I guess it is a big deal, even though the money doesn't change - only the "title".

After careful consideration I have retracted my first statement. It seems to me that #7 in ths article does indeed make the most sense since it forces and end to the tournament (necessary for the sponsors, organizers and players). The delay clock seems to be the answer to the type of debacle seen at the U.S. Women's Chess Championship.

There are too many practical considerations for most tournaments to decide a tie-break by playing more games at the same time control.  Organisers and sponsors need to know when a tournament is going to end, and when they will have a winner to announce...

It's an interesting article.

They should keep playing games under normal time controls until someone breaks the tie. How long has the world championship been decided that way? A championship match should never be decided by someone's blitz skills. He tries to compare tie breaks in chess to tie breaks in sports and specifically uses golf as the closest comparison, but that doesn't fly. In sports, the players continue to play under the same rules using the same set of skills in order to achieve a win. They are not forced to play at a speed many times faster than normal. That would be like requiring a soccer player to be able to run at 50 mph on the field during tie break play. I'm sure if you told Tiger Woods that he had to play 9 more holes in 9 minutes or he loses on time, even if he is ahead on strokes, he'd tell you to go climb a tree. Blitz requires different skills than normal chess so it does not adequately reflect who the better overall chess player is, only who is the better blitz player.