Custom Positions Competition !!

I think this is a very interesting custom position that I just created. 

0.00 on the button on my interface.

Destroys my hypothesis that 0.00  only happens for calculated draws under the rules.

This variation on post #7 by RALRAL3333 also gives me exactly 0.00.

Here castling is allowed except White has lost his king's side castling right.

What if there were 2 or 3 squares free for the bishops to shuffle around? How would that affect whites mating abilities

That's why I said Stockfish should be attempting to take a bishop. Obviously if there are enough holes in the bishop cover (e.g. 31) White would usually  win, I'm looking at it, but I haven't worked out whether two holes is enough yet. If you get enough holes to force the capture of a bishop from a position with the black king in the wrong corner it seems pretty obvious that the position would then be generally won by White.

I wonder what the minimum number of holes is to be able to force mate, and what if there are 2 knights with 1 hole?

Reducing to one knight (as in the position against Stockfish I posted) is not the best idea, but I don't think even with more knights you have enough flexibility moving a single bishop hole to force a bishop capture.

Agreed

There's a slight problem in that there is an illegal number of pawns. OP's initial post makes it clear that illegal positions are allowed, but in this case you need to know which pawns have already moved. The starting position cannot be the standard FIDE defined position.

If for example none of the white pawns have moved but all of the black pawns have, White should have an advantage here because all of White's pawns but none of Black's have a double move option.  

pawns on the seconds and seventh rank can have a double move.

the above position is very similar to the one which the OP said was his/her favorite position so far, but here the kings are trapped and can be given squares to move to with a sacrifice and also the knights can deliver a smothered mate

That's probably the way Stockfish plays them. According to FIDE it depends on whether the pawn has moved:

Art. 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or

So in any illegal position with pawn(s) it's necessary to specify which pawns have previously moved unless they're on the first rank (as you do in the post quoted).

Strictly speaking, since illegal positions are allowed this should be done even in positions which appear legal. For example, in my post #8, I should have said that the a6 pawn had previously moved, otherwise Black would have a forced win.

Here again it has to be stated where the pawns started, in this case also because of

Art. 3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’.

If the pawns beyond the fourth rank started beyond the fourth rank they may not promote, because they cannot reach the rank furthest from their starting positions (the player's first rank). If White's forward pawns can promote and Black's cannot this would give White an advantage. 

Engine Analysis gives me .64 for this position btw - I don't know if that is consistent across users.

Edit: Now it gives me .54 so it's obviously not consistent.

What about a position where every square is occupied?

How would that position go down?

@EndgameStudy: Am I playing Black? 1...Kf8 2.? Kg7 3.? Kh8 then repeat 2 and 3 until you attack one of the squares g7 h8. You can fill in the ?s till then.

Would white win?