# Castling when K+Q are reversed after 10+ moves **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [January 12, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375 "2016-01-12T13:53:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![gneilley](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/gneilley/32/916_2.png) [@gneilley](https://forum.uschess.org/u/gneilley)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/41 "2016-08-27T13:52:49Z")
According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/42 "2016-08-27T16:39:41Z")
> [@gneilley](#): > > According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. ---
**Author:** ![gneilley](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/gneilley/32/916_2.png) [@gneilley](https://forum.uschess.org/u/gneilley)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/43 "2016-08-27T20:18:24Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. Agreed, but how many kids/readers will do just that? It seems to me some corrections in the next issue would be in order. The bit about castling was just the first one I noticed and it called to mind this thread. As you allude there are other statements as well that are either misleading or flat out wrong (I think). ---
**Author:** ![scottrparker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@scottrparker](https://forum.uschess.org/u/scottrparker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 12:41pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/44 "2016-08-28T12:41:09Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > > [@gneilley](#): > > > > According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. > > IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. Daniel Gurevich is a personal friend. I like and greatly respect him, and his parents as well. But Daniel is not, and never has been a US Chess certified TD. When I first began to direct chess tournaments I assumed that strong players would have a strong grasp of the rules of play. I was quickly disabused of that notion. Many, if not most strong players do not have more than a hazy understanding of the rules. It would have been a good idea for Daniel to have run his projected column past a top TD before submitting it for print. Some clarifications/ratractions are in order, and I hope will be done in Chess Life for Kids ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 3:06pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/45 "2016-08-28T15:06:47Z")
> [@scottrparker](#): > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > [@gneilley](#): > > > > > > According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. > > > > IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. > > Daniel Gurevich is a personal friend. I like and greatly respect him, and his parents as well. But Daniel is not, and never has been a US Chess certified TD. > > When I first began to direct chess tournaments I assumed that strong players would have a strong grasp of the rules of play. I was quickly disabused of that notion. Many, if not most strong players do not have more than a hazy understanding of the rules. > > It would have been a good idea for Daniel to have run his projected column past a top TD before submitting it for print. Some clarifications/ratractions are in order, and I hope will be done in Chess Life for Kids ASAP. I’m actually considering suggesting that any rules-related content in US Chess publications should be reviewed by the rules committee, or at least by one or more members of the committee, before publication. I understand this could be a problem in light of publication deadlines, but I think it should be workable. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/46 "2016-08-29T02:44:49Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > … I’m actually considering suggesting that any rules-related content in US Chess publications should be reviewed by the rules committee, or at least by one or more members of the committee, before publication. … OK, but in this particular instance, I don’t think Mr. Gurevich missed the mark by all that much, if at all. If an illegal move is not to be corrected after 10 additional moves have been played by each side, then by extension, the reversal of the K and Q should not be corrected after move 10. Think of the initial piece reversal as an illegal move at move 0. And then, after move 10, the K is not on the correct square to castle. Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:20am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/47 "2016-08-29T05:20:33Z")
I give IM Gurevich great credit for identifying the only correct way to claim a draw by repetition, even if US Chess rules (unwisely) allow alternate ways. ---
**Author:** ![scottrparker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@scottrparker](https://forum.uschess.org/u/scottrparker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/48 "2016-08-31T13:25:04Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > > [@scottrparker](#): > > > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > > > [@gneilley](#): > > > > > > > > According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. > > > > > > IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. > > > > Daniel Gurevich is a personal friend. I like and greatly respect him, and his parents as well. But Daniel is not, and never has been a US Chess certified TD. > > > > When I first began to direct chess tournaments I assumed that strong players would have a strong grasp of the rules of play. I was quickly disabused of that notion. Many, if not most strong players do not have more than a hazy understanding of the rules. > > > > It would have been a good idea for Daniel to have run his projected column past a top TD before submitting it for print. Some clarifications/ratractions are in order, and I hope will be done in Chess Life for Kids ASAP. > > I’m actually considering suggesting that any rules-related content in US Chess publications should be reviewed by the rules committee, or at least by one or more members of the committee, before publication. I understand this could be a problem in light of publication deadlines, but I think it should be workable. I have had an email discussion with Scholastic Editor Glenn Petersen about this column of Daniel’s. He believes that no mistake was made in this column except for one undefined “misstatement” that will be corrected soon. I have no emotional investment in this discussion, the subjects of which have not occurred for me in 25 years of directing over 200 tournaments. If anyone higher up the TD food chain than me feels passionately that Glenn is out in left field here, that person should take it up with him. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/49 "2016-08-31T13:57:50Z")
> [@scottrparker](#): > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > [@scottrparker](#): > > > > > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > > > > > [@gneilley](#): > > > > > > > > > > According to IM Daniel Gurevich, castling isn’t allowed after 10 moves with K&Q reversed (August 2016 Chess Life for Kids, in his article “What’s the Question?”). Has there been a rule change or an emerging consensus since the earlier discussion in this thread? If not, at best, it’s the opinion of some TDs that castling isn’t allowed. > > > > > > > > IM Gurevich’s recent column contains rather serious errors in the statements about rules. I would be quite reluctant to consider the column authoritative with respect to any pronouncement it makes about rules. > > > > > > Daniel Gurevich is a personal friend. I like and greatly respect him, and his parents as well. But Daniel is not, and never has been a US Chess certified TD. > > > > > > When I first began to direct chess tournaments I assumed that strong players would have a strong grasp of the rules of play. I was quickly disabused of that notion. Many, if not most strong players do not have more than a hazy understanding of the rules. > > > > > > It would have been a good idea for Daniel to have run his projected column past a top TD before submitting it for print. Some clarifications/ratractions are in order, and I hope will be done in Chess Life for Kids ASAP. > > > > I’m actually considering suggesting that any rules-related content in US Chess publications should be reviewed by the rules committee, or at least by one or more members of the committee, before publication. I understand this could be a problem in light of publication deadlines, but I think it should be workable. > > I have had an email discussion with Scholastic Editor Glenn Petersen about this column of Daniel’s. He believes that no mistake was made in this column except for one undefined “misstatement” that will be corrected soon. I have no emotional investment in this discussion, the subjects of which have not occurred for me in 25 years of directing over 200 tournaments. If anyone higher up the TD food chain than me feels passionately that Glenn is out in left field here, that person should take it up with him. I will do this. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/50 "2016-08-31T17:52:44Z")
I am sending the following open letter to the editor of Chess Life Kids. > [@](#): > > To the editor: > > I am writing in response to IM Daniel Gurevich’s “What’s the Question?” column in the August 2016 issue of Chess Life Kids. Regrettably, IM Gurevich makes several statements about US Chess rules that convey substantially incorrect information. > > There is a minor inaccuracy in IM Gurevich’s statement that one loses the right to castle after ten moves have elapsed in a game which started with a player’s king and queen swapped. Strictly speaking, the US Chess Official Rules of Chess are silent on this matter and do not include an explicit statement whether castling is disallowed in this situation. However, the blitz rules (specifically blitz rule 3a) does explicitly allow castling in this situation. The provenance of the blitz rules differs from that of the “main” rules, so it is unclear what the intent of the “main” rules is. > > IM Gurevich states that the rule allowing players to stop recording moves if either player has less than five minutes’ time remaining only applies to the final time control if there are multiple segments in the time control. This is in direct contradiction of rule 15B, which states “if either player has less than five minutes remaining in a non-sudden death time control and does not have additional time (increment) of 30 seconds or omre added with each move, both players are excused from the obligation to keep score until the end of the time control period.” > > Finally, IM Gurevich’s discussion of the “draw by triple occurrence of > position” rule (rule 14C) is very seriously flawed. IM Gurevich wrote “Most people try to do it [claim a draw by three-fold repetition] when the position has already repeated three times, which makes sense. But it’s wrong. According to official tournament rules, if that happens, the opponent can treat the claim as a simple draw offer and decline it!” The first inaccuracy in this statement is that all draw claims are considered also to be implicit draw offers. (This makes sense, as the player is indicating he would be satisfied with a draw by making the claim. If the opponent is also satisfied with a draw, then the game has reached a conclusion.) However, if the opponent declines the implied draw offer, the claim is still pending. > > Rule 14C2 specifically states “if no move is required to complete the > repetition, the player should stop both clocks without moving and state the claim.” IM Gurevich is quite correct that if the player’s move is needed to cause the three-fold repetition, then the correct procedure is for the player to write the move on the scoresheet without making the move on the board, stop the clocks, and summon the TD to state the claim. However, if no move is needed (because the opponent’s move has just produced the three-fold repetition and the opponent did not make the claim), then the player on the move may simply stop the clocks and make the claim. Unfortunately, the rule of draw by three-fold repetition is one of the most complicated and confusing rules in the Official Rules of Chess and is widely misunderstood. US Chess should avoid statements in its official publications that further the confusion and misunderstanding. > > I am certain the US Chess Rules Committee would be very happy to review any rules-related content in any official US Chess publication for accuracy. I strongly urge that the committee’s review be sought for any such content. > > Sincerely, > > Kenneth R. Ballou > National Tournament Director > Member, US Chess Rules Committee > Special Referee (US Chess rule 21J) (Edit: fix typo “contraction” =\> “contradiction”) ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/51 "2016-08-31T18:07:05Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > I am sending the following open letter to the editor of Chess Life Kids. > > > [@](#): > > > > To the editor: > > > > I am writing in response to IM Daniel Gurevich’s “What’s the Question?” column in the August 2016 issue of Chess Life Kids. Regrettably, IM Gurevich makes several statements about US Chess rules that convey substantially incorrect information. > > > > There is a minor inaccuracy in IM Gurevich’s statement that one loses the right to castle after ten moves have elapsed in a game which started with a player’s king and queen swapped. Strictly speaking, the US Chess Official Rules of Chess are silent on this matter and do not include an explicit statement whether castling is disallowed in this situation. However, the blitz rules (specifically blitz rule 3a) does explicitly allow castling in this situation. The provenance of the blitz rules differs from that of the “main” rules, so it is unclear what the intent of the “main” rules is. > > … > > Sincerely, > > > > Kenneth R. Ballou > > National Tournament Director > > Member, US Chess Rules Committee > > Special Referee (US Chess rule 21J) Technically the main rule is that castling is only permanently illegal if the king has previously moved (8A3a) or the rook involved in the castling has previously moved (8A3b) The castling rule (8A2) says the king moves two squares toward the rook on the same rank and the rook is transferred over, and adjacent to, the king. That does not make any mention of the starting square. Based on that, if the king and c-bishop are swapped prior to the start of the game then castling with the h-rook is also allowed with the king ending up on the e-file and the rook on the d-file. The part about the rook being transferred over the king seems to imply that a starting-c-file king cannot castle with an a-file rook (fortunate because 8C1a says a player may castle with a rook whose original square is under attack but a starting-c-file king moving two squares could, if castling was allowed, end up on the a-file square that was under attack). Considering all of that, I’d have to say that the main rule allows castling even if the king did not start the game on the e-file. ---
**Author:** ![scottrparker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@scottrparker](https://forum.uschess.org/u/scottrparker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/52 "2016-08-31T19:05:35Z")
> [@jwiewel](#): > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > I am sending the following open letter to the editor of Chess Life Kids. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > To the editor: > > > > > > I am writing in response to IM Daniel Gurevich’s “What’s the Question?” column in the August 2016 issue of Chess Life Kids. Regrettably, IM Gurevich makes several statements about US Chess rules that convey substantially incorrect information. > > > > > > There is a minor inaccuracy in IM Gurevich’s statement that one loses the right to castle after ten moves have elapsed in a game which started with a player’s king and queen swapped. Strictly speaking, the US Chess Official Rules of Chess are silent on this matter and do not include an explicit statement whether castling is disallowed in this situation. However, the blitz rules (specifically blitz rule 3a) does explicitly allow castling in this situation. The provenance of the blitz rules differs from that of the “main” rules, so it is unclear what the intent of the “main” rules is. > > > … > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Kenneth R. Ballou > > > National Tournament Director > > > Member, US Chess Rules Committee > > > Special Referee (US Chess rule 21J) > > Technically the main rule is that castling is only permanently illegal if the king has previously moved (8A3a) or the rook involved in the castling has previously moved (8A3b) The castling rule (8A2) says the king moves two squares toward the rook on the same rank and the rook is transferred over, and adjacent to, the king. That does not make any mention of the starting square. Based on that, if the king and c-bishop are swapped prior to the start of the game then castling with the h-rook is also allowed with the king ending up on the e-file and the rook on the d-file. The part about the rook being transferred over the king seems to imply that a starting-c-file king cannot castle with an a-file rook (fortunate because 8C1a says a player may castle with a rook whose original square is under attack but a starting-c-file king moving two squares could, if castling was allowed, end up on the a-file square that was under attack). > > Considering all of that, I’d have to say that the main rule allows castling even if the king did not start the game on the e-file. In my email discussion with him, NTD Glenn Petersen expressed a strong belief that castling is not legal if the king and queen were switched to start the game, and this was not discovered until after 10 moves. His reasoning is that the position does not correspond with the starting squares of the pieces as given by rule 3C, and that castling would therefore be an illegal move. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/53 "2016-08-31T19:26:28Z")
> [@scottrparker](#): > > In my email discussion with him, NTD Glenn Petersen expressed a strong belief that castling is not legal if the king and queen were switched to start the game, and this was not discovered until after 10 moves. His reasoning is that the position does not correspond with the starting squares of the pieces as given by rule 3C, and that castling would therefore be an illegal move. This does not follow logically, in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if a rulebook that somehow manages to blather on for over 100 pages about rules that all players should know (not the Swiss pairing rules, not TD certification rules, but rules such as “touch move”, “illegal move”, and how a game is drawn) would actually contain one sentence that serves as an explicit statement whether castling under these circumstances is legal instead of requiring TDs certified at the highest level to divine the meaning as though reading tea leaves? ---
**Author:** ![timjust](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/timjust/32/44_2.png) [@timjust](https://forum.uschess.org/u/timjust)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/54 "2016-08-31T19:58:10Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > > [@scottrparker](#): > > > > In my email discussion with him, NTD Glenn Petersen expressed a strong belief that castling is not legal if the king and queen were switched to start the game, and this was not discovered until after 10 moves. His reasoning is that the position does not correspond with the starting squares of the pieces as given by rule 3C, and that castling would therefore be an illegal move. > > This does not follow logically, in my opinion. > > Wouldn’t it be marvelous if a rulebook that somehow manages to blather on for over 100 pages about rules that all players should know (not the Swiss pairing rules, not TD certification rules, but rules such as “touch move”, “illegal move”, and how a game is drawn) would actually contain one sentence that serves as an explicit statement whether castling under these circumstances is legal instead of requiring TDs certified at the highest level to divine the meaning as though reading tea leaves? I smell an ADM coming for 2017! ---
**Author:** ![tmagchesspgh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@tmagchesspgh](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tmagchesspgh)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/55 "2016-08-31T21:23:55Z")
First, this is a situation that rarely occurs. Second, the TD or his assistant(s) should check to see if all of the games are set up correctly. This is usually required to happen in scholastic tournaments where many new players are competing. Third, if it still slips through and it is not noticed that the K and Q are switched for one or both sides, then to allow castling for the side that has improperly set up the starting position changes the normal conduct of the game. Players are usually not given the benefit of making an illegal move. By allowing castling, that could confer a significant advantage for making a mistake at the beginning of the game. The player should be required to live with the mistake and not be permitted to castle. Would a computer allow you to castle if you set up the pieces wrong and played the game? There would likely be an error message. ---
**Author:** ![Mulfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mulfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Mulfish)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/56 "2016-08-31T21:37:48Z")
I wouldn’t hazar.d a guess as to what a computer that would let you set up the pieces incorrectly would do if you tried to castle. ---
**Author:** ![GKarRacer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@GKarRacer](https://forum.uschess.org/u/GKarRacer)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/57 "2016-08-31T23:22:31Z")
Given that this is explicitly stated as “allowed” in the blitz rules (at least for King and Queen reversed), then I can only conclude that the intent of the rules is to allow it in this situation. Whether that’s right or wrong is another story. For any other incorrect position, I think I’d disallow it under the guise of TD discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/58 "2016-09-01T01:45:14Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > … Wouldn’t it be marvelous if a rulebook that somehow manages to blather on for over 100 pages … would actually contain one sentence that serves as an explicit statement whether castling under these circumstances is legal … ? Oh, I dunno. How far do we have to go to be explicit about ridiculous situations? What if it is discovered, at move 12, that a knight and bishop were reversed at the start? What if there is a ninth pawn on the board, that started on the 3rd rank? What if there are 3 rooks and only 1 knight, instead of 2 of each? What if there are 2 queens and no king? Are we looking at a rulebook with 2000 pages? Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![relyea](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/relyea/32/190_2.png) [@relyea](https://forum.uschess.org/u/relyea)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/59 "2016-09-01T02:02:05Z")
> [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > Oh, I dunno. How far do we have to go to be explicit about ridiculous situations? What if it is discovered, at move 12, that a knight and bishop were reversed at the start? What if there is a ninth pawn on the board, that started on the 3rd rank? What if there are 3 rooks and only 1 knight, instead of 2 of each? What if there are 2 queens and no king? > > Are we looking at a rulebook with 2000 pages? > > Bill Smythe And yet FIDE manages to do it. Alex Relyea ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 9:19am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375/60 "2016-09-01T09:19:12Z")
> [@relyea](#): > > > [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > > > Oh, I dunno. How far do we have to go to be explicit about ridiculous situations? What if it is discovered, at move 12, that a knight and bishop were reversed at the start? What if there is a ninth pawn on the board, that started on the 3rd rank? What if there are 3 rooks and only 1 knight, instead of 2 of each? What if there are 2 queens and no king? > > > > Are we looking at a rulebook with 2000 pages? > > > > Bill Smythe > > And yet FIDE manages to do it. > > Alex Relyea With substantially fewer pages. And online. [Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/castling-when-k-q-are-reversed-after-10-moves/21375.md?page=4)