I don't think anything about designing tiebreaks is obvious. Armageddon blitz games do not strike me as a particularly fair solution.

For example, I would modestly propose

--an indefinite sudden-death series of classical game-pairs, or even single games with a coin-toss for the first White

--a classical draw-odds game, with White having two and a half hours for forty moves, etc., and Black bidding

--a vote by the the living previous Classical champions on the quality of play, awarding the championship as a kind of overall brilliancy prize

--an indefinite match to 6 wins between the players' computer clusters

--halting the match at a randomly chosen point and tossing a coin over the grave of Campomanes

--sudden-life: first player to draw Borislav Ivanov wins

When was the first Armageddon Chess game used (as a tie-breaker) in a FIDE rated tournament or match? Or if not FIDE rated, then rated by a FIDE affiliate such as the USCF?

(A year ago I exchanged emails with famed chess historian Edward Winter about this, and he did not know. To this day his chesshistory.com website does not contain the word Armageddon.)

----

A related question:
Why are some Armageddon Chess games organized with pre-set time amounts for both White and Black? This seems dumb to me: obviously bidding for the time amount of one color is essential to ensure fairness; right?