I’ve never used Fischer time or Bronstein time in a game. It’s always simple delay. In Fischer time, you are correct- you can accumulate time. But that’s not used in tournaments.
And the reason it shouldn’t deduct two seconds is, more often than not, I didn’t spend any time thinking about my move. When you moved a piece (say, the only way out of check) and I make my followup, why should I lose time? I spent no time thinking, so I shouldn’t lose any time.
Consider the situation where it’s KQ vs. K. I know how to win. It’s kid’s stuff. You should resign, as you’re hopeless. But if I only have 10 seconds left, can I physically make all the moves required in that time? I have beaten you with my superior chess ability and thinking skills, but if you force me to mate you, I can’t do it even though it’s rote at that point. Do you see why that would be unfair?
Since you asked, I’d like to point out the flaw in the classical time control. It’s that the 40th move is held to be some holy grail. You might have 1:00 to think about your 40th move, but then 1:00:45 to play your 41st. That’s dumb. All moves should be equally important. I see no benefit to having a time crunch in moves 33-40 and then everyone relaxes and thinks deeply about the subsequent moves.
Oh! And here’s something I should note, and this is important. If you have a tourney that’s, say, 80/game, then anyone using a 5-second delay starts out at 75 minutes. Anyone not using a delay (because of an analog clock, or whatever) uses 80. That equals a break-even point at 60 moves. And you do understand that both players play by the same control, right? So there’s no advantage to either side. It’s still equal time, equal fairness.
I sort of understand Liberal’s regret, but I still think ‘time delay’ is a good thing.
My background is in league and tournament chess including international events.
In the old days of (initially) 40 moves in 2 hours, you could see a time scramble where both players had less than a minute for the last 10 moves. This led to a chaotic series of moves (distracting other players), problems reconstructing the game when the flag fell (to see how precisely many moves had been made, since neither player was keeping score) and risked a flag falling early (since clockwork clocks were not always reliable).
If you do insist on a fixed time limit (all moves in 2 hours, say), then you have the problem of one player reaching a completely drawn position, but losing because his opponent keeps playing.
The rules normally allow a player to claim a draw ‘if his opponent is not trying to win’, but then you need an Arbiter handy for each such game.
I remember a GM event with a fast fixed limit where former World Champion Boris Spassky declared the only rule needed was ‘we are all gentlemen’. (And he was right!)
So time delay does lead to better quality chess - and a player who has to think for a long time in the middle game will still come under pressure later on. Time delay only gives you a few extra seconds per move after all.
Finally there are two problems even time delay can’t solve:
If a game goes for 7 hours, you only have 3 choices:
adjudicate it :smack:
adjourn it (but the schedule may not allow for this)
play a fixed time limit finish (when you’re back to having arbiters step in…)
If a tournament is tied and you want a play-off (to award a title/ decide who qualifies for the next stage / distribute prize money), then you’re stuck with not only a fixed time limit, but also avoiding a draw.
Hence the rather alarming Armageddon game.
Okay, guys. Like I said, I’ll um… resign myself to the fact that things must move onward. I’m tutoring a kid right now, and that’s why it was important for me to understand this. Despite my resistance, I really am thankful especially for the input of Frylock, Chessic Sense, and of course glee. Thanks, guys.
ETA: I still suspect, in the back of my mind, that Fischer left FIDE a fart cushion.
I would say that these situations (other than adjournment) occurring would indicate that something other than chess has taken priority. Avoiding the draw especially–draws are a natural result of chess and avoiding them warps the game. Time limits may be practical because you want an end within a certain time, but that means you’ve decided that ending within a certain time is more important than the chess game itself.