Answers.Body: <p>According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:</p>
    
    <p>9.2.2.1   at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant<br>
    9.2.2.2   a king had <strong>castling rights</strong> with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost
    only after the king or rook is moved.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Hence the answer to</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
    considered the same if:</p>
    
    <p>In the first position, the king cannot castle because it is in check,
    pieces are blocking, or for some other reason, but it could castle
    otherwise</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Although castling is temporarily prevented the king still has <strong>castling rights</strong>. They are not lost if castling is temporarily prevented by check or blocking pieces. They are only lost if the king or rook moves.</p>
  
  <p>With regard to:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
    considered the same if:</p>
    
    <p>In the second position, the king cannot castle because it has already
    moved.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The rules are clear. If the king has lost castling rights since the the first position then the positions are not the same and a draw cannot be claimed.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Yes. That's what the rule says.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T11:33:19.047Z
Answers.Text: The wording of 9.2.2 is a bit confusing. Given 9.2.2.1, my explanation is that when they write "possible moves", they mean "the set of all legal future **sequences** of moves", not "the set of all legal next plies". But that could have been written better.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Federico Poloni
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T12:04:47.540Z
Answers.Text: The key is though, what if the position is such that although the king still has castling rights, there is no possible series of legal moves for it to castle? Like if it is immediately forced to move because of the check in the current position. Then all future possible moves are exactly the same.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T13:20:05.657Z
Answers.Text: @RewanDemontay That was the subject of my question - https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/25113/can-you-castle-with-a-ghost-rook. Conclusion: you may have the right but you can't actually make the move without the rook involved.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T19:38:10.697Z
Answers.Text: @RewanDemontay: The "rook has been captured without moving" subtlety cannot be relevant for the threefold-repetition rule, though -- it's trivially impossible for any situation to recur after a capture anyway, because the total number of pieces on the board will have decreased.
Answers.UserDisplayName: hmakholm left over Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-26T04:23:14.997Z
Answers.Text: The famous unmoved-rook-capture lacuna is relevant for repetition. Suppose KRR for a player never moved, and both rooks were captured on their home squares. If the castling rights persist, then the king cannot start to participate in the dance of moves to repeat a position. Personally I think this hole in the rules is big enough to be worth fixing.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T11:07:56.777Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-30T11:07:56.777Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>Threefold repetition requires that the same "potential for moves". For example, if an en passant move could be played in one position but not another, it does not count as the same position. </p>
  
  <p>With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be considered the same if:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>In the first position, the king cannot castle because it is in check, pieces are blocking, or for some other reason, but it could castle otherwise.</li>
  <li>In the second position, the king cannot castle because it has already moved. </li>
  </ul>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T11:21:42.260Z
Comments.Text: Yes, same goes for en passant
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T12:01:21.023Z
Comments.Text: This question has been asked multiple times before, e.g. in https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/22910/rules-how-does-right-to-castle-and-en-passant-get-considered-for-the-purpose-of?rq=1 . Personally I believe the rules are not 100% clear.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Tags: <rules><castling><threefold-repetition>
Title: Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?
ThreadText: # Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-30)
  
  Threefold repetition requires that the same "potential for moves". For example, if an en passant move could be played in one position but not another, it does not count as the same position.
  
  With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be considered the same if:
  
  * In the first position, the king cannot castle because it is in check, pieces are blocking, or for some other reason, but it could castle otherwise.
  * In the second position, the king cannot castle because it has already moved.
  
  **Tags:** rules, castling, threefold-repetition
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Yes, same goes for en passant  
  > **username_2**: This question has been asked multiple times before, e.g. in https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/22910/rules-how-does-right-to-castle-and-en-passant-get-considered-for-the-purpose-of?rq=1 . Personally I believe the rules are not 100% clear.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-09-30. Score: 11 | Accepted answer
  
  According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:
  
  > 9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
  >
  > 9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant  
  > 9.2.2.2 a king had **castling rights** with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost
  > only after the king or rook is moved.
  
  Hence the answer to
  
  > With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
  > considered the same if:
  >
  > In the first position, the king cannot castle because it is in check,
  > pieces are blocking, or for some other reason, but it could castle
  > otherwise
  
  Although castling is temporarily prevented the king still has **castling rights**. They are not lost if castling is temporarily prevented by check or blocking pieces. They are only lost if the king or rook moves.
  
  With regard to:
  
  > With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
  > considered the same if:
  >
  > In the second position, the king cannot castle because it has already
  > moved.
  
  The rules are clear. If the king has lost castling rights since the the first position then the positions are not the same and a draw cannot be claimed.
  
  > Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?
  
  Yes. That's what the rule says.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: The wording of 9.2.2 is a bit confusing. Given 9.2.2.1, my explanation is that when they write "possible moves", they mean "the set of all legal future **sequences** of moves", not "the set of all legal next plies". But that could have been written better.  
  > **username_2**: The key is though, what if the position is such that although the king still has castling rights, there is no possible series of legal moves for it to castle? Like if it is immediately forced to move because of the check in the current position. Then all future possible moves are exactly the same.  
  > **username_3**: @RewanDemontay That was the subject of my question - https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/25113/can-you-castle-with-a-ghost-rook. Conclusion: you may have the right but you can't actually make the move without the rook involved.  
  > **username_5**: @RewanDemontay: The "rook has been captured without moving" subtlety cannot be relevant for the threefold-repetition rule, though -- it's trivially impossible for any situation to recur after a capture anyway, because the total number of pieces on the board will have decreased.  
  > **username_6**: The famous unmoved-rook-capture lacuna is relevant for repetition. Suppose KRR for a player never moved, and both rooks were captured on their home squares. If the castling rights persist, then the king cannot start to participate in the dance of moves to repeat a position. Personally I think this hole in the rules is big enough to be worth fixing.  
  
  ---
  
  