Question about 3-fold repetition rule?

a) If en passant wasn't legal in the first case due to a pin, and in the second due to the pawn move not having just happened - will these positions be considered as identical?

b) if there is a figure between the king and the rook and therefore castling is impossible, and then the king went forth and back and after that castling is impossible for two reasons: the figure between the king and the rook still stands and the right to castling due to the King's move was lost - will these positions be considered as identical? Is rule 9.2.2.2 in conflict with rule 9.2.2?

Well, if the position were repeated then the pawn would still be pinned anyway. So the difference is en passant being illegal for one reason versus two reasons. I think those should be identical positions then, but not 100% sure.

I'm not a referee but I think these are good questions. First I wanted to write that I don't see a conflict, but then I changed my mind.

In case a) the positions should be considered identical as the player has the same possible moves. The reason why doesn't matter.

In case b), using rule 9.2.2 the positions are identical the player cannot castle.

Using 9.2.2.2, the positions are not identical because in the first situation the player still has the right to castle (though he cannot use his right).

So, I agree(?) that there is a conflict.

It would be repetition because it is "The same legal options for both sides".

Take the following posiiton.  Let's say White plays 1.f4.  It is Black to move.  You don't have "en passant rights" like you do castling rights.  En Passant is simply an available pawn move if and only if that pawn move is legal when an opposing pawn leaps over a square that the other pawn could normally capture.

In this case, Black DOES NOT have exf3 as a LEGAL OPTION.  He can play e3 or any King or Queen move.  White can play f5, or a King or Queen Move.  Many moves are stupid, but it's not about logical, it's about legal.

So if, say, 1...Qg6 2.Qe3 Qg4 3.Qe1, this is indeed 2-fold repetition because it is the same position, with the same player to move (Black), both sides still having the same legal options (Black could not en passant the first time and he cannot do it this time either, so his legal options are the same), and therefore after 3...Qg8 4.Qc1 Qg4, White can state that he is playing 5.Qe1 and claim 3-fold repetition because En Passant WAS NOT A LEGAL OPTION the first time!

DO NOTE HOWEVER - Had the Black King been on f8 with the same sequence of moves instead of it being on e8, then it would not be 3-fold because the first time, Black had the legal option of 1...exf3, whereas the second and third he did not, and so it is only 2-fold in that case, and needs to repeat one more time with Black to move to be 3-fold (or, of course, it could occur 3 more times with White to move).

For those en passant examples, both 9.2.2 and 9.2.2.2. If the rule would only be about "same legal moves", then there would be no problem. So with those en passant positions, there is no problem.

But the rule 9.2.2.2 should be just deleted, as it causes rule conflicts to castling positions.