Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <ol>
    <li>Has an arbiter ever expressed an opinion, given advice or issued a ruling regarding threefold repetition in view of castling rights?"</li>
    </ol>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Yes, Stewart Reuben, International Arbiter and Chair of the FIDE Rules Committee has presided over progressive rationalization of the FIDE rules, and is very aware of the general questions over castling and e.p. impact on threefold repetition. I don't know if he knows of the rook-capture lacuna.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <ol start="2">
    <li>Have competent persons in any chess federation ever discussed the matter?</li>
    </ol>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Apart from FIDE, members of WFCC (World Federation of Chess Composition) have certainly discussed this issue. In Fairy Chess the general principle applies that a newly minted rook is assumed never to have moved. @Remellion's problem relies on this. The rook-capture lacuna is a slightly different point, stating that original castling rights remain rather than become re-established. </p>
  
  <p>Problemists also generally concur that a king can make a double hop "castling" if a rook was given as odds. I don't know if any would go as far to agree with @Brian Towers that this could happen in a non-odds composition, as it would interact pathologically with the problem convention that castling rights are assumed to be retained unless they can be proved to have been lost.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <ol start="3">
    <li>Do parallel or otherwise related laws, opinions, advice, rulings or discussions by arbiters, federations or competent persons exist that indicate the principles by which such a case might be judged?</li>
    </ol>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>EDIT: (thanks itub) I now have an idea what USCF opines, since their rules are now published uschess.org/content/view/7752/369. Draw by repetition is constrained by rights of castling and e.p. But the concept of "rights" is not defined in the movement rules. This is actually quite important since under FIDE, the interpretation is subtly different between castling and e.p. The paragraph which in FIDE laws contains the rook-capture hole does not appear in USCF.</p>
  
  <p>(Sidebar: my initial impression of the USCF rules is quite positive. They seem fluently written, with some authorial personality (e.g. "Tournament Director Tips") and there's are some good ideas which are new to me (e.g. can only claim a draw at the beginning of your turn, any claim also implies an offer of a draw). However the first time we try to get a clear answer, about "rights" we are a little let down.)</p>
  
  <p>So the FIDE rook-capture lacuna is surely just a hole, and it may be filled in the future. In the mean time, FIDE arbiters have discretion to interpret the rules using their judgement, as @TonyK stated.</p>
  
  <p>In the mean time, as Brian surmised, at least one joke problem relies on specifically this point. Place both kings and two knights on an empty board so that with White to move there is a unique way to draw by repetition in 4.0 moves. (A.Buchanan, version Retros Mailing List 3/1/2019). Note that this relies on the aforementioned castling convention.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-12T10:32:05.343Z
Answers.Text: You may be happy to hear that the USCF has made the latest version of the rules freely available: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/7752/369/ . It's not the full book, but it has the rules of the game itself (as opposed to pairing, rating, TD certification, correspondence rules, etc. for which you still have to buy the book).
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-12T11:12:03.390Z
Answers.Text: @itub thanks for this - will edit the answer suitably
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-12T01:50:14.477Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-06T14:12:41.437Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-09-06T14:12:41.437Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>This is dealt with explicitly in article 9.2.2 -</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:<br>
    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 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.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Neither of white's rooks move hence castling rights are not affected until the king moves. </p>
  
  <p>In general provided white has not moved his king he may castle on the side on which a rook which has not moved has been captured. I believe there are even puzzles which rely on this for the solution.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T10:50:11.027Z
Answers.Text: Puzzles which rely! That is interesting.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T12:44:16.490Z
Answers.Text: When you have time, see the update appended to the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T12:52:39.773Z
Answers.Text: @thb I have an old original (joke) problem which relies on this, actually: helpmate in 2. B6N/1p1pp3/4pp1P/7P/7P/2p4P/1PPP2rr/R3K2k b - - 0 1
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T13:37:55.573Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion Your composition has been added to the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T16:13:15.133Z
Answers.Text: @thb I'm fine with you including the position, but you really should include the stipulation with it: "Helpmate in 2."
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T16:39:53.690Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion Fixed. If it's still wrong, let me know.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-11T05:28:23.123Z
Answers.Text: @thb Also to clarify why it's a joke: to deliver the helpmate, white needs to be able to castle, but we can prove that white cannot castle in the diagram as the white rook on a1 must have moved before (to allow the black a-pawn to promote.) So the solution involves black promoting to a white rook, giving white castling rights with that rook which has indeed never moved. "Joke" in problems usually refers to some amusing bending of regular chess conventions or interpretations.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T10:18:15.387Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-10T10:18:15.387Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>This seems to be an omission in law 9.2.2.2:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>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.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>It should read "The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved, or the rook is captured." Indeed, that is how I hope an experienced arbiter would interpret it; the idea of having castling rights with non-existent rooks is absurd.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T12:44:53.430Z
Answers.Text: When you have time, see the update appended to the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T17:57:40.867Z
Answers.Text: @TonyK Although I agree with you, this doesn't really the answer the question. The question was not what the rule is or should be; the question was whether someone in authority had addressed the matter.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-26T19:36:29.057Z
Answers.Text: One could argue that a captured rook is moved off the board for the purposes of reading this. It no longer resides in its starting square, after all.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Monty Harder
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-26T19:41:37.703Z
Answers.Text: @MontyHarder: One could certainly argue that. But for me it flies in the face of everyday usage: being captured is not a move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-26T21:06:08.367Z
Answers.Text: May i advice to look at 3.8.2: „by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.“ So castling requires a rook. No rook, no castling, and no castling rights. There are no castling rights of a king in a direction with no rook available, because castling without a rook is not allowed.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christian H. Kuhn
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T11:46:34.940Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-10T11:46:34.940Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Answers.Body: <p>I have found a <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068512" rel="nofollow noreferrer">real game</a> (link to chessgames.com) in which an arbiter denying a draw claim by threefold repetition due to the fact that Black had the right to castle in the first position.</p>
  <p>What happened was that the position on the board was repeated three times, and Karpov was low on time. He announced to arbiter Geurt Gijssen his intention to play 26. Nb5, thus claiming a draw by threefold repetition. While Miles agreed, resulting in a draw anyhow, the arbiter denied Karpov his claim, stating that Black had the right to castle in the first position.</p>
  <p>I have found a detailed source in the issue <a href="http://vachess.org/news/2013-5.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Virginia News Chess, 2013-#5</a>, “The bimonthly publication of the Virginia Chess Federation,&quot; on pages 16 and 17.</p>
  <p>I will quote the entire story here, even if a little repetitive. However, the arbiter's name I mentioned earlier was pulled from the chessgames.com comments page on the game, so it may not be accurate.</p>
  <p>“There are other possible sources of misunderstanding. Perhaps the most diabolical example is what happened in the game Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1986. This was the position after Karpov moved 22 Nb5. Ra4 25 Nc3 Ra8 and now, just like my opponent Justin, Karpov summoned the arbiter, declared his intention to play 26 Nb5, and claimed a draw since the position would be the same as after his 22nd and 24th turns. Miles agreed and the game ended, but in fact Karpov’s claim was incorrect. Even though the position ‘looks the same’ (all pieces on the same squares) each time, the first
  occurrence (the one in the diagram above) is actually a different position from the later two because Black still has the legal move 22...0-0-0 as an option. He can no longer castle after that first ...Ra8-a3-a8 foray, so the potential for play is different later, and thus not the “same position” under the rules. This could have been a real tragedy for Karpov if Miles had disputed the claim. The rules in force at the time called for a three minute penalty off the clock of a player making an incorrect claim. Karpov had less than five minutes remaining to reach move 40, perhaps even less than three minutes. He might easily have time forfeited or even been declared to have forfeited straightaway.”</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;Anatoly Karpov-Anthony Miles, Interpolis 10th, Tilburg Netherlands, 11/4/198&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [startply &quot;42&quot;]
  
  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. e3 Bb7 6. Nc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 axb5 8. Bxb5 Qb6 9. Qb3 e6 10. e4 Nxe4 11. Nxe4 Bxd5 12. Qd3 Qb7 13. f3 c4 14. Bxc4 Bxc4 15. Qxc4 d5 16. Qc2 dxe4 17. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 18. fxe4 Nd7 19. Ne2 Nc5 20. Nc3 Nd3+ 21. Ke2 Nxb2 22. Nb5 Ra4 23. Nc3 Ra8 24. Nb5 Ra4 25. Nc3 Ra8 26. Nb5
  </code></pre>
  <p>Also, just for fun, here is a miniature version of @Remellion’s hilarious helpmate idea.</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;me, chessstackexchange.com, 9/6/2019, Helpmate In 2&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;8/8/8/8/8/7p/rr6/k3K1B1 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  [startflipped &quot;&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>Solution:</p>
  <blockquote class="spoiler">
  <p> 1... h2 2. Bd4 h1=White Rook! 3. 0-0#!</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T01:34:58.857Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-07-24T13:49:41.813Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-07-24T13:49:41.813Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rewan Demontay
Body: <p>In view of castling rights, an aspiring rules lawyer could ask: when does threefold repetition support a draw claim? Technical example:</p>
  <pre><code>[fen &quot;&quot;]
  [title &quot;Illustration of castling rights&quot;]
  [startply &quot;13&quot;]
  [startflipped &quot;0&quot;]
  
  1. e4 g6 2. b3 Bg7 3. g3 BxRa1 4. e5 b6 5. Na3 Bb7 6. Qg4 BxRh1 7. Nc4 Nc6 8. Kd1 Nb8 9. Ke1 Nc6 10. Kd1 Nb8 11. Ke1
  </code></pre>
  <p>The aspiring rules lawyer's question is not actually my question today. My questions today rather are these:</p>
  <ol>
  <li>Has an arbiter ever expressed an opinion, given advice or issued a ruling regarding threefold repetition in view of castling rights?</li>
  <li>Have competent persons in any chess federation ever discussed the matter?</li>
  <li>Do parallel or otherwise related laws, opinions, advice, rulings or discussions by arbiters, federations or competent persons exist that indicate the principles by which such a case might be judged?</li>
  </ol>
  <p>The three questions are related and answers to any or all of the three—or even <em>partial</em> answers to any of the three—would be read with interest. I seek insight into how chess authorities have approached (or would approach) such problems.</p>
  <p>Related question <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/6188/315">here.</a> Related answer <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21317/315">here.</a> FIDE's laws of chess <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here.</a></p>
  <p><strong>UPDATE</strong></p>
  <p>The excellent, concise, informative, well-researched answers of <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/23926/315">@BrianTowers</a> and <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/23927/315">@TonyK,</a> taken together, perfectly illustrate the reason the question has been asked. Both answers are recommended and, naturally, both have been upvoted by me. Ironically however, under the circumstance, neither answer can be accepted over the other, can it, for only the two answers <em>together</em> serve to illustrate the point.</p>
  <p>Since the two answers so perfectly capture the two sides, my preference would be that further answers (if any) avoid taking sides but rather focus on the three items listed above.</p>
  <p><strong>ILLUSTRATION BY @REMELLION</strong></p>
  <p>Incidentally, before the question was asked, @Remillion had composed a problem position to illustrate a related point. He had originally meant the position as a joke but, since he has mentioned the position in comments in the present context, we can diagram it here.</p>
  <pre><code>[fen &quot;B6N/1p1pp3/4pp1P/7P/7P/2p4P/1PPP2rr/R3K2k b - - 0 1&quot;]
  [title &quot;By @Remellion: black to move; helpmate in 2&quot;]
  [startflipped &quot;&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T00:24:55.347Z
Comments.Text: If I understand correctly, you are essentially asking if the existence/in-existence of castling rights affects whether two positions are determined equivalent. Is that correct?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T00:30:07.710Z
Comments.Text: @Brandon_J Well, yes, but no, not really. You and I both understand that castling rights are part of the position, and the linked answer has already mentioned that one could regard FIDE's laws as ambiguous as to whether the capture of an unmoved rook extinguishes the castling right on that wing. I doubt that you and I can settle that question today. What I am wondering is how authorities approach questions like this when mooted. I think that you're on the right track, though, and would be interested to read any relevant comments or answers you cared to give.
Comments.UserDisplayName: thb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-10T01:08:35.410Z
Comments.Text: TBH @thb , you might need an actual FIDE arbiter to tell you what would happen.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-11T09:38:33.060Z
Comments.Text: related : https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6188/draws-castling-rights-and-the-fides-2014-rulebook-revision?noredirect=1&lq=1
Comments.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Tags: <rules><draw><fide><castling><threefold-repetition>
Title: Threefold repetition in view of castling rights
ThreadText: # Threefold repetition in view of castling rights
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-10)
  
  In view of castling rights, an aspiring rules lawyer could ask: when does threefold repetition support a draw claim? Technical example:
  
  ```
  [fen ""]
  [title "Illustration of castling rights"]
  [startply "13"]
  [startflipped "0"]
  
  1. e4 g6 2. b3 Bg7 3. g3 BxRa1 4. e5 b6 5. Na3 Bb7 6. Qg4 BxRh1 7. Nc4 Nc6 8. Kd1 Nb8 9. Ke1 Nc6 10. Kd1 Nb8 11. Ke1
  
  ```
  
  The aspiring rules lawyer's question is not actually my question today. My questions today rather are these:
  
  1. Has an arbiter ever expressed an opinion, given advice or issued a ruling regarding threefold repetition in view of castling rights?
  2. Have competent persons in any chess federation ever discussed the matter?
  3. Do parallel or otherwise related laws, opinions, advice, rulings or discussions by arbiters, federations or competent persons exist that indicate the principles by which such a case might be judged?
  
  The three questions are related and answers to any or all of the three—or even *partial* answers to any of the three—would be read with interest. I seek insight into how chess authorities have approached (or would approach) such problems.
  
  Related question [here.](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/6188/315) Related answer [here.](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21317/315) FIDE's laws of chess [here.](https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article)
  
  **UPDATE**
  
  The excellent, concise, informative, well-researched answers of [@username_5](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/23926/315) and [@username_7,](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/23927/315) taken together, perfectly illustrate the reason the question has been asked. Both answers are recommended and, naturally, both have been upvoted by me. Ironically however, under the circumstance, neither answer can be accepted over the other, can it, for only the two answers *together* serve to illustrate the point.
  
  Since the two answers so perfectly capture the two sides, my preference would be that further answers (if any) avoid taking sides but rather focus on the three items listed above.
  
  **ILLUSTRATION BY @username_6**
  
  Incidentally, before the question was asked, @Remillion had composed a problem position to illustrate a related point. He had originally meant the position as a joke but, since he has mentioned the position in comments in the present context, we can diagram it here.
  
  ```
  [fen "B6N/1p1pp3/4pp1P/7P/7P/2p4P/1PPP2rr/R3K2k b - - 0 1"]
  [title "By @username_6: black to move; helpmate in 2"]
  [startflipped ""]
  
  ```
  
  **Tags:** rules, draw, fide, castling, threefold-repetition
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If I understand correctly, you are essentially asking if the existence/in-existence of castling rights affects whether two positions are determined equivalent. Is that correct?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Well, yes, but no, not really. You and I both understand that castling rights are part of the position, and the linked answer has already mentioned that one could regard FIDE's laws as ambiguous as to whether the capture of an unmoved rook extinguishes the castling right on that wing. I doubt that you and I can settle that question today. What I am wondering is how authorities approach questions like this when mooted. I think that you're on the right track, though, and would be interested to read any relevant comments or answers you cared to give.  
  > **username_1**: TBH @username_0 , you might need an actual FIDE arbiter to tell you what would happen.  
  > **username_2**: related : https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6188/draws-castling-rights-and-the-fides-2014-rulebook-revision?noredirect=1&lq=1  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-03-12. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  > 1. Has an arbiter ever expressed an opinion, given advice or issued a ruling regarding threefold repetition in view of castling rights?"
  
  Yes, Stewart Reuben, International Arbiter and Chair of the FIDE Rules Committee has presided over progressive rationalization of the FIDE rules, and is very aware of the general questions over castling and e.p. impact on threefold repetition. I don't know if he knows of the rook-capture lacuna.
  
  > 2. Have competent persons in any chess federation ever discussed the matter?
  
  Apart from FIDE, members of WFCC (World Federation of Chess Composition) have certainly discussed this issue. In Fairy Chess the general principle applies that a newly minted rook is assumed never to have moved. @username_6's problem relies on this. The rook-capture lacuna is a slightly different point, stating that original castling rights remain rather than become re-established.
  
  Problemists also generally concur that a king can make a double hop "castling" if a rook was given as odds. I don't know if any would go as far to agree with @username_5 that this could happen in a non-odds composition, as it would interact pathologically with the problem convention that castling rights are assumed to be retained unless they can be proved to have been lost.
  
  > 3. Do parallel or otherwise related laws, opinions, advice, rulings or discussions by arbiters, federations or competent persons exist that indicate the principles by which such a case might be judged?
  
  EDIT: (thanks username_4) I now have an idea what USCF opines, since their rules are now published uschess.org/content/view/7752/369. Draw by repetition is constrained by rights of castling and e.p. But the concept of "rights" is not defined in the movement rules. This is actually quite important since under FIDE, the interpretation is subtly different between castling and e.p. The paragraph which in FIDE laws contains the rook-capture hole does not appear in USCF.
  
  (Sidebar: my initial impression of the USCF rules is quite positive. They seem fluently written, with some authorial personality (e.g. "Tournament Director Tips") and there's are some good ideas which are new to me (e.g. can only claim a draw at the beginning of your turn, any claim also implies an offer of a draw). However the first time we try to get a clear answer, about "rights" we are a little let down.)
  
  So the FIDE rook-capture lacuna is surely just a hole, and it may be filled in the future. In the mean time, FIDE arbiters have discretion to interpret the rules using their judgement, as @username_7 stated.
  
  In the mean time, as username_5 surmised, at least one joke problem relies on specifically this point. Place both kings and two knights on an empty board so that with White to move there is a unique way to draw by repetition in 4.0 moves. (A.Buchanan, version Retros Mailing List 3/1/2019). Note that this relies on the aforementioned castling convention.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: You may be happy to hear that the USCF has made the latest version of the rules freely available: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/7752/369/ . It's not the full book, but it has the rules of the game itself (as opposed to pairing, rating, TD certification, correspondence rules, etc. for which you still have to buy the book).  
  > **username_3**: @username_4 thanks for this - will edit the answer suitably  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-03-10. Score: 5
  
  This is dealt with explicitly in article 9.2.2 -
  
  > 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.
  
  Neither of white's rooks move hence castling rights are not affected until the king moves.
  
  In general provided white has not moved his king he may castle on the side on which a rook which has not moved has been captured. I believe there are even puzzles which rely on this for the solution.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Puzzles which rely! That is interesting.  
  > **username_0**: When you have time, see the update appended to the question.  
  > **username_6**: @username_0 I have an old original (joke) problem which relies on this, actually: helpmate in 2. B6N/1p1pp3/4pp1P/7P/7P/2p4P/1PPP2rr/R3K2k b - - 0 1  
  > **username_0**: @username_6 Your composition has been added to the question.  
  > **username_6**: @username_0 I'm fine with you including the position, but you really should include the stipulation with it: "Helpmate in 2."  
  > **username_0**: @username_6 Fixed. If it's still wrong, let me know.  
  > **username_6**: @username_0 Also to clarify why it's a joke: to deliver the helpmate, white needs to be able to castle, but we can prove that white cannot castle in the diagram as the white rook on a1 must have moved before (to allow the black a-pawn to promote.) So the solution involves black promoting to a white rook, giving white castling rights with that rook which has indeed never moved. "Joke" in problems usually refers to some amusing bending of regular chess conventions or interpretations.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2019-03-10. Score: 5
  
  This seems to be an omission in law 9.2.2.2:
  
  > 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.
  
  It should read "The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved, or the rook is captured." Indeed, that is how I hope an experienced arbiter would interpret it; the idea of having castling rights with non-existent rooks is absurd.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: When you have time, see the update appended to the question.  
  > **username_8**: @username_7 Although I agree with you, this doesn't really the answer the question. The question was not what the rule is or should be; the question was whether someone in authority had addressed the matter.  
  > **username_9**: One could argue that a captured rook is moved off the board for the purposes of reading this. It no longer resides in its starting square, after all.  
  > **username_7**: @username_9: One could certainly argue that. But for me it flies in the face of everyday usage: being captured is not a move.  
  > **username_10**: May i advice to look at 3.8.2: „by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.“ So castling requires a rook. No rook, no castling, and no castling rights. There are no castling rights of a king in a direction with no rook available, because castling without a rook is not allowed.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2019-09-06. Score: 4
  
  I have found a [real game](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068512) (link to chessgames.com) in which an arbiter denying a draw claim by threefold repetition due to the fact that Black had the right to castle in the first position.
  
  What happened was that the position on the board was repeated three times, and Karpov was low on time. He announced to arbiter Geurt Gijssen his intention to play 26. Nb5, thus claiming a draw by threefold repetition. While Miles agreed, resulting in a draw anyhow, the arbiter denied Karpov his claim, stating that Black had the right to castle in the first position.
  
  I have found a detailed source in the issue [Virginia News Chess, 2013-#5](http://vachess.org/news/2013-5.pdf), “The bimonthly publication of the Virginia Chess Federation," on pages 16 and 17.
  
  I will quote the entire story here, even if a little repetitive. However, the arbiter's name I mentioned earlier was pulled from the chessgames.com comments page on the game, so it may not be accurate.
  
  “There are other possible sources of misunderstanding. Perhaps the most diabolical example is what happened in the game Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1986. This was the position after Karpov moved 22 Nb5. Ra4 25 Nc3 Ra8 and now, just like my opponent Justin, Karpov summoned the arbiter, declared his intention to play 26 Nb5, and claimed a draw since the position would be the same as after his 22nd and 24th turns. Miles agreed and the game ended, but in fact Karpov’s claim was incorrect. Even though the position ‘looks the same’ (all pieces on the same squares) each time, the first
  occurrence (the one in the diagram above) is actually a different position from the later two because Black still has the legal move 22...0-0-0 as an option. He can no longer castle after that first ...Ra8-a3-a8 foray, so the potential for play is different later, and thus not the “same position” under the rules. This could have been a real tragedy for Karpov if Miles had disputed the claim. The rules in force at the time called for a three minute penalty off the clock of a player making an incorrect claim. Karpov had less than five minutes remaining to reach move 40, perhaps even less than three minutes. He might easily have time forfeited or even been declared to have forfeited straightaway.”
  
  ```
  [Title "Anatoly Karpov-Anthony Miles, Interpolis 10th, Tilburg Netherlands, 11/4/198"]
  [FEN ""]
  [startply "42"]
  
  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. e3 Bb7 6. Nc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 axb5 8. Bxb5 Qb6 9. Qb3 e6 10. e4 Nxe4 11. Nxe4 Bxd5 12. Qd3 Qb7 13. f3 c4 14. Bxc4 Bxc4 15. Qxc4 d5 16. Qc2 dxe4 17. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 18. fxe4 Nd7 19. Ne2 Nc5 20. Nc3 Nd3+ 21. Ke2 Nxb2 22. Nb5 Ra4 23. Nc3 Ra8 24. Nb5 Ra4 25. Nc3 Ra8 26. Nb5
  
  ```
  
  Also, just for fun, here is a miniature version of @username_6’s hilarious helpmate idea.
  
  ```
  [Title "me, chessstackexchange.com, 9/6/2019, Helpmate In 2"]
  [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/7p/rr6/k3K1B1 w - - 0 1"]
  [startflipped ""]
  
  ```
  
  Solution:
  
  > 1... h2 2. Bd4 h1=White Rook! 3. 0-0#!
  
  
  ---
  
  