Draw by repetition

The exact position must appear 3 times (not necessarily consecutively) for it to be a draw.

Also note that the fide rules are not the same

5 times is automatic a draw

on 3 times you can demand a draw

9.2.1
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1
is about to appear, if he first indicate his move by writing on the paper scoresheet or entering move on the electronic scoresheet, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2
has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
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.

https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 

There is more to it than that.  It must be with the same player to move and the same legal options available for both sides.

Take the following position.

OK, in this position, NEITHER SIDE has moved their King or either Rook.

It is Black to move.

He plays 1...d5.  So here is the position we will be repeating.

White, on this turn, can legally play 2.exd6 en passant.  Instead, he plays

2.Bd3 Bd6 3.Be2 Be7.

This position has only occurred ONCE because this is the first time that this position has come up with White to move, both sides can castle in either direction, but WHITE CANNOT PLAY EN PASSANT!

4.Bf3 Bf6 5.Be2 Be7.

This is now the second occurrence of this position with White to move.

6.Bc4 Bd6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.Be2.

This is NOT 3-fold because it is now Black to move.  This position occurred ONCE with Black to move and TWICE with White to move.

8...Bf6 9.Bf3 Be7 10.Be2

This is now TWICE with Black to move.

10...Rg8 11.Bd3 Rh8 12.Be2

Now this is the FIRST occurrence of this position with Black to move because before, both players could castle both directions on their move instead of moving the Bishop.

But now, White can still castle both ways, but Black can ONLY castle Queenside.

Repeat the exercise, avoiding 3-folds with the Bishops, make it twice that position with Black to move, twice with White, then take away a castling right to one side for White by toggling the Rook and then do it all again, etc.

So to reiterate:

To claim a draw, it must be the exact same position thrice with the same player to move, both sides having the same legal options, meaning have not lost en passant or castling rights in the process.

Should also clarify it is same legal moves, not castling rights.

For example, the following is 3-fold, despite neither king and no Rooks having moved yet:

In this position, it is White to move.  While his king and Rooks have not moved, he cannot legally castle in either direction because of the Black Knight on e3.

Black cannot castle in either direction either!  The a3-Bishop covers f8, and Black's own Bishop blocks him from castling Queenside.

Therefore, 1.Rb1 Rb8 2.Ra1 Ra8 3.Rg1 Rg8 4.Rh1 Rh8 would indeed be 3-fold because all 3 times both sides had the same legal options.

Hi.

Your post is factually incorrect.

If the castling rights change, then it is not the same position.

Greetings.

It bares down on how one interpretes article 9.2 of the FIDE Laws of chess.

9.2
The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same
position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
a.
is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the
arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b.
has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, 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.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no
longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its
castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.

Your objection is obviously based on the last paragraph, but actually the rules do not care if the loss of castling rights is temporary, or permanent. @ThrillerFan 's interpretation is correct.

No, you are wrong.

It has nothing to do with castling rights.  It is DO YOU HAVE THE SAME LEGAL OPTIONS?

The following is 3 fold repetition despite castling rights being different.  Neither side had the legal option to castle at the time of the repeated position.

Yes, the first time both sides still had castling RIGHTS to the queenside, but neither side could legally castle wueenside because of the pieces in between.

It is the SAME POSITION, SAME PLAYER TO MOVE, BOTH SIDES HAVING THE SAME LEGAL OPTIONS.

Only time that castling rights matter is if castling was a legal move.  If I could LEGALLY castle queenside IN THE REPEATED POSITION, but moved my rook back and forth, I no longer have the same legal options.

But in the one you claim is wrong, you are wrong because while neither side moved their King or Rooks initially, nobody could ever castle from that position because one case had a piece in between the Rook and king, and the other 3 would require the king to jump over check, which is illegal!

This issue has been decided somewhere in the previous century after repeats occurred in high level games such as Fischer-Najdorf. Legal options don't matter for castling, only castling rights. Article 9.2.2.2 is now unambiguous whatever it said in the past. It's different for e.p. right. If you can't actually play the e.p. move (because of self check) then that position will be considered the same after a repeat, 9.2.2.1.

The idea of legal options could also apply to the interaction of the repetition rule and the 50-move rule. The state of the 50-move counter changes during the repetition cycles which could be considered a change in legal state. This would make it impossible to repeat any position at all as the 50-move counter cannot remain unchanged! Even worse are the interaction issues around dead positions but let's not go there!

ayo thats sus

jk

bye

me out

      ,

Hi.

I am surprised to see an International Master interpreting the rules incorrectly. There is no point in arguing. You can ask an arbiter (any arbiter) about this rule in particular.

Greetings.

You are right! The IM quotes are from an older version of the FIDE handbook which is still ambiguous. This was nicely explained by Andrew Buchanan through the concepts of genotype and phenotype. The current rules treat castling right as a genotype which , like a noble title, is purely based on the inheritance of those rights from the past. The castling rights inherit move by move from the game starting position as long as no rook or king move is made! For a phenotype one would add the requirement of having available the option of executing the castling move at the  instance of the castling right under investigation.

Though castling right has been assigned genotypal status, the e.p. right is more in the corner of phenotypes. It is insufficient to derive that right from the pawn formation plus the preceding double step pawn move, one must also be capable of legally executing the e.p. move - not checking one's own king!

The choices made by FIDE were arbitrary but this is how they are. For now!