I would argue that White is not required to move his D-pawn, because that move both came from and resulted in an illegal position and therefore was not binding.
The move 1. d4 was not illegal, and it’s clearly wrong that it “resulted” in an illegal position. The initial starting position was illegal, and involved the black K&Q only.
The situation where a player won one game and lost in the new game has occurred often. This, in my opinion, is a travesty. Clearly, if the players were of any experience, they would both know that this type of mate is not possible. And if the player of the white pieces went for this cheapo, then he/she is clearly in violation of ethics and good sportsmanship. If, on the other hand, they were inexperienced scholastic players, the ethics issue would probably not exist. But, I think the rules committee need to discuss this situation of whether or not a player is bound by the moves recorded on the scoresheet as having been played.
Terry
Scoresheet?
In a game between two inexperienced scholastic players?
I’m not sure exactly what your question means. If a new game is played, then it is exactly that - a new game. None of the moves played in the illegally set up game have any relevance to the new game. I’m not sure what the rulebook has to say beyond that it is a new game. The only thing that the USCF carries over to this new game is the used time. (I think that is different than FIDE and is necessary for the USCF events because with many games played per day it would otherwise make getting rounds started on time impossible.)
OK, I’ll give you that. But the premise of my question still seems valid. Let’s assume the players are experienced.
This is unfortunate, for example:
Game 1, white opens with 1. e4 and loses the game.
Game 2, white opens with 1. d4 and wins.
Seems to me, that the rules should specify that the players are required to follow their original intentions of opening repretoir.
Terry
I’m not sure about that. Suppose I always play my QP. If my K and Q are reversed, when I reach in front of my Q, I’ve played e4 when my intent was d4. Or if my opponent is set up wrong, I reach for my pawn opposite his Q and I’ve played e4, when my intent was d4. Making me play e4 would not seem fair and doesn’t even agree with your own goals for a revised rule. Especially for me, since I still use English notation and would have written P-Q4! We have no way of knowing how the incorrect setup effected his choices, so we don’t have any easy way of knowing his intentions.
In this thread you ask:
With k-q reversed, what happens if a checkmate is delivered before move 10?
Any illegal move or position stands as played if not noticed during the game. A checkmate immediately ends the game. The game has ended. The checkmate stands.
A new game is not played.
(one exception: if the move made to deliver the checkmate is in itself illegal, then that piece has to make a legal move.)
WRONG
This is the incorrect decision, on all counts.
If a checkmate has been delivered, the game is over.
If a checkmate has not been delivered, a new game is played.
If the reversal is noticed before the game ends (prior to move 10) then a new game is played. The rulebook is NOT “totally silent on this”. The meaning of the rule is just as it states.
A new game is played.
It is NOT a re-start of the same game. It is a NEW game. No restrictions or requirements on the moves to be made.
This is analogous to any illegal move played during the game. If an illegal move is discovered then the position is set-up to the position just prior to the illegal move, and the player making the illegal move may make any legal move (touch-move rules apply, the only restriction is that he must move the same piece, if legal) after that, no restrictions.
If the pieces were disturbed and incorrectly re-set, then the correct position is set up and any legal move may be made.
It is up to both players to check the position at the start of the game or on a re-set of the pieces before commencing the re-start of the game.
In the case of the k-q setup, the initial position is illegal, and no moves have been made prior to that setup. Not even the touch-move applies.
You seem to be saying, in the first paragraph, that, with the k-q reversed, checkmate stands, and then in the final paragraph, you say that with the initial position being illegal, the ckeckmate does not stand.
I would agree with the final statement, but not the first. In the first, there is no checkmate because, in the original example: Ba5, the Bishop is erroneously attacking the King. The game is not over because the initial position is incorrect.
I’m not sure we agree on that. It still sounds ambiguous.
Thanks for clarifying my question about the new game, and whether or not the players are bound to make the same moves. All makes sense now. Indeed, a new game means a new game, though I’m not sure I like it.
Terry
Lets try it this way Terry, the black King and Queen are reversed. So the King is on d8 and the Queen is on e8. The moves are like this 1.e4 f6 2. Be2 g5 3. Bh5… . If you noticed you would lose your Queen for a Bishop, then noticed the King and Queen are reversed. If you just want to reverse the King and Queen, or reverse the King and Queen and play out the first 3 moves. If you want to be forced to play out a game ending in checkmate on move 3 – I accept. Would that be a pre-arranged game, 1. e4 f6 2. Be2 g5 3. Bh5 checkmate?
I think that what is being said above is that a checkmate ends the game. There is nothing illegal about moving a bishop on a diagonal, so if you deliver mate that way, it is legal. If you move the bishop from a black square to a light square, say, then it is not a legal move and can’t deliver mate.
If you discover that an illegal move has been made in the last ten moves, like an illegal initial position, then you can restart the game. No moves after the initial move are illegal. Is this what I’m understanding?
Alex Relyea
11A
All rules regulating positions, movement of pieces, etc… occur and are applied “DURING A GAME”.
If an illegal move is made, say on move 26, not noticed, but subsequently noticed on move 32, DURING THE GAME, the position is re-instated to just prior to the illegal move (move 26) and a new move substituted (applying the touch-move rules).
However,
If an illegal move is made, say on move 26, not noticed, and a checkmate (or resignation, etc.) occures on move 32, this IMMEDIATELY ENDS THE GAME, and no further claim of an illegal move (on move 26) may be made. You do NOT reinstate the position to before move 26 and apply the touch piece rule. The game is over.
This same interpretation applies to 11E, incorrect adjourned position and 11F, an incorrect initial position. The incorrect initial position must be noticed DURING THE GAME. After a checkmate is delivered, it is no longer “during the game”.
That being said, though, if either player notices the incorrect set-up before move ten (and before the end of the game) but deliberately refrains from pointing it out and attempting to gain an advantage by the fact then penalties should be assessed at the director’s discretion. that may include forfeiture of the game or even a re-play of the game. However, the intent to decieve by ommission must be clear.
Is it possible that a player delivers checkmate and does not notice an incorrect set-up?
Certainly! it is possilbe. for example the player who has the incorrect setup may be the player delivering the mate, not using the pieces that were incorrect.
Or one or both of the pieces may have moved off their original square before the checkmate, sometimes by several squares.
Or the player delivering the mate may not have known the set-up was incorrect.
Or both players may have the K-Q switch and not realize it is incorrect.
etc…
And, yes, these can happen in the first ten moves.
For those of you who wanted to “just switch the K-Q and continue with the game…” First of all, that is not the rule, but you choose to ignore that fact.
consider the following:
Black has K-Q reversed.
White plays the ‘scholars mate’.
- e4 e5, 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qf3 Nd4 4. Qxf7 mate… wait, the K-Q are reversed! it is not checkmate! It is not even check!
Would you then force black to switch the K-Q forcing himself into a mated position? Or to play the exact same moves so that Qxf7 is a mate?
Rhetorical question… I think not.
Remember, whatever rules you apply, you must apply fairly and consistantly. If you rule the K-Q switch must take place in any other situation, you must also in this one. So be careful what you wish for.
As David Kuhns has pointed out, there’s a big difference between restarting a game in progress and ordering a new game when the first game has ended.
About the only time I could see doing the latter is when more than one game was between the wrong players and that error affects the overall tournament standings in a big way.
I’ve almost had something like that happen when the top 2 boards didn’t check the pairing sheet. They assumed the pairings would go one way for the last round, I changed them because the change made for slightly better pairings and better class prize distributions. (This event has no place prizes, only class prizes, so I try to pair medal contenders within classes for the last round.) Fortunately, we caught it within a half hour of when the round started, but one of the games was nearly over at that point because one of the players had dropped a knight.
That assumes sufficient time for the correct games to be played, of course, and I would almost certainly submit the original games for rating as extra games for the event.
I think the FIDE rule requiring a new game be started if an illegal starting position is noted, regardless of how many moves have been made, is superior to the USCF 10 move rule. I don’t know that I’d want to use the FIDE rule in large scholastic events, though, nor the FIDE rule that resets the clocks.