and blitz games in a WCh match, there would be a drawing of lots, and the player who wins, gets to choose the colour in the Armageddon game. Which colour would be the choice of most GMs?
  
  *Remark.* There are many variants of the Armageddon tiebreak. To avoid ambiguity, let us fix the time control used in the [rules](https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/FWCM2014.pdf) for the Anand-Carlsen WCh match 2014:
  
  > The player with the white pieces shall receive 5 minutes, the player with the black
  > pieces shall receive 4 minutes whereupon, after the 60th move, both players shall receive an
  > increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. In case of a draw the player with the black
  > pieces is declared the winner.
  
  **Tags:** statistics, time-control, armageddon
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I'd love to see some statistics. Someone with "big data" and a good filter could do it very easily. Please, if you fell like sharing, and have the means, consider post it here. Thanks!  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-12-01. Score: 5 | Accepted answer
  
  > It is generally considered that white has better chances of winning in chess.
  > This is due to white's initiative, since white gets to move first. The difference
  > in chances seems to get more significant, as the level of play gets higher.
  
  That is completely correct.
  
  But in an armegeddon game the expected draw ratio is just as important as the white advantage and much more variable over playing strength and time controls.
  So the stronger the players and the longer the time control, the better it is to take black, because a draw becomes more likely.
  
  To give a real life example: A few years back Gata Kamsky became US champ by playing the black pieces with 25 min on the clock against his opponent's 60 min. That's quite a different ratio compared to the Carlsen-Anand tiebreak time control …
  Kamsky's choice was justified by the rather long time control and the high level of competition. With a 2:1 time advantage I (a 2100 Elo player) would have taken white any day.
  
  So there is a tradeoff between time control, playing strength and personal style in as much as they influence the expected draw ratio and the expected white advantage.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: The longer the time control, the more advantage black has. In the field of computer chess, it's axiomatic that doubling the time adds 100 to the effective rating. For humans, the effect is slightly greater. And a +200 in Elo yields an expected score difference of 75-25 (+100 is 64-36). The first might be enough to tip it to White, the second definitely doesn't.  
  > **username_4**: @username_3 do you have references for what you are saying? Thanks  
  > **username_3**: The win probability difference comes from the table in Arpad Elo's "Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" but I honestly forget where the doubling of thinking time equates to +100 Elo. I suspect it was from Levy's book on computer chess. I remember it from years ago -- a postal master was playing half a dozen computers at once. He referenced it when explaining why he was winning; the brain is able to use the extra time more efficiently than the computers were. It's possible advancement in algorithms has affected that projection since then.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-01-03. Score: 13
  
  Armageddon Chess is a *fair* tie-break system only if the two players *bid* for how much time Black should have.
  
  Foolishly most times I see Armageddon specified there is no bidding. Instead the Tournament Organizer gazes into his magic oracle which tells him the exactly correct fair amount of time to give to Black (the T.O. is careful to never let us see the oracle for ourselves). This no-bid foolishness amazes me.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: FYI, I expanded on your answer in [a standalone answer](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/32583/17203) because my expansion was too long for a comment.  
  > **username_7**: Should note that while armageddon chess with bids is fundamentally a fair game, that's including the bidding as part of the game, which being good at chess doesn't make you good at. What I mean is, while it's a fair game, it may not be a fair *chess* game  
  > **username_8**: @username_7 do you mean maybe the reverse: it is a fair chess game but not necessarily a fair game because 1 side could be better at bidding than the other?  
  > **username_8**: Ah so whomever has the advantage in a no bid situation depends on the players' individual preferences for what they would bid?  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 What I mean is that bidding itself is a skill, and being good at chess doesn't make you good at bidding.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 Maybe another way to look at it is this. Almost any time advantage is going to have an advantage for *some* player. There is no way to determine what time is 100% fair. It won't always be clear which player has the advantage, but the moment the chess game starts one of the players has an advantage. Being good at bidding by guessing what your opponent will bid and knowing how much time you need to win is a skill that will increase your changes of having an advantage going into the chess game. But to reiterate again, *skill in chess does not correlate with skill in bidding*  
  > **username_8**: @username_7 ah yeah thanks. i knew what you meant. i just wasn't sure if the way to express it was correct vs the vice-versa. like if I mix up right and write, but I know what you mean when I say I am 'correct' (i.e. I am 'right' not 'write'.)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2019-01-15. Score: 7
  
  There is a recent [academic paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329629571_Are_Armageddon_chess_games_fair) claiming that time controls in Armageddon of the 2018 World Chess Championship "*greatly favours black*"
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: Interesting paper, but with a complete lack of comparison to any real data it's hard to say to what extent its conclusions are valid. In particular, the assumption that human strength can be compared to engine strength just by switching the engine time controls, and then that the ratio of time controls between engines can be directly transposed to humans would require more investigation IMO. One could also argue that using a single blitz tournament might lack statistical significance.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2014-12-01. Score: 5
  
  If you ask this question to any FIDE officials they will answer you that nobody has advantage. Because ultimately, tiebreaks have to be fair. If it's not fair, then no one will want to play it.
  
  However, in practical black has an advantage due to the psychological advantage to just hold the draw. In fact, to compensate this, there is a new system of players bidding for time in order to get the sides.
  
  For example, if A and B is to play off against each other. They will have to offer the time they are willing to take in order to get black, A offers 3 minutes for black against white's 5 minute; B offers 4 minutes to play as black. Hence A wins the bid and the game proceed with 5 minutes for white, and 3 minutes for black.
  
  Anyway, I haven't came across any statistics for armageddon tie breaks. But I am pretty sure that it depends on your style of playing to say that which side is advantageous. For an attacking player, white is obviously better, while for a defending player, black is probably a good choice.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-10-13. Score: 4
  
  I expand on [username_5's answer correctly noting that "Armageddon Chess is a *fair* tie-break system only if the two players bid for how much time Black should have."](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/8269/17203). (My additions are too long for a comment to that answer.)
  
  An armageddon tiebreak with an *arbitrary, externally imposed* time penalty for the Black/draw-odds player is *not reliably fair* because it may grant an advantage to one of the players because there is no guarantee that the arbitrarily chosen time penalty is the correct amount to avoid undercompensating or overcompensating White for accepting must-win odds. (If the time penalty for Black is too high, it overcompensates White; if the time penalty for Black is too short, it undercompensates White.)
  
  By having the players bid for the right to choose one's color, the arbitrariness is removed and the time penalty the Black player pays is one that that player voluntarily offered to pay. Thus armageddon with bidding is fair.
  
  Bidding has been used in the past (e.g, in at least each of the [2013](http://www.chessdom.com/kamsky-wins-us-chess-championship-after-armageddon-game/), [2014](https://uschesschamps.com/node/428), [2015](https://uschesschamps.com/2015-us-championship-2015-us-womens-championship/information/regulations) and [2016 US Championships](https://www.uschesschamps.com/information-2016-us-championship/regulations)).
  
  For example, in the [regulations for the 2016 US Championships](https://www.uschesschamps.com/information-2016-us-championship/regulations):
  
  > An Armageddon Game is defined as a game with base time of 45 minutes
  > for each Player. Black will have draw odds. Each Player shall bid an
  > amount of time (minutes and seconds, a number equal to or less than
  > 45:00) with which they are willing to play in order to choose their
  > color. The Player who bids the lowest amount of time chooses his color
  > and begins with that amount of time; the other Player receives 45:00.
  > If both Players bid exactly the same amount of time, the Chief Arbiter
  > will flip a coin to determine who shall choose their color.
  
  As an example of how the bidding can unfold, in the [2013 US Championship](http://www.chessdom.com/kamsky-wins-us-chess-championship-after-armageddon-game/) the base time control was 45:00. Both players bid aggressively in hopes of getting the right to draw odds: GM Alejandro Ramirez (19:45) and GM Gata Kamsky (20:00). Ramirez' lower bid won, and he received Black with draw odds. Kamsky got the White pieces with the full 45:00 base time control but would have to win to survive. (Kamsky won the game and, with it, the US Championship for that year.) (Note that in this 2013 US Championship apparently the rule was that the winner of the bidding automatically gets Black. In later years of the US Championship, the rule was, properly, that the winner of the bidding could choose his color.) You can watch commentators GM Yasser Seirawan, GM Maurice Ashley, and WGM Jen Shahade discuss the bidding procedure and their thoughts about what each player should bid beginning around 30:32 of this [YouTube video of coverage of the playoff round](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Ova9ucsHk). The sealed bids are opened around 48:20.
  
  It's not hard, nor does it take much time, to administer or implement such a bidding procedure, so I'm baffled why it's not used more in important tournaments.
  
  Some additional notes:
  
  * I say that an arbitrary time penalty is not *reliably* fair because, of course, it's possible that—by accident, in the same way that a broken clock is correct twice a day—the arbitrarily imposed time penalty may turn out to be the same penalty that bidding would result in.
  * Some implementations (and even some of my examples and explanations above) assume that the player winning the bid automatically gets the Black pieces with draw odds. But that assumes that it's always the case that the benefit of draw odds for Black outweighs the disadvantage of moving second. There's no need to assume that. Instead, the winner of the bidding should be allowed to choose between (a) White with must-win odds and less time than Black or (b) Black with draw odds and less time than White.
  * It would be superior if the rule were, instead of (a) the winning (i.e., lower) bidder gets his own bid on his clock (i.e., in this case Alejandro getting 19:45 on his clock), that (b) the winning bidder receives the *other player's* bid on the winning bidder's clock (i.e., Alejandro would get 20:00 minutes on his clock vs. 45:00 on Gata's). This would be a form of a [second-price auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction), which has the desirable property that each player has the incentive to bid his true value. (Otherwise, as in the 2013 US Championship, each player *A* has an incentive to try to outguess his opponent player *B* and just barely undercut *B*'s bid, even if in fact player *A* would have been willing to accept even less time in exchange for Black/draw-odds.)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: Thanks, your answer gave me a lot to think about. I want to ask  if you could explain the second-price auction portion a bit more? I mean, what's stopping Alejandro from bidding a super-low 1:00 minute or even 0:30 to win the bid and still get Gata's 20:00 on the clock?  
  > **username_6**: @username_12, nothing is stopping Alejandro from bidding lower. However, note that Alejandro didn't know in advance what Gata's bid would be. if Alejandro did bid 30 seconds, as you suggested, he'd be in bad shape if Gata then bid 31 seconds, because Alejandro would then have only 31 seconds to Gata's 45:00. The system is designed to elicit "truthful revelation" in the bids. It's an optimal strategy to bid the lowest time you'd be willing to accept in order to get draw odds. Any lower and you wouldn't want that time with draw odds; you'd rather have 45 minutes with must-win odds.  
  > **username_12**: Game theory is not my forte but you explained it well. Thanks  
  > **username_8**: Ah so whomever has the advantage in a no bid situation depends on the players' individual preferences for what they would bid?  
  > **username_6**: @username_8 I’d put it: The *degree* to which either player is advantaged/disadvantaged in a no-bid situation (after receiving their color assignment) depends on the players’ individual preferences for what they would bid. But even if the two players had identical preferences, the player receiving Black (or conversely the player receiving White) could be disadvantaged—not because of differences in their preferences (which is assumed not to exist) but because the organizer’s choice of time differential systematically favors White (or conversely Black).  
  > **username_8**: Jim re your 45min example: it's actually not quite 45 because of increment [Time control conversion when it comes to bonus time after eg 40 moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41479/time-control-conversion-when-it-comes-to-bonus-time-after-eg-40-moves)  
  
  ---
  
  