Delay lengthens the game, compared to the same main-time control without the delay.
You must have meant that, with delay, sudden death is no longer as evil as it once was, so adding a delay makes sudden death more palatable, and more likely to be used.
But this is historically inaccurate. Sudden death has been around a lot longer than delay. In fact, delay was introduced to mitigate the ill effects of sudden death.
Bill Smythe
I now understand the rule. All TD’s are running tournies in my
area using 1 sec delay equals one minute less. I know this as I know what the previous T/C’s were.
CCA did handle it correctly, but the new T/C of 110 d10 confuses matters.
I understand that six hour games is a killer, but that’s what you agreed to.
What you’re missing is that, for example, for a G/85;d5 tournament, players using an analog clock play G/85, not G/90.
Alex Relyea
That is the only thing the old rule did - those using analog clocks were given more time. Now they are not. The time control is the same for everyone. As a result those using old analog clocks end up with a bit less time than those with the standard digital, delay/increment capable equipment.
I think his issue is that his local tournament directors used to run G/120 tournaments and are now running G/110;d10 tournaments, so he feels like he has less time compared to a few years ago. But that is the TDs’ decision, not that of the USCF.
OK, this will get me banned from future CCA tournaments.
If the intent of delay is not to shorten the game, then why is it applied as such? Previously, all CCA tourmeys were 120 d5;
now they are all 110 sd 10. The intent is clear.
I love these tournaments, but you know what you are getting
when you enter.
I doubt you’re anywhere near being banned from CCA. 
I agree that the intent is clear. The disconnect seems to be in discerning said intent. Perhaps the following will help.
FIDE Regulation B.1.12 specifically limits players in norm events from playing more than 12 hours a day (using 60 moves as a standard calculation for a single game.)
In a 60-move game, a game at 40/120, SD/60, d5 could last up to 6 hours, 10 minutes (the full time control, plus 5 seconds per half-move). So, at two rounds a day, a player could conceivably play 12 hours, 20 minutes in a day.
In a 60-move game, a game at 40/110, SD/60, d10 could last up to 6 hours (the full time control, plus 10 seconds per half-move). So, at two rounds a day, a player could conceivably play 12 hours in a day.
Obviously, 40/120, SD/60, d5 fails Regulation B.1.12. while 40/110, SD/60, d10 satisfies Regulation B.1.12.
Incidentally, CCA previously used 40/115, SD/60, d5, as it also satisfies Regulation B.1.12. The move to d10 controls was an experiment by CCA that met with generally positive reviews, which is why it has become de rigeur in its events.
Yes - a time control that permits norms to be earned in applicable sections.
Hope this helps.
Except CCA isn’t using 40/110, SD/60, d10. It’s using 40/110, SD/30, d10 for smaller tournaments and 40/120, SD/30, d10 for larger ones. CCA’s norm tournaments are generally 40/120, SD/30, d10.
As I understand it, there was a push to shorten time controls, e.g. an article written by Greg Shahade as well as CCA survey feedback. For a 60 move game, a game played at 40/115, SD/60, d5 is 6 hours long, while 40/110, SD/30, d10 is 5 hours. 40/120, SD/30, d10 is more than 5 hours but less than 6. The delay is 10 seconds instead of 5 to reduce the impact on endgame play of reducing the second time control from SD/60 to SD/30.
What shortens the game is not time delay, which actually lengthens it, but the use of sudden death time controls and the reduction of the amount of time in each period.
That’s completely correct, but I would say “is no longer using”. The shorter second period is the newest wrinkle, I think. I was using the most recent reasonably parallel control used by CCA for ease of illustration to Mr. Bell.
That push still exists. 
For the purposes of Regulation B.1.12, 40/120, SD/30, d10 is 5:20 long per game.
The reduction in reflection time is really happening in the second control (SD/60 to SD/30). Shortening the first time control by 10 minutes, and adding 5 seconds to the delay, MIGHT shorten the first control duration by 5-6 minutes, in practice, and not at all in theory.
If I recall correctly, the change from d5 to d10 happened at the same time as the change from SD/60 to SD/30 in the second period. I don’t remember there being any CCA tournaments which used 40/110, SD/60, d10.
Right, for the CCA controls the time reduction is (mostly) in the second period.
I can’t check older events, as chesstour.com appears to be down at the moment. However, given the amount of time you spend looking at TLAs, I’ll concede the point and chalk this up to my failing memory.
The CCA tournaments that I have seen or played in with a second time control of Game 30, d10 were not FIDE rated. It seems inconsistent for FIDE to allow such a secondary time control of Game 30 in tournaments where norms are possible. Thinking time is shortened to under 2 minutes per move in the given final time control period.
You must not have played in a FIDE-rated CCA tournament recently, in that case, because all CCA tournaments nowadays have SD/30, d10 for their second time period. The 2013 North American Open and the 2014 Chicago Open and World Open were norm tournaments played at 40/120, SD/30, d10 while the 2014 Chicago Class, for example, was 40/110, SD/30, d10 with the Master section being FIDE rated. Many smaller CCA tournaments are no longer FIDE rated.
I find it intriguing to see the different viewpoints on what is good/bad for chess, elo rating system, or whatever in regard to time control used. Personally, my favorite time control as an organizer for scholastic events is G/30, no delay. the reason for this is simple. We
live in a “soccer-mom” culture, like it or not. Think about it–how long
does a U-6, U-8, U-10 soccer game last?? What about other youth
sports?? Now contrast this to a typical 4-5 round scholastic tournament. Typically 4-6 hours depending on various factors for
the tournament. Now here is the question–do we, or do we not wish
to lure these kids into USCF rated chess?? If this is important, then
time controls such as G/30 no delay with only 4 rounds can be the ticket. There is no question but that, yes, endgame skill development
suffers with such time controls. On the other hand, if the kids do not
get into the sport, what difference do any time controls make?? And the last is exactly the point.
In regard to the rating system–let us remember a key point, which
really does need to be made here. The first, foremost, and primary
purpose of the USCF rating system should not be for any type of
exact ratings accuracy, but as a tool, a product, in fact the best product USCF has to offer to bring new people, regardless of age, into
our federation. In short, the primary purpose of the rating system should be that of a marketing tool to entice membership growth. It is the ignorance of this fact that drove the ratings system changes so that it is possible for a player to win a game and yet receive no ratings
points, based on some sort of “accuracy” program. From a marketing
perspective, this is ridiculous. Many players demand to see ratings improvement for perfect scores. It matters not from a marketing standpoint how accurate one or two points may be. That perception =
reality is a key point often forgotten.
Rob Jones
I hope that the Ratings Committee does not share this opinion.
We are losing junior members the President has said so they do not become active adults, for various reasons. While there should be scholastic champs; I believe we should run Rated beginners 0pens U1200 in lieu of scholastic events.
While I realize it uncomfortable for kids to play adults; this would ease them into it.
As far as shortening T/C’s: Players play blitz or poker all night so, I do not see the point of shorter T/C’s
To quote a 70’s cartoon: “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.”
“Rated Beginner Opens U1200 in lieu of scholastic events”? Are they mutually exclusive?
I think the best way for the USCF rating system to serve as a marketing tool is to make it as accurate as possible.
Now that even the most casual players are exposed to ratings of all kinds, mostly online but also OTB, let’s make sure the ones who notice such things, notice that USCF Regular ratings for established players are the most accurate ratings they see. (Let’s leave FIDE Standard ratings above 2000 out of it, for now. Those are not the players Rob and others want to target, I reckon.)
Maybe we need 2xx floors to combat sandbagging. Maybe. Beyond that I prefer to focus on predictive accuracy. Note this comes from a journalist with an English degree who has gently sparred with Ratings wonks who want to prove everything via macro-statistics in posts of newsgroups past.
I don’t believe statistics can prove everything when it comes to humans in general and patzers in particular. I do believe there is good reason that of the many ratings I have acquired over the years the only one I care about even slightly is USCF Regular.
Let’s keep it that way.
I could really care less whether or not the ratings committee shares their opinion. For their job is to ensure that we have a superior product to market. The marketing should be, but unfortunately, has not been
carried out of this product and others by our executive board and
those they appoint to do so. USCF has a great deal to offer, and this
is the best product we have to offer. It is amazing to me that it is not
viewed as a product at all by so many apparently clueless about almost any aspect concerning marketing.
Rob Jones
You’re sending somewhat mixed messages, Rob, so let me try to clarify. I’m hearing that the purpose of the rating system is to be a marketing tool but that to be an effective marketing tool it has to be accurate. Is that a correct interpretation of your position?
Assuming it is, suppose the ratings committee concludes that a particular change would improve accuracy by enough to matter, but it is believed that the change would be unpopular with existing members. Should it be adopted? Suppose we add the additional belief that the change would be effective in bringing in new members. Does that change our answer?
Fortunately, usually these values all move in the same direction. When you have conflicting values, however, one must a decision. That decision is usually based by which value is perceived to be most important and the magnitude of the perceived impact on both values. An unpopular change should not be made for a tiny improvement in accuracy even if accuracy is perceived to be a much higher value.