8A2. Castling
Castling is a move of the King and either Rook, counting as a single move and executed as follows: the King is tansferred 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 King on the same rank.
11 F. Incorrect Initial Position.
If, before the completion of Black’s 10th move, it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, or that the game began with the colors reversed, then the game shall be annulled and a new game played.
If the error is discovered after the completion of Black’s 10th move, the game shall continue.
Time control: 40/2, SD/1. Black started the game with the Queen and King reversed. Black played 10… O-O/q (short castle Queenside). White played 11. 0-O.
Then Black made another move. It’s White’s move but Black now notices something is wrong on the board.
Is Black allowed to continue with his King on b8 and his Queen Rook on c8?
Is Black instead required to go back to move 10… and play another move?
Since neither player noticed until after both castling moves were made and it was after the completion of black’s 10th move, the game shall continue as is.
As a general rule: if the initial board setup is wrong (and switching king and queen is common, especially with younger children), as long as a move (like castling) doesn’t violate a principle, then the move is allowed.
In this case, the principle being: Can the king move over 2 squares and the rook be moved to the other side of the king? The answer is yes.
I"ll presume that the rooks will always be placed properly on 4 corners of the board. Even a rank beginner that just learned chess a few minutes ago can figure that out.
Been years since I played OTB rated chess, so not sure what the rules are regarding an illegal move. I know in blitz, if the opponent doesn’t immediatly point out the error, then the error stands as is. Of course, in blitz chess, if you move your king into check, then your opponent can take the king and win the game. In other words, in blitz chess, its not illegal to move your king into check… although that usually means your opponent wins immediatly.
Not sure of the USCF’s exact rules on blitz chess though. The rules I mention predated the USCF having G/5 time controls.
King on c8 Queen Rook on d8. With this outcome neither player would have grounds to complain since the apparent intent was to castle Queenside.
My answer is somewhat biased by how castling is done in at least one of the variants similar to Fischer Random. In the initial position the rooks are always on opposite sides of the King. Queenside castling is done by moving the king to c8 and the Rook to d8, even if the King began on b8 or c8.
by the way the rules are written I would say if the King started on the Queen’s square, and he castled Queen side (with his king starting on the queen’s square) Then the pieces need to remain where they are at Kb8 and Rc8.
The rules say that you don’t correct it after move 10, which we are there. The rules also state that a castle is the king moving two spaces towards the rook (King starting at d8 moves to b8 which is two spaces towards the rook).
If that is not the intention of the rules, they need to be rewritten because that is what they say. (o:
So …
Yes, he has to continue like that.
No, his move was perfectly legal considering the incorrect setup is not reversible at this point.
I agree with the thinking that says the game now goes forward. Perhaps the Rules Committee needs to fiddle with these rules a bit to address this? The real challenge is how do they fix it? At what point does the line get drawn to not go back to fix the position? 10 moves? 20 moves? 30 moves? Or do they always fix the position when O-O and O-O-O are involved? Now what if checkmate gets thrown into the mix and one of the player’s claims that the rules say the game is over despite the K and Q misplacement and the goofy O-O or O-O-O?
Most rules paradoxical situations are pretty rare in real live; however, this one has a good chance of happening more often at a scholastic event. So perhaps the Scholastic Committee can do what they do best; i.e., make up their own rules regarding this kind of stuff.
FIDE says the game would be annulled and started over with the correct position. With the short time between rounds we generally have with tournaments in the US, starting the game over really isn’t an option. Allowing the players to have 10 moves to notice that the initial position was incorrect is adequate.
The player who’s pieces were incorrectly placed should bare the consequences of the action. In the current situation, Black should not gain the potential advantage with placement of his King on b8 after Queenside castling.
It could get even sticker if, for example, the goofy O-O(-O?) occurred on move 7, then one of the players noticed it at move 13. Would you go back to move 7, because it’s fewer than 10 moves back, and then go back to the beginning, because then that, too, is fewer than 10 moves back?
I’m not entirely sure I understand where the ambiguity is in the original question. Black’s 10th move (“castling short”, O-O) was executed completely in conformance with rule 8A2: “… the king is transferred 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.” (I realize that when I write “completely,” I am assuming that Black first picked up the king from d8 and placed it on b8, then picked up the rook on a8 with the same hand and placed it on c8. I’m also assuming that the king was not in check, that c8 was not attacked by a white piece, and that neither the king nor the rook on a8 had moved previously.)
In other words, I believe that Black’s 10th move was legal (in conformance with the rules) given that the original setup of the pieces was incorrect. Admittedly, it looks “weird.” But suppose the board had been set up with the knights and bishops swapped and all the other pieces in their correct place. Black’s move Ng6 would look “weird” as well, but that move of the knight from f8 to g6 would conform completely with rule 8E.
Based on my interpretation and White having completed his 11th move, I would rule that the game continues. Similarly, in Bill Smythe’s hypothetical, I would rule that Black’s seventh move was not illegal, since it fully conforms with rule 8A2. After White’s 13th move, it is too late to do anything about the original incorrect setup.
Shouldn’t one consider
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 …
In the described position the king has moved, illegally yes but moved never the less. The proof being that it isn’t on its’ initial square as defined in the rule book.
So castling from this position should simply not be an option.
Maybe the simple solution here is to change the word original in the castling rule to initial legal square. Or simply original legal square. Or one could simply realize that original is used in that context with the current ruling.
I disagree that we need to re-define the rules for castling.
Nobody intentionally sets up the pieces wrong, and both players should be double checking the board at the start of the game to make sure the board is set up correctly.
If the king and queen are swapped, and the error is not corrected before the 10th move, then castling is to be allowed: king castles short on the normally long castle direction, and castles long in the normally short castle direction. This is true regardless of when the castle was made (pre or post 10th move), if neither player notices the error in the initial position after the completion of black’s 10th move.
Edit: if the king and queen are swapped, then the king is still on “its” initial position, just in a different initial location than the usual square.
I’d like to take this opportunity to mention that no rulebook can cover every possible contigiancy… thats why we have rules to help cover those situations in which a specific rule can’t cover.
In this case, the rule is: what happens if the board is set up incorrectly?
The answer is: if black has not completed his 10th move, then restart the game. Otherwise the game shall continue as is.
The second rule is: Is castling allowed if the king and queen are swapped?
The answer is: read the rules concerning castling.
Has the king moved? NO
Has the rook moved? NO
Is the king castling while in check, into check, or through check? NO
The king shall be moved two squares toward the rook and the rook placed on the opposite side of the king.
The rule book clearly defines e1 and e8 as the initial positions of the Kings.
So when they start out on the wrong initial squares they have been moved their illegally before the start of the game. So if they have been moved then Castling shouldn’t be an option.
What happens when a Knight and Bishop have been switched and it isn’t noticed until after 10 moves. Does one side play with two bishops of the same color?
Yes, they would play with two bishops of the same color.
Of the various possibilities of incorrect initial positions, the most common are King and Queen switched, and Bishop and Knight switched. The 10 move limitation should have taken both of these into account.
Are two Bishops on the same color mating material with regard to 14E Insufficient material to win on time?
They don’t even qualify as mating material under 14D, let alone 14E.
Back to the original question (sort of). What if the king were originally misplaced on c1, rather than d1 or e1. Would you then castle by moving Kc1-e1 and Rh1-d1? And how would you castle queenside?
What if the king were originally misplaced on e2 (with the pawn misplaced on e1)?
And now the most important question of all: Is this discussion even worth having?
I assume you actually meant to write “Kc1-e1” (the king moves two squares along the rank toward the rook on h1, and then the rook occupies the square the king crossed). Yes, I believe that conforms with rule 8A2 for castling. I believe queenside castling is not possible in this case since it is not possible for the king to move two squares toward the rook on a1 (the destination square would be a1 and is not vacant). I would also argue this should be a strong hint that the pieces were initially set up incorrectly.
In this case, the “same rank” provision in rule 8A2 can not be met: “the king is transferred two squares toward either rook on the same rank.” This should serve as an even stronger hint that something is amiss with the initial setup.
I decline (courteously, I hope) to offer an answer to this question.
While I am not saying I would rule that two Bishops on the same color are mating material, both 14D and 14E allow for this argument. 14D3 indicates that if the players have Bishops on opposite color, the game should continue. Thus, if White has a black square Bishop and Black has one or more white square Bishops the game continues. 4E is a specific list that does not mention two Bishops on the same color squares, only the lone Bishop is mentioned.
We have changed the rules for hypothetical discussions before. Robert Tanner once shared with me a little bit about the history of the definition of check. The current rule defines check as “The king is in check when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces.” This reading replaced an earlier reading that stated “The king is in check when the square it occupies is attacked by one or two of the opponent’s pieces.” Apparently it was felt that a change was needed after someone pointed out a position were a king was in double check and by moving a pinned piece would now be under attack by three pieces. I am not sure how many TD’s would rule this wasn’t check, but the editors somehow felt the rule needed changed to allow for the possibility of three pieces attacking the king.
And before the rule read “one or two of the opponent’s pieces” it read “attached by an enemy man”. Apparently someone made the argument that double check was not covered by the original rule and the first change was made.
With the original discussion of this thread, Steve Immitt has pointed out an issue that while not pressing should be considered in the next rendition of the rulebook. There are three or more potential legitimate rulings a TD can make, Kc8, Kb8, or not allowing castling at all. One or two lines of clarification won’t lead to other issues surfacing.
Or, if the king starts on b1, why not move it 2 squares by wrapping it around to h1, then placing (leaving) the rook on a1?
OK then, what if we also have R on h2, P on h1? Corollary question: How do pawns move when they are on the first rank? One, two, or three squares? And if they move one square, can they then move two squares on a subsequent move?
and would not the former say dark square bishop have lost the ability to move on the dark squares since it had been misplaced originally? Just as the King would lose the ability to castle when it is misplaced originally?
