Greetings!
Is there a specific Rule or TD Tip in The Rulebook indicating that Bronstein mode (that is, non-cumulative add back) is equivalent to simple delay mode? The DGT2000 clock does not have a simple delay feature but it does have Bronstein. If the two time controls are equivalent then DGT2000 users would be able to use their clocks set to Bronstein for tournaments with simple delay time control.
Thanks for considering my question.
5F says that Bronstein is one type of delay.
One advantage of Bronstein is that when seconds are displayed it always explicitly shows in a single number the time left before flagging. One disadvantage is that it is harder to see how much delay time you’ve used and thus how much base time you’ll have left after moving.
Bronstein is mathematically equivalent to delay, but psychologically inequivalent to delay. The psychological inequivalence is most pronounced in the waning seconds of the time control. Presuming a delay of five seconds, a Bronstein clock reading 6 seconds really only has 1 second remaining, and will never have a time of 5 seconds or less at the beginning of the move, as the player will have flagged the previous move.
I don’t understand how. The player must move within six seconds to avoid losing. How does that mean he only has one second remaining? I much prefer Bronstein mode as I always know how long I have to make the next move.
Alex Relyea
I guess the point is that it is like having 1 second remaining on a regular delay clock.
I like Bronstein in principle but I’ve never tried it.
It’s all the same anyway. See this post. (Some of the earlier posts in that thread are now partially obsolete, so you should start with this one.)
Bronstein is Bronstein, but I’ve been looking for another name for the other method. I don’t really like “true delay”, “straight delay”, “regular delay”, “normal delay”, or “simple delay”, because those names imply that Bronstein is somehow false, crooked, irregular, abnormal, or complicated, respectively. We need another comparative name which does not imply anything negative about Bronstein. Any suggestions?
At least one organizer has been known to proclaim that “xxxxx delay” (by whatever name) is preferred over Bronstein, i.e. that if your clock uses Bronstein and your opponent’s uses xxxxx, your opponent has the right to insist that his clock be used, other things being more or less equal. IMHO, this policy is ill-advised, as there are legitimate reasons (pointed out by jwiewel upthread) to prefer Bronstein. It’s personal preference.
Bill Smythe
Most of the problems with “delay” and “Bronstein” is over how the clocks display the methods. Little flashing dots vs. showing exact time countdown. Time countdown and not knowing if it is actual time or the delay. Flashing lights when going from base time to delay. Every clock is different and confusing.
I prefer Bronstein. In fact, I prefer the full Bronstein method. He thought delay should be from 15 to 25 seconds in length. He did not believe in increment time, or giving time just for moving a piece or repeating moves to gain time. His attitude was ‘why give time for nothing?’. He was not in favor of FIDE’s shortening of time controls in important contests; it spoiled the quality of games.
But it doesn’t show in a single number the amount of time left before flagging. It shows that assuming ONLY 1 move is made (since 5 additional seconds will be available for each additional move.) A delay clock ALSO shows the amount of time left before flagging - after the current moves’ delay period.
As a result, I prefer regular delay as it shows me the “real” amount of time I have - ignoring the per move delay - which cannot be known for certainty anyway - other than the X seconds per move. So I find it confusing to add in that time for one move.
Open and honest hijacking.
All of this is moot if we would move to increment as standard.
I also prefer increment. I really appreciated working a G90+30 tournament. Each half hour, I could do a quick walk around the room, compare the times on the clocks and the number of moves, and be reassured that the increment was working properly.
+1
It’s time for delay to go the way of descriptive notation.
-Matt Phelps
Alright, I have a question.
What time controls, using increment, would you use to replace G/80-d/5, G/90-d/5 and G/120-d/5?
I am specifically concerned with rounds starting on time in our Saturday events and our weekend event.
Well, you can always just replace the d with an i.
However, the G/120 d5 I would make G/90+30. G/90 d5 could be G60+30.
G/80 d5, perhaps G/45+30.
You can make the increment anything you want, but I like at least 30 seconds of increment because players are then ALWAYS required to keep score.
Hey! I still use descriptive (I don’t play FIDE rated events).
It’s especially useful when one has White, and you use a board w/o letter and numbers. That confuses the young wood-pushers trying to keep score from the “wrong” side of the board. Then they ask to borrow your scoresheet! 
I haven’t had the opportunity to play in an increment event yet - and hadn’t realized that this was a rule. It now makes me question if I want to try an increment event.
The rule about keeping score even if under 5 minutes applies to both increment and delay. If there is an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more, scorekeeping is required throughout the game.
I have played in many increment events – many more of those than delay – and I had no problem adjusting. Try it, you’ll like it.
Keeping score all the way to the end is no problem at all, with such a large increment or delay.
Bill Smythe
With the 30 second increment is it quite easy to keep notating. I much prefer this as I find it annoying to have to stop notating when I’m short on time. I then don’t have a complete record of the game to review later.
Even when I am under 5 minutes, I typically keep score, but would generally stop somewhere between 1 minute and 2 depending upon the position.
Thus the idea of having to keep score if the increment is 30 seconds irrespective is not highly palatable to me. As my base time gets further below 2 minutes, my comfort level with keeping score will decrease. If I were under 1 minute base time, I would almost certainly NOT want to keep score in some positions. So this strikes me as problematic.
Well, since it’s increment, it won’t take very long to get the “base time” back above 2 minutes.
If I’m really low, I’ll do my best to write down my move on my opponent’s time, if possible. With 30 seconds I have no problem continuing to notate. I’d be less comfortable, though, if it was delay instead of increment. The increment allows one to make a couple quick moves and preserve the time savings.