Can you imagine, because I can, someone playing a Bishop check, and the opponent switching the king and queen and playing QxB?
Alex Relyea
Or black not noticing that the Ks and Qs are reversed and opting for an old Benoni resulting in d4 c5, d5 b5, Qa5#. With mate from a legal move ending the game, the player with white would be quite perturbed by having the game restarted while the player with black would be quite perturbed at getting mated in an illegal position (okay, technically the position could be reached legally with a lot of K & Q shuffling). Also, a simple swap of the Ks & Qs couldn’t be done after Qa5.
It makes sense to me that the rules should allow simply switching the pieces if both players agree, since it would provide the most equitable solution for the case in which both players assumed (incorrectly) that the queens were both on the d file and had been making their moves based on that assumption.
The potential for unfairness arises when one player has been basing his moves on where the pieces actually are, while the other has been basing his moves on where the pieces were supposed to be. One way this can occur is if the board was positioned backwards, with the 1st rank on black’s side and the 8th rank on white’s side, and one player remembered where to place the queen based on the rule “the queen goes on her own color” while the other remembered it as “the queen goes on the d file.” But presumably the player who was basing his moves on the actual positions of the pieces wouldn’t agree to just having them switched in the middle of the game in this case.
Bob
(This time I bolded the main point, so nobody can miss it.)
Obviously, simply resetting the king and queen should not be acceptable if either player objects, or if the arbiter has good reason to believe one of the players was confused or would object.
Bill Smythe
I assume that, 95% of the time (maybe more), one of the players notices before very many moves are made, the K and Q get switched and life goes on without a TD even knowing about it. I’m not sure it’s necessary to muck up the rule book with that.
I fully agree.
That percentage would be lower for the weaker scholastic sections, but that would also be the group that would still blithely castle by either moving the king two squares or moving the king to the c or g file without ever alerting a TD.
Last Saturday I was called over for a move five touch move ruling because the white queen moved diagonally from its starting square and was deliberately touched against he black pawn on a5. I made two rulings. First, that was a legitimate touch move claim and normally the capture would be required. Second, the white king and queen had not started on the correct squares and it was inside the first ten moves so the game had to be restarted with the correct setup. The player of black was a bit perturbed to have a restart done after thinking she was going to win a queen, but was a bit gratified to have her understanding of touch move confirmed as being correct.
I prefer the FIDE rule for K/Q reversal (and any illegal starting position): the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall be played (FLC 7.2).
Chess is played from a standard initial position. A game that does not use this standard initial position is not actually chess.
Sometimes the incorrect starting position is caused by the players carelessly setting up the pieces on a board that has a dark square in the lower right hand corner. If the board has no letters or numbers on it, this can happen in the rush to set up. This problem does not only afflict scholastic players. Usually they catch it pretty fast, but not always.
The FIDE rule certainly is simpler than the US Chess rule. One problem with the US Chess rule can be figuring out if 10 moves have been played. Try asking a couple of young beginners who are not keeping score if 10 moves have been played or not. The most likely answer to any question you ask is going to be “I dunno.”
Surely Mr. Magar has seen many boards set up so that the White king is on the square labeled “d8”. I remember one tournament where the board was set up as described above. When the players realized, they rotated it 180 degrees.
Alex Relyea
Unfortunately, this changes in 2018.
I assume you are talking about the FIDE rule. What will the new FIDE rule be?
Bill Smythe
It will mostly match the US Chess rule, but there is no reduction of the window in which to claim an illegal move down to two moves in time pressure.
I also apologize that I was wrong about the effective date of the change. It is July 1, 2017, not 2018.
Here is a draft with markup showing changes of the Laws of Chess presented for approval at the 2016 congress. Articles 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 deal with illegal moves.
Hmm. At first I was shocked to see that rule 9.7 had apparently been deleted, but then I found that it was just a duplicate of rule 5.2.2. Whew! That’s the rule that says that a dead position (a position in which there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to either player checkmating the other) is an automatic and immediate draw.
Bill Smythe
I just noticed another interesting change.
A couple of years ago, FIDE added a rule allowing an arbiter to declare a draw after the 5th occurrence of a position. (This is in addition to the standard rule allowing a player to claim a draw after the 3rd occurrence.) However, in the case of a 5th occurrence called by the arbiter, the occurrences had to be on consecutive move-quads (for example, they could be after black’s 30th, 32nd, 34th, 36th, and 38th moves).
The latest draft removes the requirement that the 5 occurrences be consecutive, making the rule more closely resemble the 3-occurrence version in effect when the claim is made by one of the players.
Interesting.
Bill Smythe
I like this. There are several common situations I can think of where a series of checks repeats, but the positions doesn’t repeat consecutively. I think US Chess should also adopt this change.
Matt Phelps
While I understand Mr. Phelps’s reasoning, I’m not entirely sure I agree that the change is good. I would guess that situations in which this rule applies would typically arise in time pressure situations, and if there is not an increment of at least thirty seconds, there are likely to be incomplete scoresheets. Verifying the five occurrences when they are not immediately obvious to an observer may be challenging. Note that the FIDE rule uses the language “the game is drawn,” not “the arbiter may declare the game drawn.” Like checkmate and stalemate, this rule (and the 75-move rule) cause an immediate end to the game regardless of the status of flags, player’s claims, or arbiter actions.
I agree with Mr. Ballou. It is very difficult even for a dedicated arbiter to remember every position that has occurred. When the arbiter is watching multiple games, it must be impossible. With a short delay instead of a reasonable increment it becomes even more difficult. Please recall that the only way this situation occurs is when both players want to keep playing or perhaps do not understand the possibility of a draw.
Alex Relyea
I only envision this happening in very obvious situations. E.g. a rook checking a king on a couple, or several ranks but the series obviously repeating. If it’s not obvious, or too challenging to a TD, then clearly he/she can’t call it. (The US Chess rules could perhaps improve the wording of the FIDE rule, though see below:)
This is designed to keep a game from running indefinitely if the players are too pig-headed (or ignorant) to agree to a draw.
Also, if we don’t adopt this change, we diverge from FIDE rules even more. We added the 75-move/5 repetition rule to mirror FIDE, and now you want to create another difference between the two?
It’s not a big change, really. The chances of it happening are very slim, and likely to be at the very end of a round. And it does make sense.
-Matt