Well, I will dutifully but regretfully reprogram my clock for a five second delay. I mean God. I really feel weird doing it. And the first time I see it add five seconds to my opponent’s time, I’m going to quietly vomit in my mouth.
I was assuming a case where the defender does know how to draw (or rather, how not to lose) but where the opponent may, if he chooses, draw the game out for 250 meaningless moves before putting the defender to the test, such as it is, simply to run out the defender’s time. If the defender does not know how to draw, then fine, he deserves to lose and most likely will.
Five seconds is arbitrary. I will say that I think that adding time (the “increment” method, as it is known) is more logical than time delay; even adding just one or two seconds per move prevents the worst abuses.
I agree it would be a nice compromise to postpone the increment until the second time control, if we’re talking about a 30/90 type game, but it is awkward to have to reset the clocks during the game, more so with digital clocks where one may accidentally (?) reset to zero.
The extra time seems to largely be insignificant. 5 seconds per move is only enough time to move and register it on your clock.
In the FIDE candidate rules quoted by Captain Amazing the players are playing at 3 minutes per move up until move 60 and then have 15 minutes plus 30 seconds per move for the rest of the match. If they trebled their speed they would run out of time after 30 more moves adding 15 minutes to the match.
Of course if they could play at 30 seconds per move they could go on forever.
[nitpick]The rules of Chess make this impossible (assuming both players are actually making moves) since eventually the board position would have to repeat itself. 
[/nitpick]
Basically, what AppeallingGael said.
[nitpick^2]But threefold repetition is not a statutory draw - it must be correctly identified and claimed either by the player who is about to make the repeating move, or in response to the player who has just done so.[/nitpick^2]
However, eventually the 50-move law must come into play, which IIRC is indeed statutory (and admits of certain exceptions, but only to the extent of allowing a greater, but still finite, limit).
Don’t moves tend to go quicker in the endgame, with many fewer pieces on the board? Less time per move then seems reasonable.
The 50-move rule was exactly what I thought of when AppallingGael described his scenario of some guy drawing out a game for 250 moves. I just have some sort of mental block about this whole time delay idea. I’m just going to have to accept it and move on. But it will always eat at my craw.
I guess I’m a chess conservative. Clocks and time are utterly irrelevant. You play until someone wins or you both give up.
I still think moving a pawn two spaces at once is mildly cheating. 
Note, I only play chess recreationally and informally. If my opponent starts screwing around, I quit playing. 
I saw this a while ago and gave up chess.
I haven’t played over-the-board tournament chess in many years, so I may be mistaken about these chess “delays.” I do play chess on different computer sites, and they all allow the use of incremental increases, which was Fischer’s idea, and it was initially rejected. Years later, it was introduced. This is not a delay. It is an incremental increase for each move. It was used, optionally, in tournaments I played before I stopped playing OTB chess. Fischer’s idea was to use a certain period of time (usually seconds) added to a player’s clock after each move. I still have a clock that does this. The idea is that nobody should lose on time, as they can always add time to their clock by moving.
I use what is called “2/12” on computers, which means we play a two-minute game, but 12 seconds are added after each move. I prefer that to 5-minute chess, since in 5-minute chess I can lose a winning game very easily, but in 2/12, I can quickly make a few moves, and my time has dramatically increased.
Before the 20th century, clocks were not used. They were introduced because of the length of time games were taking. Some people have died waiting for their opponents to move. 
As a tournament player myself (note the username), I really can’t imagine it any other way. What if we’re in a scenario where the position is effectively drawn (but not by rule) and just needs to be played out another 50 moves, yet I only have 10 seconds left on my clock? Is it really fair for my opponent to make arbitrary moves, no better than my own, just to kill off the 10 seconds? Of course not! That wouldn’t be chess, that would be a contest decided by the quickest hands.
5 seconds is long enough to make it always physically possible for me to continue play without worrying about my clock. It doesn’t help me think about the position or help me find the “right” move. It just lets me find a legal move, make it, and hit the clock. What’s wrong with that?
Believe me, there is still a flurry of moves. There is still time pressure. There is still stress in close games. The time delay doesn’t remove the clock from the game. It just prevents cheap shots that have nothing to do with having a strong “chessic sense”.
But, respectfully, the only reason a player used to get in time trouble was when he dawdled for too long on one or two moves in the middle game. In other words, the time to be concerned about your clock is when your opponent first presses the button on his side. If you decide to take 35 minutes to make a plan, you deserve to lose on time when you have three seconds left for ten moves.
But what we are (or at least, I am) saying is that punishing someone for “dawdling” should be avoided in Chess, not encouraged, since how long one takes to make a move is not really relevant to how good one is at thinking about Chess positions. (Speed of thought and quality of thought are independent of each other).
There’s no way to have no time limit for practical reasons. But if a time limit can be instituted which tends less to punish people for things that have nothing to do with skill at thinking about Chess positions, then that time limit is better.
ETA: Think of it this way. With an absolute time limit, a player can actively manipulate the clock, steering the board toward lines of play that lead to long games, putting the opponent in time trouble. Now the other player can fight against this, trying to steer the board back toward shorter lines of play for example, or being well prepared for the longer lines, and so on. But in this kind of case, the players have made the chess clock and their manipulations of it part of the game they are playing. They are deciding their moves based on something other than just what the position is on the board. That can’t be right, can it? Is it really a game of Chess if people are making their moves based on factors other than where the Chess pieces are on the Chess board?
Well, I suppose so, Frylock. I do see your point, but it’s just that life doesn’t work that way.
I just finished our weekly budget, and it would be nice if an additional $5 would appear in each of our personal allowance accounts every week. But the time for us to think about our account balances dropping was when we spent our money. Quality of life would surely improve for us all if extra money would just appear when we spent it. That way, people wouldn’t have to bother with money management and budgeting as much. Same same for chess. I realize I’m going to have to adjust to it. But when there has been plenty of time alloted to both players, say an hour-and-a-half to make 40 moves, then part of the game, for me at least, has been learning techniques for thinking efficiently (like not revisiting lines of play already reviewed, and that sort of thing.)
I mean, there are certain principles, passed down to us from Steinitz to Kmoch, about how to analyze positions and make plans according to our strengths, our opponent’s weaknesses, the pawn positions and islands and all that. Think of Fischer’s so-called Game of the Century, for example. It didn’t take him forever to conceive his ingenious Queen sacrifice (or the knight sac before it). Being able to think sharply and efficiently were (and should be) as much a part of the game as moving the pieces themselves.
I can’t help but wonder whether all this was coincidental with Kasparov’s personal fetish with IBM’s computers, and the fact that they can crunch millions of positions per second, a hobby he dabbled with until he lost. And then, people began to scramble, thinking along these lines: “I can’t see but a couple of positions per second. I need more time!”
I really just can’t see a reason for it along the lines you give. If it truly is all about the moves, then just take the clocks away. Impractical? Well, tough titty. It’s all about getting the best game, right? I mean, the line drawn is so arbitrary. Five seconds. And different ways to do it. And different entities do it different ways. I don’t see how that helps the game itself. It only complicates it. For me, at least.
Life? Who’s talking about life? We’re talking about Chess here. :p;)
(Tournament) Chess without a time limit of some kind isn’t just “impractical,” it’s impossible. (Because in a serious game, the losing player will simply refuse to move.)
So it’s certainly true that you need a time limit of some kind. But by pointing this out, you’ve made no argument for an absolute time limit. For just because you need some kind of time limit doesn’t mean you have to have the “absolute” style of time limit you favor. The Fischer way of doing time limits serves the purpose of the time limit just as well.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the arbitrary nature of the time control. That is as true for an absolute limit as it is for this newfangled time control we’re talking about.
ETA: Fundamentally, this is the main point of disagreement:
I’ve tried to present some arguments for the opposing view (though I admit I’m not completely happy with them, and am not completely confident that good arguments are to be had here, since it may simply be a matter of taste or something) but I wonder if you can try to explain to me why I ought to adopt your view? Why should I think that quick thinking should be counted as part of Chess skill?
I really never mentioned “quick thinking”, only efficient thinking. There were certain things my teacher (a grandmaster) taught me, like “do not review the same line twice”. In other words, don’t ramble in your mind. If you’ve already looked at 29…Nxe3 30.Nf5 a4 31. Qd2 Rce8 32. Bg4 Qxd2 33. Qxd2 and found that it leads to nothing, then don’t look at that again. Apply principles of tactics and strategy. Look at your own pieces, and determine (1) what do they attack? and (2) what attacks them? Then, do the same with your oppponent’s pieces: i.e., (1) what do they attack? and (2) what attacks them? Look at the pawn structures. Is the game open or closed? Evaluate the relative occupation of space and mobility. Look for tactical combinations. Use a process of elimination. Can you (1) attack the king?; if not can you (2) win material?; if not can you (3) improve your position?; if not can you (4) disrupt your opponent’s position, etc.? Know your end-game mates. That sort of thing.
If each player has equal time, it seems more fair to me. Just because one is a more efficient thinker than the other, then perhaps he is more adept at chess (or games like chess). I have to wonder almost, knowing what I do about Fischer, whether he introduced his clock as something of a joke. There were few, if any, more efficient thinkers than he. I cannot recall any game that he lost on time (though there doubtless were one or two here and there — likely games of little consequence.)
I don’t know if I ever told you this story, but at one point, in the early to mid 80s, there were some of us from our state chess association (I was an officer) who led a drive to get Fischer to return to active play. I believe it was Steve Doyle who was USCF president at the time. And so, we were at a meeting in Florida, when Doyle agreed, after much resistance, to send Fischer a letter in care of Claudia Mokarow, his matron and gateway. Basically, the USCF offered an official apology for not giving Fischer the support he needed in the lead-up to the Karpov match, a generous stipend for participating in candidates matches, official recognition as “The Undefeated World Chess Champion”, even health insurance and other ameneites, like USCF supported and subsidized activities of Fischer’s choice, whether it be tutoring grandmasters or playing (without any fee, of course) in prestigious US tournaments.
The response? A post card from Claudia, saying that Fischer wanted $10,000 to open the letter. Doyle balked angrily, declaring that he was not going to shove that much money down a hole just to see what happened. Despite how much we begged and pleaded, he took the matter personally. And so, for the sake of a mere pittance of money, Doyle’s tantrum assured the loss of countless beautiful games and the return of possibly the greatest player in history. It was simply astounding to us that Doyle would be so fucking short-sighted.
And so, that’s why I say that, knowing what I do of Fischer, I wouldn’t be at all suprised if he launched the idea as a kind of joke. The fact that FIDE has adopted his clock is ironic to the extreme, given our experience.
My argument boils down to this: a player having the proper skills doesn’t need more time; and a player lacking the proper skills won’t really benefit from having more time. Chess is NOT just about moving the pieces around. It is about thinking in a manner that is efficient and precise. The movement of the pieces is merely the end result of that thought process.
I do realize that any time control is arbitrary, whether it’s 30 moves in 60 minutes or 40 moves in 90 minutes, or whatever. But whatever it is, it is the same for both players. All that remains to be seen, once play begins, is which is the more insightful thinker within the context of the game. You must admit that it worked out for many years just fine, yielding some of the most beautiful games imaginable. Now, maybe the new rules do the same thing. But then, why change? Why trade something you have with someone else when they are of equal value? You would trade only when you believe that what he has is worth more than what you have, AND he believes that what you have is worth more than what he has.
None of your arguments have demonstrated any improvement over classical time limits, other than adding time for more thinking. But if the thoughts are just babble to start with, all you’re giving people is five more seconds to babble, and waste everyone’s time.
Even if the game is drawn? Even if the pawns are locked and no one can make a breakthrough without losing? And all that’s left is to shuffle the king to the left, then the right, then the left…
You’re saying that I should lose on time because my hands aren’t fast enough? Why should I? The game has been solved. I know what the moves are. I know what needs to happen. There’s no mystery, no thinking left. We both know the game is over. With a delay, we call it a draw. Without a clock, we call it a draw. Two computers would have to call it a draw (they move instantaneously). Without a delay, you, a human, possess the ability to win simply by making me move my hand more times.
That’s not chess. Chess is not physical. Hand speed should never factor into a win or loss.
And you understand that you don’t get more time, right? It’s just a delay on when the clock starts. If your clock reads 2:32 and you move in 2 seconds, your clock doesn’t say 2:35. It still reads 2:32.
Your favored system, it seems, is to add time at move 40. Why do you think that rule exists? It’s because the players recognize the need to have longer time controls for longer games. The only reason it’s set up that way is so there’s only one easy adjustment to an analog clock. Now how can you support that rationale but not one that lengthens the clock on a per-move basis via an automatic digital adjustment?
Yes. Even if the game is drawn. You and I almost simulposted. My argument appears above. The player who is in time trouble in a drawn game was the less efficient thinker. He deserves to lose.
@ Chessic Sense
Missed this, sorry:
Actually, it depends on whether it’s the Fischer clock or the Bronstein clock, doesn’t it? And no, I did not understand that (which is why I launched this thread.) But if your clock reads 2:32 and you move in 2 seconds, why shouldn’t it read 2:30?