Interesting. It seems Carlsen lost a game on time, I think to Grischuk supposedly because of delay rather than increment. I saw an interview with Grischuk in which he said he has not played a game in delay/Bronstein mode for 15 years. Maybe Carlsen never did before.
Will be interesting to see what the top players thought of delay. Nakamura and to some extent Caruana would seem to have a head start here. Also note that despite the linked article’s mention of Bronstein I am near-certain the tournament used U.S.-style “straight” delay, since I am near-certain the clocks seen in photos from the event are DGT NAs.
Maybe as US chess sees more use of increment, FIDE play will see more delay.
Actually the clocks are most likely DGT 3000 models. First they are wired to the board, which only the DGT 3000 and XL can be.
Second the display is taller and larger than the DGT NA or any other DGT clock other than the 3000.
The color of the clocks are different but it looks as if they did that to match the color theme of the event.
And the DGT has both US Delay and Bronstein as timing options, along with the others.
The difference is absolutely zero, except for whatever psychological differences may be perceived by the players.
Perhaps the best way to display delay would be a combination of Bronstein and discrete (I hate the word “straight” because it implies that Bronstein is somehow “crooked”).
The combination display could look like this, on each player’s side:
Total time is on top (Bronstein style). Delay time is lower left, main time is lower right (discrete style).
Of course, the total time is always the sum of the other two.
This should please proponents of Bronstein style, who want to see the total time without having to mentally add the other two together, and proponents of discrete style, who like to use up 4.9 of their 5 seconds each move to maximize the efficiency of their time use.
My main point was that there is zilch difference between Bronstein and “US Delay”; therefore, it is inaccurate, misleading, and beside the point to speak of an event that “uses” Bronstein vs one that “uses” US Delay, as the OP did in the post that began this thread.
If the players furnish the clocks, it is likely that both display methods will be in use, varying from table to table.
If the organizer furnishes the clocks, and they are all the same brand, it is likely that the organizer will set all the clocks the same way, according to his personal preference or the perceived personal preferences of his players.
For a further demonstration of the equivalence of the two, please see this old post.
I did not mean to re-ignite the debate over “U.S.-style” delay vs. Bronstein. Just wanted to point out that this event, with elite GMs, used some form of non-cumulative delay/add-back timing, rather than increment.
Not sure when this last happened in an elite invitational event. Will be interesting to see if it becomes a trend. Imagine if FIDE and CCA wind up using the same default time control someday.
Yes, I understand, and your main point is well taken. I, too, am curious as to whether delay/Bronstein will ever penetrate the rest of the world, just as increment is now penetrating the USA.
I believe that FIDE developed increment at about the same time USA developed delay, and for reasons that are somewhat (but not entirely) similar – to deal with the problems created by indefinitely repeating controls on the one hand, and sudden death controls on the other.
Also, I have heard that GM Bronstein (who is European, I believe) despised cumulative add-back (increment) because it allowed a player to play a few frivolous moves (such as repeating the position) for the purpose of actually gaining time on his clock. Thus, he proposed the non-cumulative add-back system that now bears his name.
Then, eventually, some of the smarter cookies among us figured out that Bronstein and delay were the exact same thing, albeit with different methods of display.
So there’s a bit of recent history, as seen through (and perhaps distorted by) Smythe eyes.
