As long as the bishop moved only in the way a bishop can normally move, it will remain on the light squares.
Castling is a normal move available to a king that has not yet moved, so a king can castle even if originally misplaced prior to the start of the game. Arguing otherwise brings in the possibility that the organizer supplies the board and set, two players set up the board (both sides incorrectly putting king on its color) after finishing their round one game, and the round two players are then penalizing for making king moves without either player in the game having ever touched a king. It is more likely to avoid confusion if the rules state that the setup of the board is done prior to game starting (possibly by people other than the players) and that no moves can be made until the first move of the game is actually made. On the other hand, I guess correcting misplaced pieces prior to move one could be seen as a move and thus the moved king would be unable to castle during the game.
I prefer the rule as it is written, and it allows castling.
I would think that it is the responsibility of the player to have his or her pieces set up correctly. So if they get penalized by losing the right to castle instead of rewarded with the ability to castle in a way that would not normally be proper(King starting from the wrong position) then the players will shortly learn to check the startup positions before playing.
Otherwise one is left open with some scholastic player who isn’t keeping score making the claim that they didn’t move their king, it got bumped to that square and now they should still be able to castle.
The debate here isn’t that I’m saying the rule as written should be changed but that there is argument that the rule as written taken in conjunction with the initial position rule and the spirit of the game disallows castling in this case.
This scenario was not a hypothetical creation, it did occur in a tournament I was directing this weekend. While not that common, my experience is that reversing the King and Queen occurs more often than other types of incorrect starting positions. I’m not sure I can recall a game where the Bishop and Knight were both reversed, or the Pawns started out on the first rank, etc. Thus I don’t think the “slippery slope” argument is relevant here. While I do recall having seen previous examples of games where the players reversed the King and Queen, I don’t recall a previous example where the question of the retroactive legality of castling was also involved.
FWIW, there was an old WBCA rule which specifically addressed this situation. It stated that if the starting position of the King and Queen were reversed, then “castling ‘short’ on Queenside or ‘long’ on the Kingside were both legal” (with an exclam added at the end, to boot). My point in bringing this up is not to suggest a relevance for using blitz rules in traditional games, but only that the unique mistake of reversing the Queen and King must have at least occurred often enough before, to warrant being singled out by the old WBCA rules.
Black actually was the one who asked what to do in this situation (White apparently had not yet noticed the irregularity). Because I was not sure that Black’s actions warranted a specific penalty under the rules at that point, I ruled that the game continue with Black’s King on b8.
7A. With the exception of castling (8A2) and promotion of a pawn (8F6), a move is the transfer of a piece from one square to another square that is either vacant or occupied by an opponent’s piece.
The pieces have not been “transferred” to the wrong initial position. They have been set up incorrectly. Also, in an incorrectly set position at least two pieces have been transposed without an alternating move from the other side (6A.) So it’s not a move - at least, I wouldn’t rule that way.
And as I understand the rulebook in your stated position, yes, one side would be playing with two Bishops of the same color. After the 10th move incorrect initial positions stand (11F.)
At any rate, what would be considered fair and logical to both players? Both sides have neglected to notice the incorrect initial position for ten moves. Both sides, therefore, should have to live with the results. But both sides living with the result does not mean the player with the switched pieces loses their castle right - not when the King hasn’t been moved.
What it does speak volumes for is inspecting the array before making the first move - both your pieces and your opponenent’s.
Is it legal to castle if the game started with K&Q reversed?
How should the specific situation raised by Steve be handled.
Let’s analyze #2 first.
If we agree that is it permissible to castle when we started with K&Q reversed, no illegal move has been made so we are on move 11 and the game continues as originally started.
If we agree it is illegal to castle in this situation, an illegal move has been made so we revert to Black’s 10th move. We have not completed 10 moves to we then go back to move one for White with the proper K&Q placement and the clocks with the time as used. This is straight forward under USCF rules - 11A & 11D.
The more difficult question is, is it legal to castle when we started with K&Q reversed? Let’s first consider a non-quick control. This is not covered in USCF rule book (it should be in my opinion) and is moot in FIDE as they have no move limit on correcting an illegal move.
Why do I mention FIDE? As a FIDE federation, we agreed to use FIDE rules. We maintain that we do and our rules are FIDE rules modified for large events where there are a limited number of TDs per players. In my opinion, if our rules are not clear, it would then be proper to see what the Laws of Chess state. If a specific situation is not covered in our rules but is in FIDE’s Laws of Chess, I believe that is the rule to use.
FIDE rules specifically state that in rapid play, where there is a limit on correcting illegal moves and the starting position, castling is illegal. In USCF blitz rules, we take exactly the opposite view. IMHO, we should change this to agree with FIDE’s rapid play rules as we’ve agreed to do as a FIDE federation. I don’t see any logic why this is a problem for a large event. I would prefer that FIDE change their rule to castling is legal but both sets of rules should be consistent.
I believe that both views have valid logic (as stated in previous posts) behind them and it is just a decision on how to handle the situation. I personally tend toward the logical position that the pieces have not moved so castling is legal per the rules as stated. However, as long as our Blitz rules state that castling is legal, I believe the correct ruling under the current USCF rules is that castling is legal (by inference from the only statement in our rules) and the game should have continued as started and with the castling permitted.
This old WBCA rule is now part of the USCF Blitz rules, new as of Jan 2008 and re-modified recently to fix the situation from the US Women’s Championship - Legal move is complete when it leaves the hand, illegal move is complete when the clock is punched. At the Eastern Open Blitz last week, both players called me over to say that White had reversed the King and Queen, proceeded to castle and both players only noticed it when white, intending to play Qd2, noticed it was his K on d2. Position stands in blitz. Rule #3 in uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf
Resolution of the initial question depends on how you view Q-side castling where the K started on the d-file.
IF you view this as illegal, then this illegal move has been detected in time, and you revert to Black’s 10th move. NOW, you notice the improper initial setup JUST IN TIME, and start the game over.
On the other hand, if you take the point of view that ONLY the initial setup was improper, and that castling is allowed, then the castling move stands, and it is now too late to correct the initial position.
I tend towards the latter view. Let the game continue.
