No SD means no delay.
The Chicago Industrial Chess League plays 45/90, 30/60 (with adjournments), so there is no delay.
Not necessarily. An organizer could very well run an event at 40/120, 20/60 (etc), d/5.
In fact, I wonder how many of the few organizers who run indefinite-control events also use a delay. It would be a good idea, IMHO. For one thing, it would keep the look and feel more similar to that in a SD event. For another, near the end of a control, it would tend to reduce questionable behavior, such as using two hands, knocking over pieces without replacing them, etc.
Bill Smythe
Doesn’t that depend on what time controls the organizer has chosen for the tournament? The rulebook allows delay clocks to be used for non-sudden death.
Me too.
Me too.
Me too.
Thanks Dad!
Classic cars are also wonderful. But that doesn’t mean that pollution, gas mileage, and the lack of new fangled devices are things that we should choose instead, so that we can always drive classic cars.
But we should be able to choose them if we wish. Your points about pollution etc are well taken, but I don’t want a lot of “newfangled devices” on my car. I can read a map. I can select my own gears. I can crank my own windows. I can turn a key. I can turn a radio dial. I can adjust my own mirrors. I can keep track of when I need to change my oil. I wouldn’t want a machine doing these tasks for me even if the extras were free!
The difference between this and chess, there are no opponents or TD’s trying to make me choose between accepting the gadgetry and staying home!
But, for example, we have catalytic converters, and fuel injection because they help EVERYONE and make cars better. And we have ABS brakes and the influx of new warning devices and seat belts and airbags because it makes it better for everyone.
And these are some of the features - like turn signals, and more advanced braking systems, that eventually you can’t choose except for your classic car - because all new cars have them because they are better for the masses.
Time controls that are relatively fixed in length help all tournament players because having control after control can cause rounds to occur at unpredictable times. But sudden death time controls also hurt everyone because at some point the focus of play is shifted from the board to the clock. Time delay and increment address this - and analog clocks do not have these features.
Widespread use of algebraic notation simplifies the ability to provide chess analysis around the world. This saves printing costs, it makes it easier for websites, it makes it easier for databases.
These features are simply BETTER, just like fuel injection, and so it spreads to the masses.
You CAN choose them if you wish. If you and your opponent want to use an analog clock - have at it. If you want to use descriptive notation, feel free. What’s the issue?
If both players wish to use substandard equipment (an analog clock in a sudden-death time control), they are absolutely free to do so. However, they are no longer rewarded with extra time for doing so, unless the time control is explicitly advertised as doing so. (Rule 5Fa, which allows the director to subtract time from digital clocks with delay without advance notice in all tournament publicity, is repealed as of January 1, 2012.) If one player objects and has standard equipment, the player who wishes to use substandard equipment does not have the right to force that choice on the opponent with standard equipment.
We’re never going to see eye to eye on this, I can see. Yes, some of those devices (for example catalytic converters) are good and useful, this is because they perform a useful task that I cannot perform myself. But I can live without the newer electronic gizmos. You want 'em, you can have 'em, but they add nothing of value to me. They just add to the cost of the car, and they can break.
Returning to the chess world, it is my opinion that that time management, and the possibility of time scrambles, is part of the game. Time delays are bad. Thus, analog clocks are not substandard in my view, they are actually superior, as they can do everything a chess clock should do, and no more. If undesirable features aren’t available, rule committees or member majorities can’t vote to make them preferred or mandatory.
And, yes, I think analogs (or other non-delay clocks) should be restored to the position of preferred equipment. If two players wish to use their substandard delay clocks, they should be free to do so.
I’m well aware that I’m fighting a losing battle here, and I don’t care. But I feel saddened that these unwanted changes being foisted on me are hurting my enjoyment of the wonderful game of chess, all while the techies claim “It’s the wave of the future!” or “The majority wants it thus!” as they jeer me into the tar pits. It’s just another symptom of our descent, which I am powerless to impede, into a terrifying future in which I am best unhappy and unable to do anything useful or productive, and at worst made of atoms which could more efficiently be used for something else.
As a slowpoke, I’ve never felt that the 5 second delay solved anything. I still flag. Maybe a 30 second increment would!?
I should point out that Robert was 9 years old at the time and rated in the 1900s, not the 2700s!
The delay rule was in effect but I don’t remember if it applied 10 years ago during the first time control. You would remember that better than I 
We used an Excalibur GameTimer, btw.
The craziness occurred at the end of the first time control. Neither one of us had kept score from around move 26, so neither one of us could claim a win on time (incomplete score sheet). We were still both blitzing around move 43. I was up a lot of material. When I hung my Q Robert snatched it and said, “I claim a draw!” I shook his hand. Robert’s father Carl, who was watching the game from a distance, moaned and explained the rule to both of us.
Afterward I felt bad about the circumstances, and about having mildly scolded my opponent for “throwing the pieces around.” Turns out his draw “claim” was a legally valid draw offer. Since then I have offered several “mercy draws,” from winning or won positions, in repentance.
I’m sure you have but that has not been my experience in approximately 250 games I’ve played with a delay. It’s like the Lucena position. How many endgame manuals teach it, and how often does it actually arise? For me, out of about 1000 OTB and slow server games, exactly twice.
I see the 5 second delay make a noticeable difference at least once a round in my local club. Perhaps that’s because most of the tournaments I play in are G/60.
One difference between the analog clock and digital version is simple accuracy. With the digital clock one knows exactly how many seconds he or she has left. The red flag, who knows when it is going to fall?
Everynow and then at the club on Monday nights we will hold the old fashion Game 5 nodelay tournament just to remind us of how it use to be. But we still tend to use the digital clocks. 
Ever see a Coldfield analog clock? It shows you seconds for the last 5 minutes. A really neat clock!!!
Clearly simpler and older is always better. That is why I advocate returning to the use of the sandglass to keep time. Analog clocks can can malfunction, and I don’t know how to fix them.
Notation should be the full verbal description, like philidor used. King’s pawn to the king’s fourth square. That way there is no ambiguity between K, N, and Kt.
And the pawn should only move 1 square, no more having to worry about en passant. While we are at it, lets go back to using the ferz and the aufin instead of the queen and the bishop.
Someone once said “The thing most responsible for the concept of the good old days is a poor memory.”
My original post was a statement of my personal preferences. With a nostalgic view of my chess youth. Yes memory does fade and progress does not stop. In any case chess is still chess and chess players are still a wee bit goofy. Thanks to the gods for that.
Dan
I started playing in the early 70’s using descriptive notation and an analog clock. I switched to algebraic by about '75 and never looked back. It felt a little weird at first but after a while I began to think in algebraic and it felt very natural. I used an analog clock for 30 years until I made a “comeback” in 2001 after taking many years off. Since I normally use all my time, I really like knowing exactly how much time I have left rather than leaning over and trying to figure out just how close that silly flag is to falling (is it 30 seconds away or 90 seconds? Who can tell?). If I know that I have exactly 20 seconds for my last move, I can concentrate on the move rather than the flag.
I don’t really have any strong feelings about the time delay. In fact, I once forgot about it when I was trying to mate with a K+Q against K (with pawns on the board) with about 30 seconds left. I ended up rushing my moves and stalemated him rather than using the 5 seconds on each move.
I’m curious…how do you feel about using computers to prepare rather than books and magazines?