Have you ever played with Bronstein Timing?

piotr

Bronstein Timing is similar to Fischer Timing. Players have some time at the beginning of game and then after each move they receive a bonus of a few seconds (let's assume 3 seconds for now). The difference is that if you use less then 3 seconds (the bonus), you receive back only the time you used for your move. So you just get back to your previous time.

 

Have you ever played with this timing?

Do you like it?

Do you think we should have it in Live Chess?


lubo

Sounds nasty. I haven't heard of it :-).

I'm trying to figure out what is the point of such bonus cutting. Probably if someone is attacking and has "natural" moves while the other has to "use his brain" to defend.. To not let the side with better position to gain time advantage as well. Sounds fair :).. But I haven't played on such timer. 


piotr
Yes, your time can never increase (only by the bonus).
lubo

I seeee.. so on every move you have extra time (3 seconds in your example). BUT this extra time is not added to your time. This way after each move your time couldn't increase. :) Clever. Really clever.

I've played few games on 5 5. But it's not blitz anymore. It's more like 15 0 game. In this case Bronstein would do a better job.  


Patzer24
I think for the live chess we should just stick with regular minutes and increments.
piotr
Matt: Why do you think so?
Loomis
Bronstein timing is very similar to the time delay that is now the standard timing method at USCF tournaments. My guess is that a lot of people are familiar with time delay, but would get used to Bronstein very quickly.
lubo

Actually... I AM playing with Bronsteins timing at chesspark.com. There are 2 seconds before your timer starts.

And I do like it.


Loomis
lubo, if there is a 2 second delay before your timer starts on each move, that is a time delay, not Bronstein. In Bronstein, the time is added back after you've made your move.
lubo

In practice it looks like insignificant difference. Probably I'm wrong.  But I can't see the big difference.


Loomis

Let's compare a 2 second time delay with a 2 second Bronstein bonus.

 

Imagine a situation with 4 seconds left on your clock. With the delay, you could make your move in 5 seconds and still have 1 second left on your clock. With the bonus, if you took 5 seconds, you would lose.

 

More importantly, with a delay, you always have at least that amount of time to make the move. This is not so with the Bronstein mode. The USCF uses a 5 second delay on the theory that in simple drawn endings that one player could push on in indefinitely, the defending side just has to make their moves in under 5 seconds no matter how little time is on their clock. 


lubo
Makes sense
hugetim

In the above example, having 4 seconds left on your clock with a 2 second delay is equivalent to having 6 seconds left on your clock with a 2 second Bronstein bonus.

And, more generally, an X|Y delay game is equivalent to an (X+Y)|Y Bronstein game. (Note that in a Bronstein game, it is impossible to ever start your turn with less than Y left on your clock.)

ReddyJ
hugetim wrote:

In the above example, having 4 seconds left on your clock with a 2 second delay is equivalent to having 6 seconds left on your clock with a 2 second Bronstein bonus.

And, more generally, an X|Y delay game is equivalent to an (X+Y)|Y Bronstein game. (Note that in a Bronstein game, it is impossible to ever start your turn with less than Y left on your clock.)

WHY DID U RESSURRECT A 9 YEAR TOPIC?!

CrimsonSmell

Why not?

Barnard33

I'm glad this topic was resurrected because it was never fully explored in this thread...

 

  • Delay, Bronstein, and Fischer are each about helping moves end a game instead of the clock. Within this overarching goal, however, some of these time systems favor the clock and some favor moves.
  • Sadly, all of these time systems allow a player to exhaust their main clock and then play speed chess to finish a poorly time-managed game. However, there are nuances...
  • Comparison:
    • Delay is far simpler to observe, comprehend, and use, and it’s just a little more focused on providing time to transcribe moves than on what ends the game. That said, it favors the clock over moves.
    • Bronstein and Fischer are harder to observe, comprehend, and use, and don’t focus on move transcription as much as delay does.
      • Bronstein favors the clock over moves, discourages long speed-chess endings, which allows for a tighter tournament schedule and encourages players to manage their time.
      • Fischer favors moves over the clock, accommodates long speed-chess endings, which hinders a tight tournament schedule and excuses players who don’t manage their time.

Delay (front-loaded delay, one-way clock):

The main clock starts only after the delay is exhausted. The delay is use-it-or-lose-it (your main clock never gains time). Delay allows a player to exhaust their main clock to anything above 0 and then finish the game by taking less than the delay per move. A player will never have less time than the delay to make each move. The value of delay is severely reduced by the fact that most tournaments drop the transcription requirement if a player’s clock starts or falls below a certain threshold.

 

Bronstein (back-loaded increment, one-way clock):

The main clock starts immediately. After the move, as much of the increment is added to the main clock as possible given that the main clock may never have more time after a move than before it (i.e. the main clock never gains time from move to move). When the main clock falls below the increment, the player will thereafter always have less time than the increment to make their move.

 

Fischer (back-loaded increment, two-way clock):

The main clock starts immediately. At the end of each move the increment is added to the main clock (so the main clock can have more time after a move than before it, i.e. the main clock can gain time from move to move).