Increments vs delay

[Hugh Brodie]

One flaw in time controls with delays is that players are not required to keep score with less than 5 minutes remaining. It's mandatory with an increment of 30 seconds or more. This could cause problems with arbiters and players trying to settle draws by repetition and making time controls (where applicable) - not to mention the possible lack of moves and unreadable writing on scoresheets (for those of us who enter games).

The upcoming Montreal Open is the first Canadian event I have seen using delay.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

If a delay is 30 sec, players must write their moves per FIDE rules.

[Victor Plotkin]

I played in Gibraltar Challengers and they used time control of 110 min + 10 sec delay. It's long enough for FIDE-rated games, but doesn't require players to write their moves.

In USA, they use delay for the majority of their events. Personally, I prefer increment.

I believe, we should have only 2 time controls in Canada:

- 90+30 for a regular tournament (mostly 2 games/day)

- 90+30+30 for a stronger tournament (Canadian Closed and Open, some invitational tournaments)

[Vlad Drkulec]

I very much prefer the 30 second increment to the five second delay which is prevalent in most of the USCF chess that I play.

[Patrick Gougeon]

I very much prefer the 30 second increment to the five second delay which is prevalent in most of the USCF chess that I play.

Yes, but the point is 30 sec. delay vs. 30 sec. increment. Personally, I prefer 30 sec. increment, see my answer on the French forum.

[Fred McKim]

PEI has used Delay for about the past 5 years in much the same way as other parts of the country use Increment. As all of our tournaments (Regular or Quick) are multiple games per day, it was my reasoned decision that using Increment led to the possibility of a long game being more likely to wreck havoc with the start time of later rounds.

I gave considerable thought to the average time per game that Delay would add to the duration, and I came to a conclusion that Delay/30 sec would be roughly equivalent to Increment/20 sec. For example, I have Blitz tournaments using 3 minutes 3 second delay.

[Louis Morin]

There is a very BIG problem with the delay versus increment.

Let's say I have only 5 seconds left to finish the game.

If there is an increment, time shown is 35 seconds, and I can see the remaining time second after second, which enables me to know exactly what is going on and to use my reflexion time in the most efficient way.

However, if there is a delay, time shown is 5 seconds, but will stay there during 30 seconds. I begin to ponder my move during several seconds, maybe 15, maybe 20, maybe 25, hard to say, so I look at my clock. Unfortunately, all I can see is the TIME left (5 seconds). The DELAY is never shown. I still have a few seconds left from the 30-second delay, but how many exactly ? Impossible to know for sure. And since I have only 5 seconds left to finish the game, I cannot really let this time go down to 4 seconds, 3 seconds, etc. I need to play my move too fast even though I might still have 5, 10 or even 15 seconds of delay time (but I have no idea how many).

See the problem? With the increment, all is visible. With the delay, one cannot see the 30 seconds, one must count them in his head, which brings distraction, lots of stress and miscalculation of the time left.

This is the negative side of the delay. I do not see any positive side to compensate.

[Hugh Brodie]

It depends on what type of clock you're using. On my Chronos I can see the countdowns in progress. I don't know about other clocks.

[Fred McKim]

On the common DGT clocks it only flashes "delay". I have a much cheaper Leap clock that counts down the delay. I've played with both increment and delay and never gave that issue much thought before.

[Pierre St-Onge]

PEI has used Delay for about the past 5 years in much the same way as other parts of the country use Increment. As all of our tournaments (Regular or Quick) are multiple games per day, it was my reasoned decision that using Increment led to the possibility of a long game being more likely to wreck havoc with the start time of later rounds.

I gave considerable thought to the average time per game that Delay would add to the duration, and I came to a conclusion that Delay/30 sec would be roughly equivalent to Increment/20 sec. For example, I have Blitz tournaments using 3 minutes 3 second delay.

!!!!!!!!!!

[Pierre St-Onge]

.I hope that the concept of the 30 seconds delay will be tested in Quebec in several tournaments because I find the idea really interesting! ... by cons I would add an additional 15 minutes from the 41st shot while keeping the time of 30 seconds ... I did not do a scientific study but as the crow flies if I consult all the magazines Informateur I see that the parties do not often exceed 36 shots! .....

[Frank Dixon]

Increment is better in every respect, other than perhaps leading more often to very long games, where people refuse to resign obviously lost positions.

[John Brown]

All my clocks show the countdown on delay then they start eating into your real time if you overstep delay. I like delay because game ends. Increments allow players losing a game on time to come back .I like delays.

[Steve Douglas]

it was my reasoned decision that using Increment led to the possibility of a long game being more likely to wreck havoc with the start time of later rounds.

So what you're saying is that increments lead to delays.

Steve

[Ian Findlay]

I played in Gibraltar Challengers and they used time control of 110 min + 10 sec delay. It's long enough for FIDE-rated games, but doesn't require players to write their moves.

In USA, they use delay for the majority of their events. Personally, I prefer increment.

I believe, we should have only 2 time controls in Canada:

- 90+30 for a regular tournament (mostly 2 games/day)

- 90+30+30 for a stronger tournament (Canadian Closed and Open, some invitational tournaments)

I agree with Victor. In USA, Bill Goichberg of CCA told me that he hates adding time to the clock that is why he uses delays, but I think he is not keeping up with the times. For me, I used to hate when my opponent would try to win on time in a dead drawn position. You cannot do this with 30 second increment.