Which side has the advantage in an Armageddon tiebreak game? 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 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 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.
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.