Increments Suck

I personally have a Kronos which counts down the 5 seconds of delay, and once that five seconds has passed only then does it start to count your regular time, however it is showing me both times at the same time. So I always know how much time I do have left.

With such a clock, I would say that the disadvantage of simple delay versus Bronstein delay is reduced to something like only a matter of taste. (Maybe some would like better to have their information all on one single clock, others do not mind.)

All three methods of giving additional time have the same advantages, of course, in that they

* avoid hair-raising time trouble such as having to make 10 moves in 5 seconds in order to make the time control

* avoid that a game is decided by the fact that there is not enough time left to physically make the moves on the board that are necessary to conclude the game

* all of them reduce the importance of lack of time (and thereby increase the importance of the position on the board). Lack of time had an especially big influence when mechanical clocks were still limited to very inflexible and strict ways of implementing time controls, and when at the same time, all the remaining moves of a game started to have to be made within a certain time with no additions per move in tournament chess in the last stage of the time control.

But I think that of these three methods, (Fischer increment, Bronstein delay, simple delay), only the Fischer increment keeps some flexibility in the use of thinking time. And I think this flexibility should be important:

In olden times, because there were no chess clocks for playing blitz, there used to be blitz chess tournaments with an announcer and a gong, going something like

Start!

(4 seconds)

"White moves!"

Gong

(4 seconds)

"Black moves!"

Gong

...

and so on. This machine-like rigidity was necessary because there were was no better technical solution available.

We should not impose such a machine-like rigidity on human chess players. Our technology today is very easily able to allow for a flexible time management such as with the Fischer increment rules. We should make use of that flexibility.

I really do not think that we should force humans to play in a machine-like rhythm that could force them to play a move every 5 seconds or every 30 seconds in an endgame that may last 50 or 100 moves. So in that sense, the Bronstein delay and the simple delay are anachronistic, they do not live up to our modern technological possibilities in my view.

Yes, I totally agree.  And I prefer simple delay to increments in slower chess too.  Increments are standard in FIDE rules; delay is standard in USCF rules.

It would be nice if c.c's Live Chess could offer both as options...like most digital chess clocks do.  Is that a big deal to implement?

To me, the thought of playing a version of blitz chess in which it does not matter if a fast move is made in 0.5 seconds or in 2 seconds is new and unusual.

However, I can very well imagine that simple delay is a great method to keep technical difficulties from playing a role in blitz chess.

I have seen videos of Nakamura blitzing on an uneven chess board with pieces that keep tumbling over.

And I have noticed that on a bad day, making moves in browser-based live online chess games can take a completely different amount of time for purely technical reasons than what one may be used to from chess-program based live online games.

Having such things in mind, simple delay can be the ideal solution for some special OTB blitz chess situations and some online live chess applications!

"What exactly are you talking about when you say "time delay", Narz?"

Like VryIntllgNUT said, I'm referring to the "simple delay" used in US tournaments.

I don't believe you should get more time if you move fast.  I do very much like simple time delays though because it ensures you won't run out of time in a simple endgame.

Having your time increase seems wrong somehow.  You have to use discipline & handle your time.  Getting additional time seems to defeat the spirit of the clock.  Time delay on the other hand makes sure you have enough time to mate.  Simple time delay ensures a proficient endgame player with a sizable advantage will win even if his clock is low.  A Bronstein or Fischer increment means that if you move fast enough (and don't blunder) you will gain time that you squandered earlier.

JG27Pyth summed up well my problems with increments (as opposed to Simple Delay)

It's impossible to gain time on a Bronstein clock.  Bronstein timing is very similar to a Simple delay just that the time is added after your turn instead of before.  In fact, I think Bronstein's original proposal in 1973 is for what you call a Simple Delay.

In simple delay no time is ever added.  You have have a 5 second (most USCF tournies, at least for amatuers, use 5-sec delay) "luft" before your clock starts ticking.

In Bronstein timing as well, no time is ever added.  The clock starts ticking right away, but at the end of your turn, you only get the time you used back up to the maximum of the bonus if you used more.  You can never end up with more time than you started with.

I recall back in the good ole days when you had to make X number of moves in X time and if you failed to do so you lost, or drew, depending on the position on the board. I see all these new fangled times controls, increments, and delays, as just another way for the clock makers to make money and no doubt the organizers are probably " in on it " ! 

I disagree. You're assuming that the increment time is somehow extra-but it's part of the thinking time you get to manage. Not all time used is "squandred", tournaments use a lower starting time control to even out the the increment. So using up your basic pool of thinking time is no sin-it's kinda expected, not mismanagment.

An advantage of a G/90 + 30 secs per move over a G/150 is that it respects a fundemental principle: longer games (in moves) take longer. So it's okay for players to take a longer time playing the game, as long as they're actually making the moves and not just squandering their time, which you spoke out against. It makes no sense for miniatures to last five hours, but a long, hard-fought battle can.

player with black has choice of delay or non delay clock, I prefer g/45 to g 40/5 sec delay- it would take 60 moves to get that 5 minutes back on the clock- get rid of delay in under 60 minute chess- I prefer non delay and demand it with the black pieces, anyone else on this?

speaking of clock makers making money, my analog cost twice as much as the saitek digital, and I hate 5 sec delay chess

I really would rather play with the increment, especially at internet chess. I look for nice entertaining game and having at least three seconds Fischer increment takes away the nasty hustling phase in the end quite effectively. Robert James Fischer grew up being harassed by the FBI due to his mother having lived in Moscow. And he was somewhat angry man towards the end of his life. But Fischer increment is clearly one of the brilliancies he gave the world.

Incremental play is quite new to me because when I played more seriously 40+ years ago, it wasn't possible with wind up clocks.

I don't really like increments except to say that it replaces an etiquette that wouldn't exist in today's World. It was FAR more likely that a player would resign or at least offer a draw in the situation where he was defeated even though it would not be easy for an opponent to actually administer checkmate in the available time. Clocks were more of a mechanism for making sure that players didn't take unduly too long.

Incremental time removes the practice that would once have been very frowned upon - to continue to play in a completely hopeless position trying to 'dirty flag' their opponent. An increment makes this futile. Sad but true.