Guy Macon wrote:
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

There is also Kasparov delay, which doesn't add time, but
doesn't count time for X seconds. Phil Innes

Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov?

For the same reason he calls Turing machines "Turing engines"?

The Kasparov delay does exist, but has only been used once, on
the 26th move of game 2 of the 1987 Karpov vs. Kasparov title
match. It never really caught on, and even Kasparov himself
avoided it after that one experiment.

It's the USCF standard, and has been so since the early 90s.
There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started. The effect is _almost_ identical to the
first, though there is a tiny difference if you are very short of
time. The "Fischer" method is the same as Bronstein, except that your
time can accumulate without limit.

Please read the following URLs:
http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks

If you disagree with them please provide your sources.

If you want to argue about the names, go ahead (though I
don't plan to listen)

You should care whether Bronstein gets credit for what Bronstein
invented and whether Fischer gets credit for what Fischer invented.

(And I should have checked before my original post rather than
going by memory...)


The DGT page is probably correct, but it was obviously written by a
non-English-speaker, and probably a non-chess-player, so it's a little
hard to be sure. The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not
mention non-addback delay, used almost exclusively in U.S.
tournaments. (Probably written by a Euro.) I may modify it, but it's
not high on my list of priorities.

wrote:
There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started.

I think you're mistaken.

Wikipedia[1] says, `Bronstein delay -- when it becomes a player's turn
to move, the clock waits for the delay period before starting to
subtract from the player's remaining time,' which is exactly what you
describe as the USCF system. Backgammon Galore[2] says the same thing
(follow the link to their definition of `time delay'). Perhaps most
significantly, even the USCF itself defines a Bronstein delay by
saying, `Before the principal thinking time is reduced the player has
a fixed amount of time to complete a move.'[3]

On a brief search, I didn't find any sources that mention any kind of
delay other than `Bronstein' and `Fischer' and I didn't find anywhere
that defined `Bronstein delay' in the way that you do.


Dave.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks
[2] http://www.bkgm.com/gloss/lookup.cgi?bronstein+clock
[3] http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=0&PID=404

--
David Richerby Psychotic Flammable Goldfish (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a fish but it burns really
easily and it wants to kill you!

wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Please read the following URLs:
http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks

If you disagree with them please provide your sources.

The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not mention non-addback
delay...

Yes it does! It calls it `Bronstein delay', like the rest of the
world, the USCF included.

... used almost exclusively in U.S. tournaments. (Probably written
by a Euro.)

Regardless of my nationality or that of the author, I see no reason to
credit Bronstein's system to the USCF.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it eats flesh!

wrote in message
...


Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov? It's the USCF
standard, and has been so since the early 90s.

And where did USCF get the idea?

I helped design the Kasparov net-clock which utilised the delay, and which
differed from Bronstein and Fischer, which added time - we know that you can
play fast but nonsense moves and still win on time, since opponent must
consider what you did and that takes at least a second or two, and this was
making a nonsense of the chess position.

That clock actually has Bronstein and Fischer built into it as well.

There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started. The effect is _almost_ identical to the
first, though there is a tiny difference if you are very short of
time. The "Fischer" method is the same as Bronstein, except that your
time can accumulate without limit. If you want to argue about the
names, go ahead (though I don't plan to listen),

You mean, you have started to 'argue' or suggest the origin of the idea as
if it were USCF's idea, and having made your declaration to others have no
interest in a reply. Sounds like USCF itself!

But thanks for the /petit-lecture/!

Phil Innes

but these are the
options available if you want to design a new time control.

On Mar 25, 9:34 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

I am not saying this is a good idea as it stands,
but rather I am throwing it out there as a thought
experiment to see if someone comes up with a better
variation.

For comparison, let's start with a 40/120, D/60 time
control with a USCF-Style delay of 5 seconds.

Replace the USCF-style the delay with a Fischer increment
(meaning 5 seconds are added to your clock when you hit
the button rather than the clock waiting 5 seconds
before starting to count down -- the difference being
that with a Fischer delay you can gain time by moving
quickly).

Now replace the 40/120, D/60 with SD/10 or SD/20, but
with the Fischer delay set to 3 minutes.

This, of course, wouldn't make matches end by the next
round, but when playing a club game or a game at work,
it would avoid the rather artificial "race until the
time control changes then relax" effect.

What is your reason for wanting to change how the chess
clock works?

What part of "I am throwing this out there as a thought
experiment" are you having trouble understanding?

My position hasn't changed. The FIDE rules are just fine
as they are. I and several others here enjoy thinking about
different ways of doing things, but that does not imply any
particular desire for chnage.

Well, in response to your usenet pondering, I was also asking what
benefit would be gained by it, and its reasoning. I am not
questioning your asking, just adding an additional focus. The
question I ask gives you an area that would explain why changes won't
be adopted. Alternate clock schemes are what I also have been
researching.

I hope no offense continues to be taken by my other question.

- Rich

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Please read the following URLs:
http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks

If you disagree with them please provide your sources.
The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not mention non-addback
delay...

Yes it does! It calls it `Bronstein delay', like the rest of the
world, the USCF included.

... used almost exclusively in U.S. tournaments. (Probably written
by a Euro.)

Regardless of my nationality or that of the author, I see no reason to
credit Bronstein's system to the USCF.


Dave.


Especially because the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.

It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's not the same thing, at all.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.

It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's
not the same thing, at all.

Interesting! What is the difference?

Guy Macon wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:

the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.

It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's
not the same thing, at all.

Interesting! What is the difference?


Didn't we go over this already? With "Bronstein" (non-cumulative
addback), your clock starts running as soon as your opponent presses
the button, but, when you _stop_ your clock, it adds back time
(typically, though not necessarily, five seconds), up to a maximum of
the time you had when your clock started. Under "delay," used by USCF,
your clock does not _start_ counting down until a set period (like
five seconds) has elapsed. Mathematically, the effects are identical,
though there might be a small psychological difference if you were in
extreme time pressure.

Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
...


Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov? It's the USCF
standard, and has been so since the early 90s.

And where did USCF get the idea?

I helped design the Kasparov net-clock which utilised the delay, and which
differed from Bronstein and Fischer, which added time - we know that you can
play fast but nonsense moves and still win on time, since opponent must
consider what you did and that takes at least a second or two, and this was
making a nonsense of the chess position.

That clock actually has Bronstein and Fischer built into it as well.

There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started. The effect is _almost_ identical to the
first, though there is a tiny difference if you are very short of
time. The "Fischer" method is the same as Bronstein, except that your
time can accumulate without limit. If you want to argue about the
names, go ahead (though I don't plan to listen),

You mean, you have started to 'argue' or suggest the origin of the idea as
if it were USCF's idea, and having made your declaration to others have no
interest in a reply. Sounds like USCF itself!

But thanks for the /petit-lecture/!

Phil Innes

but these are the
options available if you want to design a new time control.


Phil, save the hissy-fit for someone who cares. You've been completely
out of tournament chess for years, and obviously have no idea what's
actually going on. The three methods are different, and failing to
distinguish among them leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy argument.
The _origin_ of these systems is a different question, which you are
free to discuss on a new thread. Tossing this out in an attempt to
distract attention from your own ignorance is the sort of thing that's
earned you a reputation as an annoying troll.

wrote:
With "Bronstein" (non-cumulative addback), your clock starts running
as soon as your opponent presses the button, but, when you _stop_
your clock, it adds back time (typically, though not necessarily,
five seconds), up to a maximum of the time you had when your clock
started. Under "delay," used by USCF, your clock does not _start_
counting down until a set period (like five seconds) has elapsed.
Mathematically, the effects are identical, though there might be a
small psychological difference if you were in extreme time pressure.

The effects most certainly are not `mathematically identical'. With
what you're calling `Bronstein', if you have five seconds on your
clock at the point when I make my move, you must move within five
seconds (which you'll get back for your next move). With what you're
calling `delay', you have ten seconds to make your move.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Wine (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ vintage Beaujolais but it's completely
transparent!