Defining "Bronstein" in the US Chess rulebook

Running Chess Tournaments
61

Collaboration sometimes requires telling someone, “that doesn’t work, try again”. That’s much better.

  1. “Bronstein” needs to be quoted in the first instance. Actually, stylistically, it appears that the Rule Book uses italics rather than “…” for introductions of terms. Either way, the things being defined need to be treated symmetrically.
  2. I don’t like the phrase “mathematically” equivalent—I think that’s a Smythian construct, which doesn’t really say anything. How about
    “These are equivalent in the sense that identical clock presses will produce identical results, and differ only in how the delay is displayed.”
  3. The sentence after “Bronstein delay adds…” is redundant. A more straightforward way to handle that is to eliminate that sentence, and graft the “if a player uses…” on as a clause, with (for instance), a “however” conjunction.
  4. Again, in the final sentence, “Fischer” and “bonus” need the same treatment as the other defined terms.
62

I think you meant to say that “Bronstein” needs to be in quotes, just as “simple” and “US” are, so that the styles match. If that’s what you’re getting at, then (maybe) I agree.

How about “functionally” equivalent instead? Then the next sentence could become:

These are functionally equivalent, in the sense that identical clock presses will produce identical results, and differ only in how the delay is displayed.

I’m not quite sure what you’re proposing. Perhaps replace:

Bronstein delay adds the delay time to the main time.

with:

“Bronstein” delay, by contrast, combines the delay time and the main time into a single display.

Then the following two sentences could stay as they are.

Bill Smythe

63

Thanks on the first. Since I was inside the edit window, I corrected it.

They aren’t “functionally identical”—in fact, they function quite differently. I’m not sure there is any single adverb (be it “mathematically”, “functionally” or “effectively”) which doesn’t beg for an explanation of what that really means which is why I used an explicit definition of the “effect”.

Trying to describe Bronstein based upon the display is a bit of a problem because the display may not actually show anything if the seconds aren’t visible. It’s the time that gets added (and possibly partially subtracted). The one great drawback for Bronstein from a TD’s standpoint is that it can be quite unclear that the clock is set for delay vs no delay (if seconds aren’t showing) or for delay vs increment (if players aren’t observed moving inside the delay period).

64

Good points.

I remember seeing, on one of CCA’s “cheat sheets” posted at a tournament in the early days of delay-capable clocks, a CCA rule that a clock set for “straight” (“simple”, “USA”) delay was preferable to one with Bronstein delay, and that preference would trump the usual “black gets his choice” convention.

My clock (Chronos) does both. I have always set it for USA-style delay. If, however, before the game started, an opponent stated a preference for Bronstein, I would always have been happy to accommodate him. So far, no opponent has ever done so.

Bill Smythe

65

I still like the term mathematically equivalent. The rulebook puts TD Tips in italics so I’ve kept the “…” for the introduction of the terms. Here is my latest attempt at the TD Tip:

TD Tip: There are two forms of delay, “simple” (or “US”) delay and “Bronstein” delay. Both are mathematically equivalent, equally acceptable for use under the rules, and just differ in how the delay is displayed on the clock screen. Simple delay separates the delay time from the main time, often by showing the delay countdown in digits or having something like the colons or the word “delay” flash each second during the delay countdown. Bronstein delay, by contrast, combines the delay time and the main time into a single display. If a player uses the entire delay time or more for a move, the clock will add the delay time to the main time. If a player uses less than the delay time for a move, the clock will go back to the time it had at the beginning of the move. The fact that the main time will never go above what it was at the beginning of a move with delay is what makes it different from increment. With increment, (also commonly known as “Fischer” and “bonus”), the increment time is added to the main time each turn, regardless of the amount of time it took the player to move."

66

That’s looking pretty good.

I was one of the first to use the phrase “mathematically equivalent”, in the old thread Pave the Way for Increment. But I still like “functionally equivalent” at least as well.

One poster in an old thread stated adamantly that the two display methods for delay were “mathematically equivalent but psychologically inequivalent”. I replied that, regarding the last point, I could neither agree nor disagree, because psychology is always in the mind of the psychologee.

Bill Smythe

67

I agree with Tom that the two forms of delay are not “functionally equivalent”.

68

Tim Just told me he will consider adding this TD Tip to the rulebook when he makes the other rulebook changes for 2021 after the delegates meeting. Thanks Tim!

69

A TD Tip on this subject has been added to the rulebook! Thanks Tim for adding this to the rulebook and to everyone in this thread who helped with the creation of the TD Tip.

However, there appears to be two different versions of the TD Tip.

On this page, new.uschess.org/news/just-rules … es-2021-22, the TD Tip is worded as follows:

In the updated online edition of the rulebook, new.uschess.org/sites/default/f … -23-21.pdf, the TD Tip is worded as follows:

[i]

[/i]

70

Didn’t read the entire thread, but there are terms in use already. EU (or European) Delay, as opposed to US Delay.

The two styles are not functionally equivalent although they deliver the same amount of time move-b-move per Tom’s point. (Bottom line, that does, in a sense mean they are functionally equivalent, but I think we all understand that important details differ between the two methods.)

However, the functional differences do have an impact in terms of display.

Bronstein/EU Delay displays on a single display the total amount of time remaining for the player’s current move or if it is the opponent’s move, the player’s very next move.

US delay displays on a dual display, one for delay one for the main time, the total amount of time remaining for the player’s current move, or if it is the opponent’s move, the player’s very next move. The dual display for US delay may not be visible on the player’s display except when the timer is counting down the delay time.

Both of these essentially say what is there currently. But allow for a slightly different construct.

In delay, a player receives an added amount of time per move of time used to a maximum of the stated delay time.
In increment, a player receives an added amount of time per move of the stated increment time.

Increment is a set addition per move, delay is the lesser of time used or a stated addition.

Defining it this way allows the display explanation without further description of what gets added back or used etc. So it should cut it down:

[size=115]Delay and Increment:[/size]
In delay, a player receives an added amount of time per move of time used to a maximum of the stated delay time.
In increment, a player receives an added amount of time per move of the stated increment time.

Display
Bronstein/EU Delay displays on a single display the total amount of time remaining for the player’s current move or if it is the opponent’s move, the player’s very next move.

US delay displays on a dual display, one for delay one for the main time, the total amount of time remaining for the player’s current move, or if it is the opponent’s move, the player’s very next move. The dual display for US delay may not be visible on the player’s display except when the timer is counting down the delay time.

Increment is always displayed using the Bronstein approach.

(I can’t think of an example where the last statement isn’t true - is anyone aware of one?)

71

Just to make things more complicated, there is also a difference in the way FIDE and U.S. Chess use these terms.

In most places, FIDE uses the term Bronstein to mean any kind of delay (non-cumulative time add), regardless of whether it’s two separate displays (USA style) or a combined display (European style).

And for increment (cumulative time add), FIDE uses the term Fischer or bonus.

Furthermore, “increment” in FIDE means either cumulative or non-cumulative time add, i.e. either of what we in the USA call “increment” or “delay”.

And to make things even more complicated, there is a new section in the FIDE rules that seems to have drifted toward the USA conventions for these terms. So now the FIDE terminology is internally inconsistent.

I don’t know of any clock that displays (cumulative) increment using a dual display. If it did, I suppose the increment portion of the display would count down from 30 (if the increment is 30 seconds) to 0, then start counting down the main time, or if the player did not use his entire 30 seconds, the unused portion would then be added to the main time.

If you want to really have some fun, try the short Chronos. It allows both increment and delay (cumulative and non-cumulative) to be set simultaneously. For example you could set it for a 30-second increment and a 5-second delay. At the start of each move the 5 seconds would start counting down, and at the end of each move, 30 seconds would be added to the player’s main time.

If you want to have still more fun, the short Chronos has options for both USA style delay and European (Bronstein) delay. Apparently, you could set all three – for example, a 5-second USA style delay plus a 30-second increment plus a 10-second Bronstein. I haven’t checked that one out to see how these are displayed, or in what order.

Furthermore (you wanted more?), each of these can be set independently for each time control. For two controls, for example, you could have a 30-second increment in the first control and a 5-second delay in the second.

Now, would somebody please a run a tournament using these capabilities, and require each player to furnish a short Chronos? :smiling_imp: :slight_smile: :smiling_imp:

Bill Smythe

72

Or if one wanted to be really wacky, it could remain in increment and just start a second pool of cumulative increment time. :open_mouth: :laughing: :unamused: :exclamation: :question: :mrgreen: