We’ll have to agree to disagree. With 30 second increments both players are required to continue keeping score for the game’s duration. With 5 second delays and during the last five moves for either player they are not. A lot of good endgame play is not captured using only delay during the last five minutes. That is my $0.02.
Perhaps when Frank Berry reads this he’ll tell us what he thinks?
I challenge you do the following in less than five seconds for several moves:
(Even if you change the order they’re done in, expecting players to be able to do all this in five seconds is unreasonable.)
It’s that one case you don’t manage it that will get you.
More power to you. If I tried to keep score in five seconds while my opponent is blitzing (so it is really only five seconds total for both players) then I wouldn’t have time to think about the move in between physically moving and keeping score.
That lack in my ability may be because I haven’t been playing tournaments as long as you (your USCF ID is earlier), since my first tournament was as late as 1975. Also my rating peaked at only 2137 (pre-MSA, MSA only shows 2117 on the graph while it shows 2126 as the pre-event of the oldest event listed), and I’ve declined to my current 1981 (I dropped under 2000 in Apr '98, went back over in June, '00, and under again in June '05).
I guess you haven’t figured out that this only happens at the END of a round when 19 out of 20 boards are finished and there is nobody at the next board left to “annoy”… 
=====
Using a 5 or 10 sec increment turns the late middle-game from a game of chess into a game of chance – Frank Berry, ANTD, IO, IA 
Using a 5 or 10 sec increment turns a game of chess into an exercise in banging the clock. – IM Irina Krush
One of the points of a 30-second increment is that there are really no circumstances under which a player has insufficient time to keep score.
This time control (G/90 + 30 seconds per move) is absolutely great for spectators. Most of the games come to a critical position at about the same time, and you don’t have many endgames that drag on and on. Everything ends at a reasonable time, and you can go out and get something to eat or get ready for the next round or whatever. Also, you don’t have to wait forever to find out who won the prizes. Dana Mackenzie, PhD
“I don’t like this time control because it helps people who don’t manage their time well. I do manage my time. I’m usually ahead of my opponents on time, so I don’t like it.” GM Josh Friedel
Rule 42B of the USCF rulebook # 4, p 170: “Signaling devices. A clock that calls attention to the fall of the flag with a special noise or light is both legal and highly desirable, providing it causes no disturbance to other players. The prohibition against anyone but the two players calling a flag down does not apply to a clock, which can carry out this function thoroughly and impartially. Likewise, a clock in which the fall of one flag prevents the other flag from falling is both legal and desirable, avoiding the possibility of the both-flags-down draw of 14G or 16T.”
However USCF rulebook # 5 - 42B1 p 228 only notes: Timers with move counters and flag fall indicators are legal.
Quote from a new book: top page 88 Alexis Shirov - Fire on Board part 2: "After I made this move I had almost no time left, but with the extra 30 seconds per move I was still able to stand and fight! "
Very well said.
Thank you! I knew I had seen this wording somewhere, but I drove myself nuts looking for it recently in the fifth edition of the rule book. Now I understand why I couldn’t find it.
That’s why I will never volunteer for a debate on how to direct a tournament against Frank Berry. Other topics I can hold my own, but he is the king. Alex Relyea is a close second. 
I need to clarify my position - but first, please understand that I do NOT profess to be more skilled than you, either in chess or in the ‘mechanics’ discussed here. I realized last night where part of my disconnect here is: I have not played any blitz, or even ‘quick’ tournament games. So the difference is, when I am under time pressure - my opponent (in general) is not. I can (and usually do) accomplish both sides of my scorekeeping on his clock, in those situations. Occasionally (but more rarely) I stop recording moves - such as one time when both of us were under time pressure. You are right; 5 seconds is insufficient.
(Quick side story - a funny thing happened once, recently, when I was under time pressure to a lower-rated player. He had a strong chance to win, or at least draw - I was sure of that. But with my clock showing about 3 minutes to make the last 6-8 moves - I can’t remember precisely - and his having at least 20 minutes left… he started playing like he, too, was under time pressure! In doing so he blundered and gave me an easy win - despite that fact that I logged my 40th move with something like 0:03 left. We are friends and joked about it later - how he was influenced somehow by my clock.)
But back on topic - if we were playing Blitz, or otherwise with both players under similar time pressure, in general, I would agree with you. 5 seconds would not be nearly enough. On the other hand, 30 seconds still seems excessive to me - and almost by definition includes a portion of time for thinking/analysis… which I don’t think is the intent of “delay”. In my opinion - not weighted by experience in Blitz, however - 15 seconds might be an ideal middle ground.
Btw, while I do have a low USCF number, I was actually inactive between about 1975 until just under a year ago (! read: ‘insert ‘life’ here’), when I joined an area club. So overall I have played in far fewer events than you have, I am sure. And obviously you have accomplished considerably more, seeing your rating and history. Congratulations on that! I ‘restarted’ at 1485, sure that I’d be a B player by now, and hoping someday maybe to make A player… but the experience has been much more humbling than that. I have not been able to see any improvement (yet) in terms of rating - which I have to concede, reflects pretty accurately my inconsistent play. 
Or using a driving analogy, as I’ve been busy teaching my teens to drive: not only have I not been able to operate the clutch, but my park brake has been stuck all along!
Thanks for clarifying, TP.
I. too, was about to concede you are the better man.
You probably still are, I just don’t have to feel guilty by refusing to admit it is so.
Perhaps you know something that is not immediately apparent because your opponent was your friend, but this is a strategy enshrined in the rulebook. The reason that players are not required to keep score when their opponent has fewer than five minutes remaining is so that they can do what your friend did, probably to make the player nervous and blunder, and certainly be unable to think on the opponent’s time.
Alex Relyea
I really like the newer time controls such as the 60 + 30, which allows ample time for a quality game, and lets a player prove his/her point. Gone are days of 40/2 and SD1, as well as adjournments, so this becomes a very good compromise. That is not to say that you cannot find longer time controls in some tournaments, but a 30 second add-on still allows some think time, as well as allowing for the actual move-making and scorekeeping.
And by the way, the beep would only be at the end, and not on each move. Also, if the game goes under 5 minutes for either player, OK tournaments always have someone willing to keep score for them, including Frank Berry himself. A great deal of the success of OK tournaments has been due to the OCF commitment, and willingness to accomodate as needed.
That happens a lot. It is almost always a serious error to try to take advantage of an opponent’s time pressure by moving quickly oneself. The player in time pressure is probably accustomed to it, and thrives on it. The opponent is probably not accustomed to time pressure, and performs poorly when moving quickly.
A better strategy, I suppose, is to take the time to find an unexpected move, especially one with multiple threats. Ideally, find a move where one threat looks obvious, but is not as serious at it looks, and the “real” threat is a bit obscure and hard to find in time pressure. The opponent in time pressure is likely to defend against the “wrong” threat, or at least eat up valuable time finding the correct defense.
Bill Smythe
cant count the number of times i was ahead on time and played fast to try to capitalize on opponents time pressure. it never paid off for me, it was just plain dumb. I identified it as one of my major weaknesses over-the-board, and in subsequent years, i became a better player by yelling at myself in such situations to take even more time, not less.
What i continued to do, though, was, given 2 moves of appoximately equal value (as best i could determine), play the more complex one.
A couple of other tricks:
Write down an obvious move and let your opponent see it, then after a couple of minutes erase it and quickly write the one you are going to do, and then immediately do it.
Put your hand over the wrong piece (don’t touch it!) as if you’re about to move it, let it hover, then switch to the real piece and move it.
Start playing with your beverage to make your opponent start thinking subconsciously about going to the bathroom.
Your point is valid in a general sense, but in this case that clearly didn’t happen. I respect this individual but he is not strong enough to have attempted that. (I am even worse off - I am strong enough to contemplate such a strategy, but not to pull it off successfully! lol) No, he simply erred in both the dynamics and its execution - which he readily stated afterwards.
I also note (a subsequent) poster’s thinking that the non-time-pressured player should look for “complicating” moves. This, too, was an option that he didn’t take - but should have. In fact I’ve seen the same thing with several weaker players - not when down on time so much as down on material - who are more than willing to exchange pieces down! This only makes the opponent’s task, already ahead on material, that much easier (in general). I have done it myself a couple times and came to understand - in the post-mortem - that it’s almost always a mistake.
So I think the strategy you suggested is a sound one, provided you are savvy enough to not make things easier, in effect (with blunders or unnecessary simplifications) - on the person who is in time trouble. And I am certain that in the case I cited that it wasn’t in play. (Admittedly I didn’t give you that ‘data’ in my first post.) Thanks.
As implied in my last post - I think you have described this case accurately, and also the “better strategy”. Thanks.
ROFL at #3! I think I’ll actually try that tonight, just for a chuckle!! Your thinking is reminiscent of the famous advice actually published by Ruy Lopez back several centuries: position the board so that the light is in your opponent’s eyes.
[size=85]< remedy to the Lopez dictum[/size]
I think you’ll find most TDs looking down on the first two, if not exactly illegal. I’d certainly warn any player whose opponent complained that he was doing either of those, and penalize if it happened repeatedly.
Alex Relyea