King and Queen reversed

Running Chess Tournaments
1

At my last tournament, I didn’t notice my king and queen were reversed until my opponent pointed it out at move three. I switched them and we proceeded. A friend at a nearby board whispered that the actual rule says we’re supposed to finish the game with the king and queen as is. We didn’t tell the TD.

Can this rule really be the right way of doing things? There was no effect on the game (e.g. no checks up to that point) and we played the opening as if the pieces were set up right. Without the TD’s knowledge, we tacitly agreed that I should switch my king and queen and we should proceed. I certainly didn’t want to play Fischer Random chess. If my opponent wanted to disrupt me and called you as a TD over to the board, is there any TD who would force the game to proceed with the erroneous setup?

Had I been compelled to retain the wrong king and queen placement, would I have forfeited any right to castle?

2

Actually rule 11F says that if it’s caught within the first 10 moves, then you should restart the game. After 10 moves, you would just continue the game as is. In a case like yours, I expect most tds would allow you to continue from the corrected position (as long as both players agreed) rather than force you to start over.

3

Suppose this is a game using a digital timer with move counters.

I assume the elapsed time remains elapsed but the move counter has to be set back to 0. That might be tricky on some digital timers.

4

11F. 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 annnulled and a new game played. However, the players shall begin the new game with their clocks still reflecting the elapsed time each player used in the annulled game; however, move counters on clocks that have them may be readjusted. If the error is discovered after the completion of Blacks 10th move, the game shall continue.

Since it was the 3rd move, would need to reset the board over again as the first game is annulled. The time on the clock stay the same.

5

Have been thinking of that question for a number of years. As scholastic players will have more often Queen and King reversed. When players do see they have the Queen and King reversed, they just reverse the Queen and King without the director knowing about it.

In all the years as a director, never had to make a ruling on 11F. As the players just reverse the Queen and King, and play out the game. Even if the game has gone past the 10th move, the players just reverse the Queen and King. Never had a player at my events, or been to a event having a player make a claim on rule 11F.

If the player makes a claim of rule 11F after the 10th move, the Official Rules of Chess does not say anything about the right to castle. Would have to say you do not have a right to castle. As there is no rule to a legal castle with the King on d8 or d1. If the King is on d1, how can the player castle to the King side. As the King only moves over two squares, how can we say the King castle to the King side and have the King on f1 and the Rook on e1.

As rule 11F, and the claim to enforce the rule is uncommon. Not sure if the rules committee has ever had this problem before, so when will the 6th edition come out to tell us what to do?

6

You can still castle but it’s reversed. You actually castle kingside on the queenside.

7

The rule book talks about castling from the king’s “original” position. The part of the book showing the setup at the beginning of the game refers to the “initial” position. If we take these to mean the same thing, I would argue that castling would be illegal since the kings was never in the “initial” position. The king must be at e1 and have never moved in order for castling to be legal.

8

I saw an NTD make this ruling at one of the nationals. I personally have never experienced it & can find nothing on it in the rulebook.

9

Douglas makes the correct point of rule! I would not have objected to the agreement you and your opponent came to, however.

10

Having reversed Queen and King after the 10th move, its’ not a settled rule if the player can castle, or the player can castle in a odd way or still be able to castle in a natural way.

Never had any clear statement from the Rules Committee with this question. Never read any information from an agent of the USCF on this question. The 5th edition of the Official Rules of Chess, has nothing to say of a King able to castle if on d1 or d8. The only reason why the King can stay on d1 or d8, if the King and Queen are reversed is rule 11F. If white wants to castle on move 10, with a reversed Queen and King, then white will know the Queen and King are reversed. The game should be annulled and a new game started. If white wants to castle on move 11, with a reversed Queen and King, rule 11F only makes the initial position legal. There is nothing I can find with a statement of the rule of 11F, of the right to castle.

If the player has the right to castle, if for White with the King on d1. Would white be able to castle on the King side with the movement of the King from d1 to f1 with Rook from h1 to e1. Or the King on d1 to g1 with Rook from h1 to f1, as the natural King side castle would be this way.

If the player has the right to castle, if for White with the King on d1. Would white be able to castle on the Queen side with the movement of the King from d1 to b1 with Rook from a1 to c1. Or the King on d1 to c1 with Rook from a1 to c1, as the natural Queen side castle would be this way.

Since the Rules Committee has not said anything, the Official Rules of Chess has not said anything, the whole body of the USCF has not said anything. Would love Tim Just to say something on this. Since there is nothing I can find, only have rule 1A to settle this problem. Only having rule 1A to fall back on, any judgement I make as a director will be very weak. The Rules Committee needs to look at this issue, as it should not be settled on rule 1A.

11

Alternatively, you could assume that the “king’s original square” simply means the square on which this particular king started the game. In that case castling would be legal. It appears to me that both this & your argument are valid interpretations of the rulebook. In such cases it is often customary to take the simplest interpetation.

12

If the issue ever did come up in one of my events, would let the player castle. Would only have rule 1A to back myself up in a case of a appeal.

Having a NTD make a ruling at the nationals would not see the scholastic players appealing the ruling. If the director can only make a ruling only on the grounds of rule 1A, you will be seeing appeals with stronger players in stronger events. What would Fischer do, if you rule against him, only on the grounds of rule 1A?

13

Concerning the game started with the king/queen reversal:

Rule 11F
Before or during move 10, the game is restarted.
After move 10, the game continues.

after move 10
This, by its statement that the game continues implies that the original position of the pieces at the start of the game shall be considered as if it were legal, at least for the purpose of this game.

Concerning allowing players to correct the king and queen within the course of the game:

By the above rule, it is illegal to switch the queen and the king in a game that is in progress. That, in itself, constitutes an illegal move.

If, in following rule 11H, you as a director, intervene if you witness an illegal move, then you must intervene in this case. On that intervention, you must apply the rule as written (restart if move 10 is not complete, continue with the position before the switch if after move 10.)

If you use the alternate rule 11H1, you ignore the switch as you would ignore any other illegal move and only get involved if one of the players brings it to your attention.

You must be consistant throughout the event, and treat this as any other illegal move witnessed.

And you should never allow (by ruling) a switch of the king and queen during the course of the game, even if both players agree.

about castling being legal:

let us examine the rules as written:

8A2: 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.

comment:
“The king is transferred from its original square…”
There is nothing said about the king being on a particular square (e1 or d1 for white). Its original square is the square on which it rested at the commencement of the game.

“… two squares toward either rook on the same rank.”
No actual squares are named. As long as this procedure is followed, the castle is legal.

8A3 Castling permanently illegal. Castling is permanently illegal for the remainder of the game for a player: a. if that player’s king has already moved, or with the rook of the player has already moved.

comment:
If the king has not yet moved in the game, even if it is on the “wrong” square, condition 8A3a does not exist, therefore castling is not permanently illegal.

The rule is clear.
Castling is legal, as long as all other conditions are met, and the procedure for castling is carried out according to the rule (e.g. Kd1-b1 or Kd1-f1)

14

If you’ve ever worked a national event you realize that is not true. It’s not just the kids you have to deal with. The coaches & parents can get downright out of line. They think nothing of taking an appeal as far as they can. At the past Supernational in Nashville I had to forfeit a kid for cheating. Although I believed the kid did not cheat, he took his notation book & went to his team room with it in the middle of the game. I didn’t think that any other ruling would be fair to his opponent. That went over everyones head at the tournament. When I left the ruling stood but I don’t know whatever happened.

15

I have said on many occasions that if something odd is going to occur at a tournament, it’ll almost always be in a scholastic section. Nationals tend to produce lots of interesting stories and challenging situations for TDs to rule on.

BTW, Rob, I don’t know what happened on your ruling, but there was a very heated exchange between one of the back room chief TDs and a parent/coach at 2AM Sunday morning.

At a National Junior High some years ago, there was a player who was requesting a bathroom pass after EVERY move. Eventually the player was caught consulting with a coach in one of the restrooms (not the one nearest the playing hall, as I recall.)

I still remember my first introduction to Nationals nearly 20 years ago, a story told me by a parent who took her son to a National Elementary. It’s called the ‘chewing gum trick’: The coach stops by the boards of each of his players and offers them all a stick of gum. If, when unwrapped, the stick of gum is whole, keep playing. If the stick of gum has been broken in half, offer a draw.

And my all-time favorite story has to be the 1st or 2nd grade player who came dashing into the TD room at a National Elementary and excitedly asked, “One of my kings is checkmated, does that mean I lose?” Sure enough, there were two white kings on the board, one at the far end of the board and another one back on the first rank that was checkmated.

16

David:

There is nothing wrong with your judgement, in fact support the claim that castling is legal. Rule 8A2 was never intended for a King on d1 for white or a King on d8 for black. The spirit of rule 8A2, was the King on e1 for white and the King on e8 for Black. If FIDE and the USCF had to explain the Kings’ have to be on e1 and e8, and the Rooks have to be on a1 h1 and a8 h8. The reader would think the editor was insane, or the Rules Committe was insane to explain were the Kings’ and Rooks’ have to be. It would also be confusion for the reader, woundering why so much information was given for something that was so common.

If I use your argument David, the King can be on a5 and the Rook on h5. White could castle on the 11th move, the King on c5 and Rook on b5. Do not see FIDE or the USCF having the intent to make rule 8A2 work with this idea. Rule 8A2 was a rule to be inline with the FIDE rule with castling. Im not sure if FIDE has a rule like the USCF rule of 11F, or other federations have the same rule like 11F in their official rules. Then FIDE never explained the King can be on a different square then e1 or e8. If FIDE never explained it, rule 8A2 only explains what is a FIDE rule. Rule 8A2 never went more or less then the scope of the FIDE rules of chess.

The USCF Rules Committee needs to explain in detail this question, as rule 8A2 is going past the scope and spirit of the rule with the King on any square other then e1 or e8.

17

This reminds me of a question I saw on An Arbiter’s Notebook (I think). The question was whether an (unmoved) king could castle with a (promoted) rook on e8. From your interpretation above, it sounds as though you’d feel forced to rule “Yes”. I can’t remember what Gijssen said.

Alex Relyea

18

The rook isn’t on the same rank, so it wouldn’t be legal. A more difficult question is when the pieces are set up illegally such that the rook and king don’t have two squares between them. With K at e1 and R at f1 or g1, would castling be legal and result in a normal castled position?

19

I had a girl who called me over and said “I resigned but then I checkmated him” I said really, how did that happen? She said “I wanted to resign but my opponent told me no, keep playing” I asked her opponent why he had done that and he said “I don’t think anyone should resign”. I bet his coach was pissed.

20

Sorry, that was for Mike.