Please Explain Time Delay

In the USCF with 5 second time delay if both players in say a 30 minute game were to move very quickly for 30 minutes could the game last much longer that 1 hour?  I know time isn't accumulated but isn't that exactly what happens if there is a 5 second delay for each move?

The delay is partly there for you to write down your moves. Also . . .

"Some models of digital clocks add the time delay bonus at the end, after the player has completed his move. These clocks are also legal, but players are advised to familiarize themselves with the various types of clocks to avoid misunderstandings during play.

The time delay is not accumulated and does not increase the player's available time over the course of many moves. Instead, these extra seconds are to compensate for the small amount of time used in physically moving the pieces and punching the clock on each move.

If a player who is low on time really has insufficient losing chances, the player ought to be able to make his or her moves very quickly. The time delay feature will allow that player to complete the game without facing an inevitable time forfeit.

When using a clock that has the time delay feature, a player may no longer make claims under the insufficient losing chances rule. Instead, the game ends normally.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpj7wLY6olA

This video is confusing to me.  I can't wrap my mind between the difference in delay time and Bronstein time.  It seems that if 5 seconds are added everytime someone hits the clock they will lose no time for the first 15 or 20 moves of a well known opening because of quick moves.

I've been out of chess for 18 years and am not used to the new time controls.  I was just trying to make sense of them.  I must retire my old chess clock and have ordered a new one to compensate for the new system.  I like the old simple system much better!  I'm sure it will sink in after I get my new clock and experiment with the delay function. 

increment literally adds time to your clock. Delay just waits before counting down your clock.

The difference between the two clocks is that the first uses normal delay (I don't know its name) which means that your time won't go down until the delay time is spent. (So your time will go down only after 5 seconds if the delay is 5 seconds.)

The Bronstein delay simply adds the time to your clock after you made your move and pressed the clock. But it's a delay, not an increment, so if for example you made your move and pressed the clock using 3 seconds, then only that 3 seconds will be added to your time.

(OP probably knows it already, but if this thread has been bumped I thought I would write it down for anyone that happens to open this thread and don't know the difference)

Indeed, this is one of the big differences between USCF and FIDE play. In FIDE, you're always looking at an increment. In the USCF - you're either always looking at a 5 second delay or at most a 10 second increment. Basically, speed matters more in the USCF where games are shorter in length and you play multiple rated games a day. 

In a say, 90+30 ...clock trouble isn't really "trouble". In a G60/5d, you really have to watch the clock and stay relatively within your opponent's time or else the entire flow of the game changes. If you go down 15 minutes, you're automatically going to have to now formulate an attack plan since your opponent can simply win on time at this point by playing defense. It's an interesting dynamic to say the least. 

For a USCF player, the 30/0 time control is a great training tool since it's right between the quickest and longest swiss style rated games you'll play and it has no increment so you're left having to manage the clock like you will have to OTB. 

interesting stuff..thnks for the info peeps have a tourni coming up and had no much idea of the time thing was just reading up

realist_al finally made it clear!

I DESPISE these "time delays".  I played tournaments a hundred years ago with analog clocks.  When your time ran out, it ran out.  I recently played my first tournament in 45 years and was shocked because I really didn't understand how the "5-Second delay" worked.  In one round, I outplayed my opponent, had a clear winning advantage and had him down to about 20 seconds left on his clock.  I played loose and sloppy because I just didn't care because I knew he only had 20 seconds to finish the game, which I could never lose in that time period.  He stopped notating (which, as I understand, is one of the reasons for the 5-sec delay) and commenced to rattle off about 10-12 moves within the 5-sec delay, without ever reducing his initial clock of 20-seconds.

I drew because of my own inexperience and naivte, but I can't imagine this was within the rules of chess timing.  What should I have done and what should I do if faced with this in the future??  The delay is intended to facilitate notating, but he STOPPED notating and just played on with a free five seconds every move.  AITA?  What would you have done?

This all started to not let the time spent writing down a move and hitting the clock interfere with the time used to play the game on the board. But now that so many games are short time limit and no writing of moves, there is no point to it. People seem to think they need more time. Why not just add a few minutes to the total for the game? It's not like some crummy player is suddenly going to make brilliant moves if only he got another two seconds after he hits his clock.

I understand and agree with your points. With the old analog clocks, we'd hit the button and then annotate on our opponent's time anyway. You're right...adding a couple of minutes would have been simpler than all this delay stuff. Thanks for your response.

This is exactly why the delay and increment were invented. People played the clock advantage too much. Bobby Fischer was among the first to complain about this and invented the idea of increment to level the field and prevent endgame scrambles. It makes for a better (more fair) competition and better quality chess. Delay is similar but still can still allow for that pressure at the end both are quite interesting strategically. with subtle differences. technically i might agree with you, keep it simple, but people took advantage.

It's certainly not that. Fair means equitable, and rules that affect both players equally are fair by definition. Better quality chess, sure, but not more fair.