The FIDE handbook has been updated to include the official version of the Laws of Chess effective July 1, 2017. The changes to 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 from the draft that was supposed to be approved at the 2016 Congress are not reflected in the official published version. However, Article 7.3 (which governs games started with colors reversed) has been changed such that if the error is not discovered before ten moves have been completed by each player, the game continues with the colors reversed. I don’t know what happened to the proposed changes to 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. I’m trying to obtain clarification whether this was intentional or a mistake when preparing the final version for the handbook.
This is one of those situations that nobody wants to touch, and where FIDE and USCF may differ, and where any possible answer could easily lead to absurdities. Lots of luck finding anybody willing to advise you here!
It seems like the majority opinion is that under USCF rules, the player can castle by moving two squares towards the rook, etc. Probably the consensus opinion would be that a game where both players have made 10 or more moves with neither player noticing that the Kings and Queens are misplaced barely qualifies as chess anyway.
That might make sense if both sets of kings and queens were reversed. But what if only one was? That would be more dubious, I would think.
Or, what if the royalty was OK, but one player’s a-rook and b-knight were reversed? Could he still castle queenside, with the rook ending up at d1 and the knight at a1?
This is one of those “where do you draw the line?” situations.
Yes. FLC 7.2.1 provides that if the initial position of the pieces was incorrect the board shall be re-set and the game started over. However, the OP’s question did not concern a game rated by FIDE, or even by US Chess.
One should note that in FIDE Rapid and Blitz “unsupervised” rules it states the following:
A.4 Otherwise the following apply:
A.4.1 From the initial position, once 10 moves have been completed by each player,
A.4.1.1 no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected
A.4.1.2 no claim can be made regarding incorrect set-up or orientation of the chessboard. In case of incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook is not allowed.
What does A.4.1.1 mean? Setting the clocks back to where they were (if, e.g. you are going back to the correct start position) certainly would be expected to adversely affect the schedule. Does this mean you can reduce the time for both players to put the game back on schedule?
If two players accidentally set the time for G/10;+3 instead of G/25;+3 then no clock correction should be made, but if they accidentally set it for G/90;+30 instead of G/25;+3 then the schedule would be adversely affected and a clock correction should be made.
I seriously doubt that that’s the idea. The arbiter would/should correct the latter as soon as it’s noticed, regardless of whether an illegal move/incorrect setup took place.
Remember this is the “unsupervised” version so it is possible an arbiter wouldn’t notice the incorrect clock times. It is just as Jeff says, if the players set the clocks for the wrong times then they are out of luck if both players have completed at least 10 moves unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected then the arbiter can make a correction. You should note this is irrespective of whether an incorrect set up/illegal move has been made.
Thanks for clarifying. I just assumed given the context that this was the FIDE rule for handling illegal moves/incorrect setup under those conditions, not an either/or.
It’s interesting to note that under US Chess blitz rules, it states
“Before play begins, both players should inspect the position of the pieces and the setting of the clock, since once each side has completed a move the position on the board and the time on the clock remain as set.”
Interesting but logical. In a blitz tournament you can’t be losing five-ten minutes to correct an error without risking setting the event behind schedule.
Exactly and this is one of many issues with the US Chess blitz rules that I have brought up previously but no delegate has submitted an ADM on.
It’s interesting that the scholastic blitz rule on this is better written. It says:
“Before play begins both players should inspect the position of their pieces and the setting of the clock, since once each side has made a move all claims for correcting either are null and void. The only exception is if one or both players have more than five minutes on their clock, then the tournament director (TD) may reduce the time accordingly.”
