English Chess Forum

I was playing in the lowest section of the Blackpool congress this last weekend. (What I'm about to describe wouldn't happen in a higher section.)

I was 4 or 5 moves into one game when I considered developing a piece to a certain square but decided against it because the piece could be taken by my opponent's queen. I then thought this shouldn't be the case, and realised that my opponent's king and queen had started on the wrong squares. (They had probably been put there quickly by the players at the end of the previous game.)

When I pointed this out to my opponent, we agreed to restart the game and reset the clocks without reference to anyone else. However, was this the correct procedure? Also, what would have happened had we played a lot more moves, and taken a lot more than a couple of minutes, before realising the initial mistake.

Robert

Well, I'm sure it'd be kind of tempting for an arbiter to insist that you should finish what you started Presume a restart is the only remotely sane option though.

In a higher section - I'm sure that it could happen! - I'd imagine both players would still be in theory when it was noticed, and might well thus be very happy to just stick the pieces back where they should have started and keep going.

The closest I've managed would be a game ages ago where the board was set up with a white square on the left or something. I didn't notice (a tiny bit dyslexic so doesn't bother me at all), my opponent did. So he thought he had started with 1 d4 instead of 1 e4 and vice versa for me or some such oddity.

Fairly sure we restarted that one too.

Robert Stokes wrote:When I pointed this out to my opponent, we agreed to restart the game and reset the clocks without reference to anyone else. However, was this the correct procedure?

Yes, it was - except that you should have gone to the arbiter to confirm that.

What the arbiter might have done, in the circumstances, is offer you and your opponent the opportunity to swap the K and Q around to the right squares and continue, but only by mutual agreement.

Robert Stokes wrote:Also, what would have happened had we played a lot more moves, and taken a lot more than a couple of minutes, before realising the initial mistake.

The same thing - you go back to the last position that was correct. There wasn't such a position, so you have to start over.

Robert Stokes wrote:I was playing in the lowest section of the Blackpool congress this last weekend. (What I'm about to describe wouldn't happen in a higher section.)

I was 4 or 5 moves into one game when I considered developing a piece to a certain square but decided against it because the piece could be taken by my opponent's queen. I then thought this shouldn't be the case, and realised that my opponent's king and queen had started on the wrong squares. (They had probably been put there quickly by the players at the end of the previous game.)

When I pointed this out to my opponent, we agreed to restart the game and reset the clocks without reference to anyone else. However, was this the correct procedure? Also, what would have happened had we played a lot more moves, and taken a lot more than a couple of minutes, before realising the initial mistake.

Robert

FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:7.1 If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times. He shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move-counter.
7.2 a. If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall be played.
b. If during a game it is found that the chessboard has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game shall continue but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed chessboard

Article 2.1 basically says "White on the right" and so 7.2b doesn't apply here.
Article 7.2a covers it and you handled it correctly.
Congratulations! You've passed your arbiter's exam

PS Even if your competition was a rapid or blitz because you spotted the mistake within the first 10 moves your action was correct.

I'm surprised about the blitz/rapid being 10 moves - I had a recollection that it was 3 moves completed and then 'tough' play from where you are ...

Paul

Paul Dargan wrote:I'm surprised about the blitz/rapid being 10 moves - I had a recollection that it was 3 moves completed and then 'tough' play from where you are ...

Paul

You'll be pleased to learn you're not going mad - three moves was in fact the rule until the 2014 revision.

MartinCarpenter wrote:Well, I'm sure it'd be kind of tempting for an arbiter to insist that you should finish what you started Presume a restart is the only remotely sane option though.

In a higher section - I'm sure that it could happen! - I'd imagine both players would still be in theory when it was noticed, and might well thus be very happy to just stick the pieces back where they should have started and keep going.

This happened to me once (in a slightly higher section - probably u150 ish). It was my own king and queen that had been wrongly placed. i felt vaguely uncomfortable nin the opening and it came to a head when I was puzzled why there was a queen baring down on my king. Without really thinking about it I muttered "I thought there was something odd about this game" and swapped my pieces over. I'm not even sure that my oppoinent noticed me doing it! All quite improper of course, but perfectly OK between sensibly minded players.

Alex Holowczak wrote:What the arbiter might have done, in the circumstances, is offer you and your opponent the opportunity to swap the K and Q around to the right squares and continue, but only by mutual agreement.

Arbiters can do all sorts of strange things but that would be in direct contravention of 7.2a and not allowed in a FIDE rated tournament.
Alex, is this some unusual ECF variant?

I think it's called the Common Sense alternative.

Definitely. Enormously more likely that both players simply haven't noticed the pieces out of position than that they have, changed their play to take account of it and somehow not realised it was wrong!

True incident from nearly 40 years ago. After the following eight moves an arbiter (I don't think it was Jack Speigel) passes by and points out that we have started with misplaced Black Q and K!

[Event "Southend Open"] [Site "?"] [Date "1977.04.09"] [Round "3"] [White "Habershon, P.F.."] [Black "Teichmann, E.O.M.C."] [Result "*"] [PlyCount "16"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4 5. Nb5 Qxe4+ 6. Be2 Kd8 7. O-O a6 8. N5c3 Qe8 *

Nice one !

Brian Towers wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:What the arbiter might have done, in the circumstances, is offer you and your opponent the opportunity to swap the K and Q around to the right squares and continue, but only by mutual agreement.

Arbiters can do all sorts of strange things but that would be in direct contravention of 7.2a and not allowed in a FIDE rated tournament.
Alex, is this some unusual ECF variant?

No, it isn't an ECF variant. I've taken this course of action in situations I thought was appropriate on two occasions in FIDE-rated tournaments, and I'm happy to defend my decision to do so on either occasion.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Paul Dargan wrote:I'm surprised about the blitz/rapid being 10 moves - I had a recollection that it was 3 moves completed and then 'tough' play from where you are ...

Paul

You'll be pleased to learn you're not going mad - three moves was in fact the rule until the 2014 revision.

I remember playing in a quick play tournament when my game started 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6. At this point I noticed that my queen's knight and bishop were the wrong way round; furthermore, if I continued 3.g3 for example then Bb4+ would present some problems (and presumably would have been irreversible?)

I just asked my opponent if I could swap the pieces round and she consented. I see this was an incorrect, albeit pragmatic, solution.

Alistair Campbell wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Paul Dargan wrote:I'm surprised about the blitz/rapid being 10 moves - I had a recollection that it was 3 moves completed and then 'tough' play from where you are ...

Paul

You'll be pleased to learn you're not going mad - three moves was in fact the rule until the 2014 revision.

I remember playing in a quick play tournament when my game started 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6. At this point I noticed that my queen's knight and bishop were the wrong way round; furthermore, if I continued 3.g3 for example then Bb4+ would present some problems (and presumably would have been irreversible?)

I just asked my opponent if I could swap the pieces round and she consented. I see this was an incorrect, albeit pragmatic, solution.

I had a game as black against Tony Kosten that started 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3. At that point I noticed my bishop was on b8 and my knight on c8. I pondered briefly about playing 2....c6 to defend my e pawn but then alerted my opponent and swapped the pieces around.

Alistair's example above was funny, at first I thought 2 c4 might be a mistake but then realised that Nd3 was a natural developing move to stop Bb4