If the Rooks are on d1 and f1, wounder how white can castle? Oh I see how white can castle king side, King goes to g1 and the Rook goes to d1! If I was that blind in the first place not to notice this incorrect initial position before the 10th move, they should never let me play chess ever again. If adult players did give me this problem, would be calling it a fake game, then double forfeit both players. As the players understand the correct initial position, and if it did get to the 11th move, would feel the game was pre-arranged.
I can see the problem of having a incorrect initial position for Queen and King, and it hapens most of the time with black. As the player has set up the board for the white side, can forget the placement of the King and Queen on the black side. If the initial position is so mixed up, and the players have not noticed the error of the board before the 10th move. Would feel the game was pre-arranged if it goes past the 11th move.
If the initial position was so poor with the placement of the King and the Rooks, and whatever other piece is also in the incorrect position. If the players did ask for a ruling past the 10th move on castle rights, would call it pre-arranged and double forfeit both players.
I usually don’t answer rediculous questions, and one was posed here.
K-Q reversal is common, and may be missed in the first 10 moves.
The other common error is the board rotation (often causing the K-Q reversal). Those are about the only initial set-ups I could excuse.
The other rediculous positions as described are not worth discussing. If I should have to make a ruling in such a case, I will not let the game continue. period.
Even if both players are pre-school age.
If they do not know how to set up the pieces at all, they do not belong at a tournament.
If they are not pre-schoolers, then the set-up was deliberate. Any intentional violation of the rules should not go unpunished. The director is to impose penalties at his/her discression.
As far as the FIDE rules. FIDE requires (article 7, section 7.1a) the game be restarted no matter how deep into the game the error is discovered. So the case is moot. (I actually prefer that rule)
Castle with a promoted rook: some time ago, that incident actually took place (I cannot quote the game), but the rule was changed to add “along the same rank” as a result of that incident.
Castle with a promoted rook??? I’m trying to understand this concept, but I’ve failed - How would this situation come about? Please tell me!
David, do you really think it’s an error for a TD to allow the players to correct the position if no other problems, like previous illegal moves, were involved? To be sure, the K+Q reversal is very common in scholastics, and if the players notice the error after one or two moves, and then simply correct the position, I see no problem. Of course, if up to 10 moves have been made, the TD should probably be notified in order to make sure, via scoresheet, if any illegal moves had been made.
One other question comes to mind. If players are directed to restart the game, after say 11 moves, are the players required to play the original moves in the restarted game? The rulebook is silent on this.
It is a nice rule and I do like it. There would be a problem with the rule in a weekend event. When a game is cancelled it would also cancell the time on the clock. If the player can prove the initial position was in error, the whole game with the time on the clock are cancelled. If the players are on move 55 and its’ forced mate in 2, if the player and the opponent agree the initial position was in error. The game would be cancelled and the game started over again. This could be the reason the USCF came up with rule 11F in the first place.
When rule 11F was designed as a rule, it only explained if the initial position was in error before blacks 10th move to annull the game and not the the time used on the clock. If it was whites/blacks 11th move or greater, the incorrect initial position stands. It did not explain about the King in a incorrect position having rights to castle.
To my knowledge, the USCF has not officially commented on this situation. As we use a limit on how long a situation can go without correction being allowed, we are using a simular set of rules to FIDE’s rapid play regulations (3 moves - see appendix B of the Laws of chess). In that appendix, FIDE specifically states no castle permitted.
Now to start the fight Through being a national federation of FIDE, we have agreed to use FIDE rules. I agree with those who argue that we are using them as conceived where there is a large event and few TDs. However, I believe our modified set should be interpreted in the light of FIDE’s rules when ours are not clear such as in this situation. Therefore, if involved in this situation, I would rule no castling allowed. However, I would not criticize a TD for ruling the opposite.
I also believe we should follow most of FIDE’s Laws of Chess such as the procedure when a player touches a rook first when attempting to castle.
Having the FIDE rules when the USCF does not have any information on castling. When rule 11F does not state after the 11th move for white, if the King can castle from d1 or d8 is legal. The USCF during the meeting at the United States Open needs to address this issue.
This started as a gag. I first saw it in Chess Life, at least 20 years ago.
The author proposed that white push a pawn from e7 to e8, promoting to a rook. The king was on e1 and there were no other pieces on the e-file, and the king had never moved.
The author then argued that, on the next move, since neither the king nor the rook had ever moved, white should be allowed to castle by moving the king to e3 and the rook to e2. He named this move O-O-O-O-O .
For some reason, all of a sudden everybody seems to be taking it seriously.
I agree with your first point ("should be interpreted in the light of FIDE’s rules when ours are not clear "). As for your second point, I assume your argument is that 10I2 "conflict(s) … with the FIDE Laws of Chess, " specifically 4.4 par. 2. However, if you take that position, you must also assert that, for example, the USCF “insufficent losing chances” rule is illegal under FIDE 10.2, and that a player with more than five minutes on his clock must keep score even if his opponent has less than five minutes and can stop doing so. I would interpret “… do not conflict in any way with the FIDE Laws of Chess” in the preface as applying only to the fundamental rules – e.g., a national federation could not decree that the Bishop can move like a Grasshopper.
I have to run out to a senior doubles tennis tournament this morning so this reply will be brief as I want my initial post to be properly thought out. I will reply in length tonight or later this week. If anyone wants to start a more general discussion, please do. I don’t disagree with the USCF rules modifications designed to codify procedures in large events with a limited set of TDs. Your mention of the 5 minute rule is one where I might tend to want to go with the FIDE rule as for the castle - rook touched first rule which I attempted to change while in the office. My basic premise is that we should follow FIDEs rules unless we have a good reason for not doing so. This philosophy has two underpinnings. First, we want to make it as easy as possible when we have visitors from abroad. Second, despite its many problems, we are a part of FIDE and should try to be a good member by following it’s rules.
Regards, Ernie
Are there differences between the USCF Laws of Chess, and the FIDE laws?
Indeed! there are.
For the FIDE laws see fide.com/official/handbook.asp
and click on E.1. Laws of Chess
For one thing the FIDE Laws state up front:
You will notice that the FIDE laws do not go into any great detail. They are expecting chess players’ to behave as professionals and the arbiters to make sound decisions.
The need to explain things to the Nth degree is not there, where national federations such as the USCF have to deal with inexperienced players and with directors who do not have the experience required by FIDE.
The USCF Rulebook, therefore, has to go much farther in depth. However, in so doing can, and sometimes does get confusing. There is simply too much material.
That being said, we still should expect a director to use “sound judgement and absolute objectivity” when making decisions. As this string demonstrates, the Laws cannot possibly cover every situation or contingency. If a law is confusing to you, then, as a TD (at least, you are an experienced player) you need to make your best judgement that is fair, impartial, and practical.
Note that this section gives the leeway a National Federation has in creating their own rulebook. There are many differences in these rules as applied.
Keep that in mind when travelling to another country. If you expect to play in a tournament, make sure you know the rules as applied by the Federation you are visiting.
At the risk of being called a king of hypotheticals, I thought of the following bizarre, but not entirely inconceivable game. Black begins the game with his king on d8.
1.d4 c6 2.Bd2 b5 3.Ba5 mate. A Fool’s mate on the other side.
Black calls you as a TD over and complains that he didn’t realize his king and queen were reversed. You are looking at the position and sure enough, White has checkmated the wayward king.
I would rule it a checkmate. I would then tell him I am ruling based on the Code of Ethics section, part 5c, “deliberately failing to play one’s best in a game”. If for some reason he didn’t buy that I would tell him something like “checkmate supersedes stupidity” and that won’t be coming out until the 6th edition.
I correct the position of the black K+Q and continue the game.
Yes, Black can now capture the Bishop with Qxa5.
How is that even remotely fair? With Qxa5, Black now is up a bishop, and white’s king is in check.
You shouldn’t penalize White for Black’s stupidity. I agree with Rob. The game stands. At worst, I may have them restart the game entirely. But I would be very hard pressed to do that unless Black had a profound and irrevocable reason to have me reverse the checkmate. And I cant think of one reason to do so.
You shouldn’t award an ethics violation either. White has taken complete advantage, unfairly, of Black’s mistake. I’m not sure we should use the word “stupidity” here, as mistakes do occur.
That being said, I must concede that the game must be annulled and a new game must be started, based on the following:
I’m still wondering, however, if in the new game, both players are required to complete the same moves. Again, the rulebook is silent on this.
I’ll retract my stupidity statement, because this actually could happen at the scholastic level and in general mistakes do happen.
But I think you may be opening a can of worms if you base it as an ethics violation. Is it fair that people do not notify each other when they fail to “hit” the clock? Opponents take advantage of that at all levels of play. Or to say, “Hey, your time is under 5 minutes, you don’t have to record your moves.”
Is it the responsibility of White to say, “Hey your pieces are switched?”
I agree that ethically I would hope that players would say these things, but I would say most would not.
But as you say, i would be interested on what the rules committe might say about both players being required to complete the same moves
I’ll retract my stupidity statement, because this actually could happen at the scholastic level and in general mistakes do happen.
But I think you may be opening a can of worms if you base it as an ethics violation. Is it fair that people do not notify each other when they fail to “hit” the clock? Opponents take advantage of that at all levels of play. Or to say, “Hey, your time is under 5 minutes, you don’t have to record your moves.”
Is it the responsibility of White to say, “Hey your pieces are switched?”
I agree that ethically I would hope that players would say these things, but I would say most would not.
But as you say, i would be interested on what the rules committe might say about both players being required to complete the same moves
I was only saying those remarks tongue in cheek. I was referring to the ethics part due to the ““deliberately failing to play one’s best in a game” statement.
As it happens, I was talking to a player who said that such a thing happened to her recently in a scholastic event. She said that she did something called the five move checkmate on her opponent, but the TD came and made them restart because the position had been illegal. She said that it was unfair because she lost the next game.
I think that the only thing that has to happen is that White must move hs d-pawn, since he touched it. Maybe not even that, but I don’t see how you could compel people to make similar moves where a change of a few pieces can change a great deal.
Through being a national federation of FIDE, we have agreed to use FIDE rules. I agree with those who argue that we are using them as conceived where there is a large event and few TDs. However, I believe our modified set should be interpreted in the light of FIDE’s rules when ours are not clear such as in this situation. Therefore, if involved in this situation, I would rule no castling allowed. However, I would not criticize a TD for ruling the opposite.