Most of the time controls here in the Philippines doesn't revolve on increments anymore instead it's with delay. Is there a possibility that lichess would consider coding delay function in addition to the good old increment?
I agree that a delay would be a good function. I don't like having more time at the end of the game than I started with.
I've never played with delay does the clock go down continuously after the first delay is exceeded or is the delay continued on each move?
@jonesmh true. some other players really invest there time and play bullet chess to gain time on their clocks
@Kanaan92 the latter mate.
@Kanaan92
In delay, a 15 15 time control doesn't add 15 seconds every time I move a piece.
When it's my turn, the clock is stopped for 15 seconds before starting to count down my time.
So it's impossible to ever gain time.
Other than that, it's very comparable to increment.
@chessenthusiasts1990
I do not understand the need for this change.
The world's top seemed to be somewhat indifferent when it first rolled out.
I would even be indifferent myself, but it was thoroughly irritating trying to watch GK get used to the setup in the tournament a few months ago.
Look, some people think into a position as deep as they can and resolve all variations before they make a decision that can't be undone.
GK is obviously at least somewhat on this level.
Why do I say that? I say that because he was ROUTINELY better against Fabi, substantively better, in many of the games in their matchup.
GK had NO BUSINESS tossing Fabi around the chess board the way that he was. Not even a little bit. I get a strong sense that the delay format was what won Fabi so many of those games that GK just dominated him in through the opening/middle phases.
I'm not an expert, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that GK would agree with me that he is used to investing his time and energy into lining up the position where all of his ducks are in a row, and then banging out moves, one after another, as he plays out the variations that he's looked into, and while his opponent is made to struggle and find their way through GK's minefield.
So at this point he would normally be used to the time returning and being added back to his clock, where his hard work and investment can pay off not only on the board position with an advantageous evaluation, but also in terms of a large percentage of that time being returned to his clock, where he would re-invest it into his next salvo, while his opponent's clock takes a beating.
Instead, this delay format robs people like GK of the ability to play in this kind of a way, and in my view, it does absolutely nothing to add to the game.
The only benefit that I heard was from the announcers who seemed to be happy about how it chiseled off 1-2 hours of what would otherwise be a 5-6-7 hour affair.
I can appreciate this argument because we're talking about standard time controls where 3-4-5 hours should be more than enough for the players.
But in a blitz/rapid setting, the delay function rips off a crucial part of the game, in specific, it targets players who play with a certain style.
I say just throw delay on the bonfire where it belongs; but at the barest minimum, at least have the decency to only use it in standard time controls if it's a 'must'.
All of that said, I only heard from the players when it was first introduced a while ago.
If everyone has decided that "delay is where it's at for all time controls" then I'd have to respect that.
But when I think about the style that GK plays with, it seems like a shame that a new time format would affect him where it doesn't affect others; meanwhile, the increment format is perfectly acceptable and seems to accommodate one-and-all, regardless of style.
In delay, a 15 15 time control doesn't add 15 seconds every time I move a piece.
When it's my turn, the clock is stopped for 15 seconds before starting to count down my time.
So it's impossible to ever gain time.
Other than that, it's very comparable to increment.
@chessenthusiasts1990
I do not understand the need for this change.
The world's top seemed to be somewhat indifferent when it first rolled out.
I would even be indifferent myself, but it was thoroughly irritating trying to watch GK get used to the setup in the tournament a few months ago.
Look, some people think into a position as deep as they can and resolve all variations before they make a decision that can't be undone.
GK is obviously at least somewhat on this level.
Why do I say that? I say that because he was ROUTINELY better against Fabi, substantively better, in many of the games in their matchup.
GK had NO BUSINESS tossing Fabi around the chess board the way that he was. Not even a little bit. I get a strong sense that the delay format was what won Fabi so many of those games that GK just dominated him in through the opening/middle phases.
I'm not an expert, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that GK would agree with me that he is used to investing his time and energy into lining up the position where all of his ducks are in a row, and then banging out moves, one after another, as he plays out the variations that he's looked into, and while his opponent is made to struggle and find their way through GK's minefield.
So at this point he would normally be used to the time returning and being added back to his clock, where his hard work and investment can pay off not only on the board position with an advantageous evaluation, but also in terms of a large percentage of that time being returned to his clock, where he would re-invest it into his next salvo, while his opponent's clock takes a beating.
Instead, this delay format robs people like GK of the ability to play in this kind of a way, and in my view, it does absolutely nothing to add to the game.
The only benefit that I heard was from the announcers who seemed to be happy about how it chiseled off 1-2 hours of what would otherwise be a 5-6-7 hour affair.
I can appreciate this argument because we're talking about standard time controls where 3-4-5 hours should be more than enough for the players.
But in a blitz/rapid setting, the delay function rips off a crucial part of the game, in specific, it targets players who play with a certain style.
I say just throw delay on the bonfire where it belongs; but at the barest minimum, at least have the decency to only use it in standard time controls if it's a 'must'.
All of that said, I only heard from the players when it was first introduced a while ago.
If everyone has decided that "delay is where it's at for all time controls" then I'd have to respect that.
But when I think about the style that GK plays with, it seems like a shame that a new time format would affect him where it doesn't affect others; meanwhile, the increment format is perfectly acceptable and seems to accommodate one-and-all, regardless of style.
@Kanaan92
The way I've seen Bronstein Delay function is you get your delay with every move (the delay is also added for your starting move). It's just that you don't accumulate time through swift play as with Fischer Increment. So a 5m game with 3s delay you would start with 5:03 on the clock. Provided you never took more than 3 seconds to move your clock would never tick down.
Most clocks I've seen will count down and then add the delay back or return to the previous remaining time if a move was made faster than the delay. It's basically just adding the used amount of delay back on (which is probably pretty easy programmatically to make an electronic chess clock do). So if you took 10 seconds for the first move of a 5/3 game the clock would count down to 4m53s then jump to 4m56s (+3 delay) when the clock is hit. If your next move only takes 2 seconds the clock will have counted down to 4m54s but then return to 4m56s when hit (+2 bringing the total delay back to 3).
I don't play much delay but I suppose it could take away the advantage a booked up player might have with Fischer Increment by keeping them from banking time with fast moves early on so they can think longer later.
The way I've seen Bronstein Delay function is you get your delay with every move (the delay is also added for your starting move). It's just that you don't accumulate time through swift play as with Fischer Increment. So a 5m game with 3s delay you would start with 5:03 on the clock. Provided you never took more than 3 seconds to move your clock would never tick down.
Most clocks I've seen will count down and then add the delay back or return to the previous remaining time if a move was made faster than the delay. It's basically just adding the used amount of delay back on (which is probably pretty easy programmatically to make an electronic chess clock do). So if you took 10 seconds for the first move of a 5/3 game the clock would count down to 4m53s then jump to 4m56s (+3 delay) when the clock is hit. If your next move only takes 2 seconds the clock will have counted down to 4m54s but then return to 4m56s when hit (+2 bringing the total delay back to 3).
I don't play much delay but I suppose it could take away the advantage a booked up player might have with Fischer Increment by keeping them from banking time with fast moves early on so they can think longer later.
Thank you @lokomis I understand now. Cool. The one time control on lichess that a cannot stand is the 15+15 for classical in the quick match menu. I would rather play 15m with 15s delay than the +15 but every other site I've played on the quick match for classical is 30.0 which is perfect imo for online chess. But latley I've only been playing classical with friends. Trying to catch up on rapid and blitz. My bullet will be hopless for as long as I'm stuck on mobile.
Edit: thanks @chessenthusiasts1990 Idk why I didn't get your ping.
Edit: thanks @chessenthusiasts1990 Idk why I didn't get your ping.
@Kanaan92 no prob buddy. @lokomis @Onyx_Chess the main reason why I wan't delay so badly apart from the good old increment is for tournament purposes. I am just rated 1884 and discouraged to join major tournaments with delay time controls for the very reason that I can't practice with that exact time. Playing on the club won't benefit me since they just want to play bullet (2+0 or 2+1) or blitz (5+0 or 3+0) or offer handicap with let's just say 5 min vs 3 min. Lichess really help me build my opening rep and I am really thankful. But of course I would love if in the future they can offer a delay function. Thanks!
Does any other of the large chess servers offer delay? Even the US company chessdotcom hasn't.
In your case i would just setup the same time with increment than with delay. Maybe just a bit shorter. And then try to use all the time and if needed keeping the clock near zero seconds in the end. If you are faster and the time goes up and up wait until the last second to move. So you'll ever keep the time low and play like it's a delay.
Is the time control in your otb tournaments something like 60 minutes and 5 secs delay? I guess the right use of the 60 minutes is a much bigger issue than handling the 5 secs delay.
In your case i would just setup the same time with increment than with delay. Maybe just a bit shorter. And then try to use all the time and if needed keeping the clock near zero seconds in the end. If you are faster and the time goes up and up wait until the last second to move. So you'll ever keep the time low and play like it's a delay.
Is the time control in your otb tournaments something like 60 minutes and 5 secs delay? I guess the right use of the 60 minutes is a much bigger issue than handling the 5 secs delay.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.