Tie-break matches and armageddon: deciding a tied event

Playing it out is used where coefficients do not fit or would not convince anyone:

• A knockout event. The bracket needs a winner in every pair, and a drawn match breaks it.
• A match between two players. There are no tie-break scores to compute in the first place.
• The final of a major event. When two players are contesting first place and there is an audience.
• Qualification. One participant has to be selected for the next stage.

When it is not needed: at an ordinary Swiss with several prize places and tie-breaks announced in advance. Staging a play-off on an evening when everybody is tired and wants to go home is a bad idea.

The principle is always the same: the time control shortens at every stage until a winner emerges.

How many stages depends on the status of the event. Championships may use four or more; a club evening needs one - two blitz games, and armageddon if they are level.

The key rule: games are played in pairs, so that each player has both colours. Deciding a match with a single game and the advantage of White is unfair - which is precisely why armageddon comes last and compensates with time.

A deciding game with asymmetric conditions: White has more time, but only a win is good enough, while a draw suits Black.

The logic is simple: White is compensated with time for the obligation to win. Black plays with less time but only needs to hold the draw - including by perpetual check or a fortress - ways to draw.

The format was invented for spectacle: the game almost always runs to the last seconds and finishes dramatically. That is why armageddon often closes a show event rather than serving only as a last resort.

The crucial question in armageddon is who gets Black, since the draw odds make it the desirable colour. Two approaches:

• A lot. The simple option for an amateur event: colours are drawn before the game.
• A time auction. Each player states the least time they are willing to have with Black; whoever names the lower figure gets Black with that clock. Fair, but it needs explaining to participants.

A third variant, used in matches: the colour goes to whoever finished higher in the main event, as a reward for the result. That too has to be announced in advance.

Whichever you choose, the procedure belongs in the regulations. Settling it while two players are standing at the board contesting a trophy is a guaranteed argument.

A play-off costs time, which an evening usually does not have. What is used instead:

• Tie-break scores. The main route: Buchholz, direct encounter, number of wins - announced in advance and computed instantly.
• Direct encounter as the deciding criterion. The most intuitive for players: «we played, I won».
• Shared places and prizes. Entirely acceptable if the prizes can be divided.
• A single blitz game. A compromise: not a full play-off, but quick and enjoyable to watch.
• A lot. A last resort, though a lot announced in advance is better than an argument afterwards.

Practical advice: if you want a play-off, announce it in the listing, not after the last round. Otherwise players who planned to leave at nine are choosing between the trophy and the last train home.

• A separate table in view. Everybody watches a tie-break, so place it where people can stand around.
• Clocks set to the right control. Configured in advance, not while everyone waits.
• An arbiter beside the board. In blitz with a trophy at stake, disputes are likeliest.
• A commentator. One person explaining aloud what is happening turns a play-off into the event of the evening.
• Silence. Announce it before the start: spectators around a board tend to discuss the position out loud.

A good pairing: while the tie-break runs, the rest of the field stays - and the prize-giving happens immediately afterwards in a full room.