Hi,
I was running a tournament for my students here at school (Non-USCF), but came across a situation where two players discovered they started the game with an incorrect initial setup (king and queen swapped), but had completed more than 10 moves in the game. Can a person still castle?
Cody Pemberton
It depends. Under US Chess regular rules, 11F doesn’t support castling. Since it is not rated, the rules may be different.
Alex Relyea
Under USCF rules, the game shall continue. (11F Incorrect initial position.)
Based on reading the above, I’m uncertain why you would write “…11F doesn’t support castling.” – or what such a phrase means. Are you saying that you think castling is impossible if the initial position was incorrect?
8A2. Castling. Castling is a move of the king and either rook, counting as a single move and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares toward either rook on the same rank; then, that rook is transferred over the king to the square adjacent to the king on the same rank. See also 8C1, Castling; 9C, Castling; 10I1, King touched first, or king and rook simultaneously; and 10I2, Rook touched first
.
8A3. Castling permanently illegal. Castling is illegal for the remainder of the game for a player:
a. If that player’s king has already moved, or b. With a rook of that player that has already moved.
8A4. Castling temporarily illegal. Castling is not presently possible if:
a. An opponent’s piece attacks the king’s original square (12A, 12B), any square which the king must cross over (12E), or the square the king is to occupy (12E), or
b. There is any piece between the king and the rook with which it “is to castle.”
TD TIP: In other words: (1) the squares between the king and rook have to be empty; (2) the king cannot be in check, and (3) the king cannot move through or into check.
I see nothing in 11F, 8A2 or 8A3 that would imply that a person cannot castle if the initial position of the King and Queen were reversed and not caught before move 10 and corrected.
That was my first impression, since it doesn’t violate those rules. It may be something that needs to be clarified, as what if you have a more uncommon mistake and have a 960 variant type setup by ‘accident’ where maybe the queen and king are shifted to the c-d files or e-f files. There exists the possibility of some kind of advantage in an alternate starting position. In this case, you’d hope high schoolers wouldn’t miss this, but I could see primary grade level students with this situation.
Cody Pemberton
Are you suggesting that castling is somehow possible if the king and a rook are fewer than two squares apart and, if so, how is castling to be done?
Alex Relyea
I don’t see anything that would prevent castling in your original question where the king and queen were reversed to begin the game, say with the White King on d1 and Queen on e1. However, if you want to talk about a true Fischer Random position where the king and rook are fewer than two squares apart then it’s a different matter. To begin the castling process the king moves two squares toward the rook it is going to castle with. If you don’t have two open squares between those two pieces then I would rule castling illegal in that case.
I think we’re getting into some very hypothetical and highly unlikely possibilities here, though. While it’s not all that uncommon to find people who have the king and queen starting on each other’s squares, in more than 25 years of directing I have never seen a game other than in Fischer Random where those two pieces did not start on the d and e files. That is true even in beginner or scholastic events. I don’t think it’s something that you need to spend a lot of time worrying about.
Are you suggesting that the King and Rook can be fewer than two squares apart if the King and Queen were reversed?
The definition of castling includes that the King moves two squares toward the Rook. That appears to eliminate what you suggest.
FWIW, this subject was discussed at length in the flowing post:
Dave Hater
The above bolded quote was NOT mine.
This pretty much says it! The USCF rulebook doesn’t specifically address the question of whether castling is allowed when the king and queen were reversed at the beginning of the game, but since there is nothing in Rule 8A3 indicating that it is one of the circumstances in which castling is illegal and since there is nothing in the definition of castling in Rule 8A2 that could not be applied to this situation, it makes the most sense to allow it.
Bob
I wonder if any Special Referees who read here would reverse a TD who ruled either way.
Alex Relyea
On the contrary, let’s worry about it. It’s fun! Let’s invent some new rules.
If the king and rook are only two squares from each other – i.e. with only one square between – then the king, in moving two squares toward the rook, would land on the square the rook was on. The rook would then move in the opposite direction, until it reached the square just before the king’s new square.
Example 1: K on e1, R on g1. K would move right to g1. Then R would move left, g1-f1-e1-d1-c1-b1-a1 and wrap around to h1.
Example 2. K on f1, R on h1. K would move right to h1. Then R would move left, h1-g1-f1-e1-d1-c1-b1-a1, stopping just short of landing on the K.
If the king and rook are on adjacent squares, then the king would move two squares toward the rook, thus jumping over the rook. The rook would then move in the opposite direction, until it reached the square just before the king’s new square.
Example 3: K on e1, R on f1. K would move right to g1. Then R would move left, f1-e1-d1-c1-b1-a1 and wrap around to h1.
Example 4: K on g1, R on h1. K would move right to h1 and then wrap around to a1. Then R would move left, h1-g1-f1-e1-d1-c1-b1, stopping just short of landing on the K on a1.
Anybody for an ADM?
Bill Smythe
The return of free castling.
Thanks for that link… even they didn’t come to an answer there. I like some of the logic though of the FIDE vs USCF vs Quick vs Blitz rules discussion.
Hm … I guess that’s me. 
The US Chess Official Rules of Chess rule 8A and its subrules, along with rule 11 and its subrules, are silent on the issue of whether castling is legal if the game starts with the king and queen reversed and the situation is not corrected within the first ten moves. (This is another example of what I describe as the rule book’s tendency to use “so many words to say so little.”) As this is so, we need to look elsewhere for guidance. It is worth noting that the blitz rules do explicitly state that castling is allowed in this situation. In the absence of any other guidance, I would argue that the safest course of action would be to allow castling. I cannot see any immediate reason why blitz and regular chess would be treated differently under these circumstances.
I suppose it could be argued that, if both sides have their kings and queens reversed, then castling should be legal, since the game (mathematically) is identical to the game with all royalty properly located, but if only one king and queen are reversed, then (maybe) either player should be able to reverse them back to their correct positions, even after 10 moves, and play should continue from there.
Or, not.
Bill Smythe
Perhaps, in this case, we could apply The chess960 rules which state that castling is possible even when the King and Rook are not two squares apart.
Getting serious for just a moment (although I’m not sure this topic is worth getting serious about), it would seem that any rule change should at least permit the most obvious, and most often used, practical solution, if the players agree – namely, simply reset the incorrectly placed king and queen to their correct squares and resume the game from there.
Usually, if the king and queen are reversed, one of the players will notice within 3 or 4 moves. For example, it’s entirely possible for a game to begin 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3. Nc3 and then somebody will see that black’s royalty is reversed. Most likely, the players will agree to simply reset the king and queen and continue the game.
The same could be true with other common mistakes, such as reversing the bishop and knight, etc.
Bill Smythe