crem wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:00 pm
- I'm not sure I understand they wanted to say with "a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving", particularly because the word "moving" seemingly syntactically only relate to a king, and not the rook.
In practice, it makes no difference because whichever piece is involved, the right has been lost, so the ambiguity in the semantic relationship is perfectly acceptable
I guess the wording is trying to acknowledge that there are separate long and short castling rights (for both kings).
The rules should just define the "state" of the position (side-to-move, content of each square, castling rights, any ep right). Then three-fold repetition is the occurrence of a position state that has occurred at least twice earlier. Referring to all possible moves/sequences of moves makes it needlessly complicated.
