Do you prefer time with increment or without?

Pulpofiera: I've actually won K+R v K+R in a real OTB game .  Yes, ILC is a USCF rule.  I think it's better to simply have increment rather than having a TD trying to determine if a position can be won.  Some TDs are pretty lousy chess players (I've met some below 1000 USCF).  Plus, the delay in having the TD rule could allow the player making the claim to analyze the position and find good moves.  Why use such a system when you can just give each player a few seconds after each move and be done with it?

I played a game a month ago .... it was a difficult ending ... my good bishop against his bad bishop. At the start of the ending I was well down on time but I played it well and 30 moves later he resigned. Afterwards some stronger players told me I'd played it perfectly, and I was averaging better than three moves a minute. OK so on another day I wouldn't have been so clear but another problem is that if an evening game lasts longer than about 3 1/4 hours, often it will be adjourned and that's a far far worse situation. Best to finish on the night than to allow the whole team and their computers to analyse. So no increments.

Optimissed: just because you have increment doesn't mean games have to be adjourned.  You can just keep going until there's a result.  Plus, your rationale for blitz without increment only applies to people who cheat and those who play online.  In OTB blitz, there's no fear of cheating and the very real fear of people just shuffling in lost or drawn positions.  

I like a small time increment, because it allows you to spend a little extra time in the middle game, without worrying about time pressure so much @ the end game.

I much prefer increments, it gives more time to think and a much better endgame.

Yes, Knight, I also prefer increments, but I would like more the Bronstein clock

Online blitz is pretty much pointless with increament.

You play blitz - so you want fast game.

You play blitz because you want time pressure, action and fast reactions in double edge sharp positions.

You can premove so save seconds on the clock. That's one of the main reasion everybody plays 3 min or 5 min only. Premoving is a skill, not just fast mouse.

+2 sec inc. can be very dangerous. It does not give you enough time to think, so you have to move pretty much imidiately if you have less than 5 sec on clock. So basically almost at  the same speed if you were premoving without inc. You constantly have to switch to bullet mode, then slow down, then again bullet mode. A blunder is way more likeable to happen that way. And most players use almost their entire time on opening and middle game with just 10 seconds for endgame. It's dubious. I can flag players even if they have +2inc on their clock every move.

I use inc only when i am playing on phone or i want to play pretty much "long" game like 10+5/15+10/25+10

.

I have no problems reaching endgame on 3 or 5 min blitz game. Infact i have blitz games with 60-70 moves and is not just king moves etc or some weak pointles moves. I don't panic and i can make strong moves with just few seconds on my clock.

"time" is code for sex, and "increment" is code for condoms. 

For blitz fun chess, I still like no increment.  But for any tournament game, a 10 second increment (either delay or Bronstein) is great.  Along those lines, if there were a delay clock that had an analog clock face instead of digital, I would buy one.  I'm kind of old fashioned, and prefer the old clock face.  It is surely technologically possible, so why doesn't someone make one?

No increment is good because the goal of bullet chess is to flag people on time by moving pieces back and forth even in lost positions. 

All official FIDE competitions are with increment now.
No increment is a remnant from the provious century with analog clocks.

Without as my chess is bad 

Of course without increment ..I got used to it ..if I try to play by increment start by rushing the moves and lose the game

Straight time, deal with, and handle your time as you choose. To my understanding an increment for OTB was to allow time to record the game and have some semblance of a hour game being actually a hour playing time. Increment online is pointless in my opinion. For all the talk about how an increment solves many troubles, all I see is all of the troubles stem from playing to short of a time to begin with. Just increase the playing time. . Playing straight time means when I click on a hour that means that if the game does not end sooner then the clock ends the game. It also means that the maximum time will be two hours, not two hours and.......? This is very nice because one can start a game knowing that they can complete it when one knows they have something ese to do at a later time.

Increment online is not pointless at all. It assures that one will not lose a dead drawn, or a totally winning position on time.

Why not play blitz if you don't make good use of rapid chess

Firstly, no game with increments can be blitz. That's just illogical and ridiculous.

In my opinion they use the technology blindly, "because it's there". Sooner or later people will get fed up with increments and there will be a move towards reestablishing fixed finishes in classical tournaments.

This is correct. FIDE are a bunch of kids with no focus.