Originally posted by Mephisto2
Look through these games

a) white retains castling rights:
1. a3 a5 2. d4 Ra6 3. Nf3 d5 4. e4 Nf6 5. e5 Bg4 6. exf6 exf6 7. h3 Bd6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. f3 Re8 10. fxg4 Rc6 11. b3 Rc4 12. bxc4 Na6 13. Bd3 Nb4 14. axb4 Qd7 15. bxa5 Re7 16. Qe2 f5 17. Nxd7 fxg4 18. Nf6+ Kf8 19. Nxh7+ Ke8 20. Nf6+ Kd8 21. Nxd5 b6 22. axb6 f5 23. Qxe7+ Kc8 24. Qxd6 f4 25. Qc6 Kd8 ...[text shortened]... construct games like the above without a rook on d1, in fact it is a lot easier, in both cases.

In move 53 for b), after White moves Re3+, the position is already dead, so black can make no further moves.

And again, if the rook weren't on d1, then you'd be right in that games could be constructed in which White keeps his castling rights, and in which he loses them. But with the rook there, only keeping them yields a legal position.

EDIT: SwissGambit, you posted while I was typing again! You're good.

Originally posted by Jirakon
Although it makes more sense to me, instead of never applying unless stated, to always apply it unless stated that it's not applied. But if that's the consensus, I won't argue.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Have you read the posts in this thread explaining Dead Reckoning? This rule eliminates the PG with lost castling rights, for Black could not play KxR at the end.