The LEAP KK9908 clock recently became FIDE certified. I was told that the clock only does the countdown (US, simple) form of delay (and covers up the base time while showing the delay countdown) and not the Bronstein form of delay. Looking at the manual online, this seems to be correct. It seems Bronstein delay is no longer required for a clock to get FIDE certification.
As far as FIDE is concerned, it seems that delay – whether discrete (USA-style) or addback (Bronstein style) – is a poor stepchild of increment, and ought to just go away. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when inconsistencies or oversights occur within FIDE rules (or clock certification policies) concerning delay. Perhaps the clock manufacturer snuck one through on FIDE, and/or FIDE refuses to worry much about it.
I have never had an opponent, in a delay tournament where the players furnish the clocks, request that I set my clock for Bronstein mode rather than discrete mode, although I would gladly comply with such a request if made (my clock can do both). It seems that pretty much everyone in the USA prefers discrete over Bronstein. Internationally, most players have probably never had to consider the question, since they are accustomed to increment instead of delay.
There are good arguments for Bronstein mode over discrete mode, and vice versa. It seems most people are just comfortable with one or the other.
Bill Smythe
I agree with FIDE on this one.
I’ve been waiting for a FIDE-certified arbiter to comment here. My understanding is that FIDE does not take delay or non-cumulative add-back into account when figuring time controls. G/120 d10 is simply G/120 by FIDE reckoning, when determining if a time control is rateable or satisfactory for norm events.
Thus I don’t think it matters to FIDE if a clock supports US-style delay rather than Bronstein. Either one will be ignored when figuring whether the time control passes muster.
Though Bronstein does meet the FIDE standard that the clock must always show the remaining time available to a player, while US-style delay does not meet that standard, especially with the method used by Leap and Saitek.
I don’t think delay or Bronstein figures into FIDE’s decision to certify clocks, but I wonder what a FIDE rules guru might say about this.
I don’t think this is the case anymore. See uschess.org/images/stories/F … e_faqs.pdf
Delay counts toward think time. Time controls are based on the think time for 60 moves.
I could swear I read someplace official, likely on the FIDE site, that delay is not factored into thinking time the way increment is, when determining whether a time control is OK for rating or norm-event purposes.
However, at a quick search I cannot find anything to document this either way. Does anyone have a link to the relevant regulations?
That appears to be a U.S. Chess document, although it quotes FIDE documents heavily.
I, too, would like to hear what a USA FIDE arbiter might make of this. Ken Ballou?
Bill Smythe
Let me direct you to a blog post I wrote on my recent experience as Chief Arbiter of the Sinquefield Cup. As the event was using a 30-second delay there is a chapter on what this meant to the event and some of the questions it raised. It also covers the small, yet apparently definitive, explanation of why delay is equivalent to increment in the FIDE world.
Since this thread hasn’t been posted to for over 48 hours now, please allow me to take it slightly off-topic.
The “good argument” for Bronstein is that it always displays the total remaining time before flag-fall for the player’s current move. Some players (I guess) like this feature.
The “good argument” for discrete mode (USA-style delay) is that, with main time and delay time displayed separately, a player can maximize the efficiency of his time use by using all (or almost all) of his delay time on each move, without cutting into his main time.
Well, at least the latter would be a good argument if all clocks displayed both the main time and delay time, in digits – (minutes and) seconds – fully at all times.
But when delay is displayed only as a flashing colon, or with just the word “delay” flashing, this advantage is lost. The advantage is also lost if the main time is not displayed at all during the delay countdown. Additionally, the advantage is seriously compromised if the display alternates every half-second between main time and delay time, as on the ZMF clocks.
Question: If the clock displays both the main time and the delay time fully (i.e. as digits) at all times, does this satisfy FIDE’s desire to have the total time visible at all times? One could argue yes, because both of the components are visible at all times, or no, because the total time is not visible as a single item. The answer would certainly be no, though, for the various half-baked alternatives described in the preceding paragraph.
Bill Smythe
Anyone know anymore on how the Leap KK9908 clock became FIDE certified without supporting the Bronstein form of delay? By not supporting the Bronstein form of delay and by covering up the players base time when showing the delay countdown, the clock does not meet the following regulation:
“5.4.3.2. The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move (preferable to display seconds also from beginning).”
Probably the way most things gets accomplished at FIDE, by paying enough money.
I actually got a response from FIDE on this!
I was told by TEC Secretary, IA, & IM Andrzej Filipowicz that three very experienced IA’s tested the Leap KK9908 clock using the FIDE testing procedure and the testing procedure does not include delay time controls. He also said the FIDE Technical Commission will discuss this matter during their next meeting which will probably be in December.
This contradicts what DGT says in regards to why the DGT North American clock isn’t FIDE certified: “The fact that the DGT NA, in its display, does not add the delay time to the main time is the only reason why the DGT NA is not FIDE approved. According to FIDE rules and regulations the total time available to a player should be shown on the display at all times.”
So FIDE’s left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing, and vice versa. And neither hand particularly cares about delay, anyway. Both hands prefer increment.
This gives people on both sides of various issues grounds for supporting their differing opinions. May the arguments continue.
Bill Smythe
It depends on which hand the money is pressed into. 
The CE (Chess Evolution) clock does the US form of delay and not the Bronstein form of delay and is FIDE approved so I think this makes it pretty clear that FIDE doesn’t care about delay when certifying clocks anymore.
Hmm, interesting. With any new clock, the first questions that arise are reliability, durability, and display quality. Does anybody have one of these yet?
Certain things are not entirely clear just from reading the manual. One of these is whether white is always on the left and black on the right, or whether that can be decided before the game begins by changing the position of the rocker switch, as on the DGT clocks.
Delay has always been a poor stepchild to increment in FIDE’s eyes. It is possible that FIDE requires delay to be an option on any clock it approves, but does not care whether it is Bronstein style or USA style.
Bill Smythe
Well, the DGT NA technically does not show the remaining time the whole game as it does not show the number of seconds remaining with 20 minutes or more left. This is a disadvantage of these clocks, even if minor. I don’t know if FIDE is this nit picky about it or not, but it is possible. In contrast the FIDE approved DGT does show seconds the whole game.
Probably not. Otherwise there would be precious few FIDE-approved clocks.
Bill Smythe
I agree. They probably don’t. On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing any “FIDE approved” clocks that don’t show seconds. It may just be coincidence though. I haven’t done an exhaustive look at them either, so there may be some.