Hmm, good point.
Bill Smythe
OR
It does make sense and the increment for the first move is already included in the base time. Such that 3 minute 2 increment is alternatively viewed as 2:58 base plus 2 second increment for move 1. (i.e. - the increment has already been added before the move.)
It is certainly true that G/3 inc/2 in “add-after” mode is exactly equivalent to G/2:58 inc/2 in “add-before” mode. It’s just a matter of how to set the clocks, and what the organizer intended.
Most likely, the organizer didn’t intend anything. He just blindly followed something that looks nice, without really thinking about the details.
The only way to get to the point where anything can be “proved” is to invoke the notion (or perhaps it should be called an arbitrary premise) that the moment of equivalence occurs when move 60 has been completed. In that case each second of increment time becomes equivalent (total-time-wise) to one minute of main time in a 60-move game.
If the time control is G/3 inc/2, and if a player takes exactly 2 seconds for each of his first 59 moves, then under “add-before” his clock will read 3:02 when he presses his clock after move 59, whereas under “add-after” it will read 3:00. This 3:02 or 3:00 (as the case may be) is the amount of time he will have to play his 60th move before his time expires.
In the (60-move equivalent) G/5 inc/0, if the player takes exactly 2 seconds for each move, then after move 59 he will have consumed 118 seconds (2 times 59), which is 1 minute 58 seconds. So his clock will now read 5:00 minus 1:58, which is 3:02.
That’s where “add-before” wins the argument over “add-after”.
One day a physicist and an engineer were enjoying a hot-air balloon ride, when a wind gust blew them off course over Echo Canyon. The physicist yelled out, “WHERE ARE WE??”. After a minute the echo came back, “YOU ARE IN A HOT-AIR BALLOON!!”. The engineer responded, “That must have been a mathematician.” “Why?”, queried the physicist. The engineer responded, “Because the answer was absolutely correct, and utterly useless.”
Bill Smythe
Does that depend upon what the move counter shows? If I were trying to design something to handle increment (properly) in a “user-friendly” fashion, I would have it add before once, and once only, when a clock goes from move 0 to 1.
This is when you start up the clock. So, the move counter is at zero. I don’t set the clocks to use the move counter but I can do an experiment to see if having at some positive number prevents it from adding in the increment.
The following TD Tip has been added to the US Chess rulebook, which makes it clear that for increment time controls, the players get the increment for move one under US Chess rules and gives the recommended procedure for TD’s to use if a game is started without the increment applied for move one.
“TD TIP: Not all digital clocks correctly give the increment for move one when you set increment on the clock. For clocks that don’t, the increment time in seconds should be added manually to the base time, if possible, so each player gets the increment for move one. For example, for G/3;inc2, each player gets 3.02 (three minutes and two seconds) to complete move one. If the clock only gives 3.00 for each player’s first move when the clock is set—with a base time of three minutes and increment of two seconds—then, if possible, two seconds should be added to each player’s base time when setting the clock. If a game is started without the increment applied for move one, it is recommended that the TD not allow the clock to be subsequently adjusted to add the increment for move one. This failure to adjust the clock initially should not be allowed as grounds to contest a later time forfeit claim.“
You’re absolutely right. But the last two sentences amount to saying, “Don’t worry about it if that idea is disregarded or forgotten.”
I’m not a “true believer” of not getting increment on move one. Actually I’m a true believer that increment shouldn’t be used, and delay should. Players who can think faster should not gain a bonus of time over the other player for doing so. Increment effectively does that. Delay fulfills the purposes reducing games to mutually agreed appropriate time levels while preventing games to be solely decided upon a finite amount of time elapsed.
But to the meat of the rationale move one should not get increment, again accepting that I’m not a passionate believer:
(Bear in mind I’m not getting my rulebook out for this and I’ve been away from directing for awhile. If the rules about this have changed, they have.) There is a discontinuity in the rules concerning when and how play must begin and time counts down. While FIDE rules allow for an immediate forfeit if the game is not started precisely, the USCF rules state that a player may be late to board and the procedure is that Black would start White’s clock (or White moves and starts Black’s clock, but that doesn’t enter into this - we’re talking about White here). However, those rules do not cover the circumstance where White and Black are present at the board but White does not make his move immediately. The rules do not state that Black may start White’s clock in this instance. The rules do not state the clock needs to be counting despite White actively considering what White’s first move shall be. Should the clock be started at the round time? Indubitably. But there is no rule that I’m aware of which states that White must start White’s clock at the round start time, and again no general rule authorizing Black to start White’s clock unless White is not present at the board. This creates a situation, rules such as the one requiring players to play in good faith notwithstanding, where White may take an infinite amount of thinking time before making a first move without the clock running. Hopefully White has in fact settled on a first move at the exact moment of the start time, but this is not a given. White already gets, gratis, more time than any increment addition would allow for to consider White’s first move (and any countermoves, of course!) Black never gets any compensation under USCF rules for this egregious allowance of infinite consideration time for White’s first move in the game. We haven’t even begun whether or not White’s natural move one advantage likewise confers an advantage that perhaps uneven increment awarding helps to balance. But for the initial reason if one wants to gets to finely examine the minutiae of whether or not an initial increment can make a significant difference to a game one really needs to have a way for allowing White’s first move time advantage to be likewise accounted for. Or one can just relax and realize that not getting an increment on move one is not a problem that really requires a solution or additional clarification or addition of rules.
When the round starts the White clock may be started by either player regardless of whether both players or only one player is there. There used to be a rule allowing White to start Black’s clock if Black was absent but now only the White clock should be started at the beginning of the game (by either player). To clarify that my announcements always end with “you may start White’s clock” and it doesn’t matter which player does so.
OK, so what?
That is not correct. The game begins by starting white’s clock. It does not matter whether the player with white, the player with black, or the arbiter starts white’s clock.
On a clock like the Chronos, that lacks an explicit “start” button, it is traditional for black to begin the game by pressing his own (black’s) button to start white’s clock. White should not play his first move until this is done. If black does not want to start white’s clock (or if black is absent from the board), white should first press black’s button, then play his (white’s) first move, then press his own (white’s) button.
On a DGT-type clock, with a rocker arm and a dedicated “start” button, both players should first make sure that white’s side of the rocker arm is in the “up” position, then either player may press the “start” button to start white’s clock.
Of course. White can even start thinking about his first move as soon as he sees his name on the pairing sheet, before either player has arrived at the board. That’s just the way life is.
After both players are settled at the board but the clock is not yet started, if black notices that white is staring at the board thinking about his first move, black would be well advised to just start white’s clock then and there.
As long as the game begins by starting white’s clock, nobody is getting cheated out of any time or is getting extra time he’s not entitled to. Or, if the clock fails to add the increment for the first move, both players are getting cheated equally.
Bill Smythe
Just bumping this post up so everyone knows you DO get the increment for move one under US Chess rules!
TD tips are not rules
True, but the TD tip is an editorial comment explaining that when rule 16B2 says the increment is in force starting at move one, that means before move one, not after move one.
Also, since TD tips are not rules, does that means notating is required in quick chess until one of the players is under five minutes? The only place in the rulebook where it states that notating is not required in quick chess is in a TD Tip.
Well, in my 7th ed. rulebook under rule 5C it states, “Sudden-death rules are used in Quick Chess events, except scorekeeping is not required” (p. 12). But taking your point as intended, you are correct. TD TIPS are explanations of the rules from experienced directors and situations where the rules were interpreted. If I understand correctly they are editorial commentary from Tim Just (and he incorporated the wisdom and maybe words of other directors in crafting them). At any rate, they are not the rules. But a wise director would follow what they say (as they are likely the way the rules would be interpreted by higher authorities on appeal), however, they are not the rules themselves. A wiser director would recognize Rule 1A and realize there are always going to be situations undefined by the rules and the sound directives as espoused in both the rules and TD TIPS provide a knowledge base to make judgment calls.
If you’ll look at that passage carefully, you’ll see that it’s part of a TD Tip.
I think that’s the kind of TD Tip that was added when it was realized that something that was always a rule in previous editions, but somehow got omitted as a rule in the 7th edition, badly needed to be added back, so it was added as a TD Tip so that it wouldn’t have to go through the Delegates.
Bill Smythe
The statement that scorekeeping is not required in quick chess should be removed from the second TD Tip after rule 5C and moved to rule 5C itself. (The second TD Tip after rule 5C is badly in need of improving as well but that is another animal entirely).
I won’t argue with that.
Bill Smythe
So it is… I stand corrected.
A logical argument can be made for adding the increment prior to move 1. But, as with many things in life, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD. IMHO, one logical argument for, is outweighed by several practical ones against.
I would suggest that if it’s that important to you, you’d be better off adding one minute to the base time in lieu of helping everyone figure out how to add 30 seconds (or whatever), and making sure they do.
Bill, you sound like me.
Oh, so you recognize a little of yourself in a little of me? 
Bill Smythe