Delay Time Controls

 The players at my local club like playing blitz chess (3/2 delay), too fast for me. So, I introduced a different way of playing delay, 0/35, zero time with 35 second's delay.   The handicap I threw in was, the player who wins, loses 2 seconds on their side of the clock, if that player starts losing, then they receive 1 second per loss until they reach the 35 second mark again. I started this because some of the players in our club play fast, just to beat you on time, and when it comes to increment, they won't play because, "That takes too long", or won't play on a clock at all, and complain, "You move too slow". Now some like it, because they get a lot of games, and some people don't, because they feel rushed, using a clock (but they play 3/2. delay, go figure). I myself, like to play, Casual (no time), Rapid (10+), Tournament (30+) and of course (0 d 35). Need people's opinions and any adjustments you feel would help.

This is a terrible idea. If 2 second delay is too long, and 3/2 increment is too long, just use 1 second increment. That's enough time to move without being flagged reaching for a piece, without farming seconds.

i think he is talking about 35 seconds per move. if it runs out you loose! if you made a move n time then the delay of 35 seconds resets to 35 seconds

Kylearan; I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Some of our group won't play Increment, because it adds time per move, Others want to play Time (under 5 minutes) with short or no delay, so they can run you out of time (Because they play fast). My ideal, is each move you get 35 seconds to move (no more, no less). My opponent can move as fast as he wants, and I can still take 35 seconds to think and move, knowing I'll have another 35 seconds' next move. 3 minute/2 second delay is too fast for me, because I take more than 2 seconds to think about my move. tkwthihf has it correct. So, if you can give me a better ideal, (unlimited moves, as long as done in a certain time frame each move) I'd be grateful.

I think what he wants to say is this.

Imagine you want to play a person in many consecutive game but you also want the game to be competitive to both of you, chessplayer3368 wants to know the best time to use.

In doing so, he introduced a deduction of time (2 seconds) to the timer of the winner of the first game (his timer would be 33: 35 - 2 = 33) in his next game. If the first winner loses, his timer is increased by 1 second (his timer would be 34: 33 + 1 = 34) in his next game. If both of their timer becomes 35 second each, the rule resets (imagine that there is no first game that happened).

I sensed something strange. Somehow, the deducted time and the added time are not equal. Therefore, it is hard to assess the strength of the players involve since it is harder to lose than to win because it makes hard to recover the time lost. I suggest you should make both equal to make strength assessment accurate. By doing so, both players can play competitively.

I have not done it in a while, but this is very interesting.

If you want strength assessment to be faster, it is better to make bigger changes to players' timers first. For example, you must start with 8 seconds change first. If the timer's changes are erratic, you must use lesser time changes such as 4 seconds ( I suggest you divide the last number by 2). As the process proceeds, you must use lesser time changes until you reach an amount of 1 second. (These set of numbers are good to use: 16, 8, 4, 2, 1). It is up to you which number you want to start.

eathealthyfoods; I look at my Delay Time method (winner losing 2 sec verses, underdog gaining 1 sec), in psychological/statistical way, but I do see your point. Although, the more data collected, the more accurate the statistics, thus the more accurate the results, and you must always remember, no matter how much time I have on my clock, I can always think on yours! Then again, you'll get people who'll lose on purpose just to keep the time close (Sand Baggers), and who wants to play them.