Does anyone know of a game that was drawn under the mandatory 75 move rule?

@Numquam

Well I think you're reading it wrong, I'll stick with a dead position being one in with neither side could possibly checkmate which is exactly what the rule says.

No, a triple-repitition of postion draw can be claimed on any subsequent repetition of the same postion, with the third repetition being just the first valid time to claim. It has to be claimed when the postion appears again or is about to appear again.

@MARattigan

Consider this example of two rules:

1.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game against Jerry.
2.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game within 75 minutes.

Now what you are claiming is that Tom only gets a penny if he wins a game against Jerry within 75 minutes. This is false. Tom always gets a penny if he wins any game against Jerry. Rule 1 does not require that Tom has to win within 75 minutes. Similarly the dead draw rule does not include the 75M rule. That is all logic and not even debatable, you are just reading the rules wrong. The 75M rule is one way of drawing a game, it doesn't have to be included in other ways of drawing the game like the dead draw.

One more thing, let's say you create a list of rules. If we want to know if a specific rule applies to a situation, we should be able to determine that by reading only that rule. The rule can still refer to other rules of course. So if we want to know if the dead draw rule applies we only need to read 5.2.2 and articles it refers to. 5.2.2 refers to Article 3 and 4.2-4.7 and uses the term 'checkmate' which is defined in article 1, the 75M rule isn't mentioned anywhere. Now if what you are saying is true, then the rules aren't formulated in a proper way. All I am doing is following the rules in a structured way.

I guess at this point I should refer to Russells principia mathematica and agree with Marattigan that one language expression may have 2 different meanings . A "dead position" in the understanding of grandmasters would never be in a formal rule set, simply because there is no objective definition for it. GMs, Ms, experts, clubplayers and morons will all judge it differently.

The formal dead rule was introduced in the FIDE rule set somewhere in the 80s or 90s of the previous century and it only means what FIDE says in its definition. I think the half-dead rule is of a later date but I may be mistaken. Anyway, to remove the confusion, FIDE should do the following:

• Remove the dead rule
• Retain the half-dead rule and increase its strength such that it applies not only when a flag falls but even when a player resigns. Once your opponent can't mate you anymore, you can't lose. Obviously this requires an agreed upon definition of "legal moves" such that continuations may be analyzed.
• There must be a post-game phase where the provisional result of the game can be cancelled  and replaced by players, computers and/or arbiters. This phase ends when the scoresheet is signed, either on paper or by digital means. Only then the result is definitive..
• Note that deadness is implemented here as the sum of 2 half-deaths but without automatic termination. A player noticing death or half-death (in his favor) may end the game by resigning and then claim a dead draw if no one or no thing does it for him. It is also possible to include legitimate (half-)dead draw claims in the rules to avoid fake resignations.

(going back to the current sit):

The issue of the interaction between the basic rule set and the competition rule set is interesting and complicated. I have no time for it now, but I'll be back on it. Note: whatever your opinion on it, should be in tune with the handling of stalemates anticipated by death.

The limitation is you can't claim on opponents move. It stands to reason that you can claim on the 4th pos occurence on your move. Even if you consider that the events 1-3 have passed then there is a new 3REP now consisting of the events 2-4 (accepting overlap) so why not claim it. Most of the time there are other repetitions in the mix as well since you need alternates before repeating.

Thanks. I also understood that the claim is possible also on the occurrence of subsequent repetitions using @Arisktotle's logic in the previous post. It appears then that there is a bug in the site software, because the the legend persists on moves that are not repetitions.

Wait it draws when your at 75 moves?

75 consecutive moves (by both players) without a pawn move or capture. Only if the game is subject to the Competition Rules section of the FIDE laws.

One issue of Basic Rules and Competition rules:

There is an idea that competition rules can be ignored outside competitions. This is not the case. Most parts of the competition rules were in the unified rules before the 2017 handbook. Some were needed there to make the game complete. Without full terminations conditions for all possible games, the rules are incomplete and will need to be supplemented by replacement rules from somewhere. There can be no sensible discussion of just the basic rule set without first specifying the supplement.

It is sort of obvious that, without specified replacement set, the natural certified source for such rules are "the competition rules" themselves and they will function as the default. In practice it means that the termination subset of the competition rules applies to all games unless an appropriate substitute set is specified. The substitute set could for instance be the termination set of chess composers (next paragraph).

It's different for composition chess. They have termination rules of their own and are in no need to revert to the old firm. As indicated, they do need these rules to complete the game as much as game players, which shows that these rules have nothing to do with competitions whatsoever.

This still leaves undecided how the (half)-dead rules interact with the other termination rules. That's a different subject.

So, simple yes/no question; Can either player checkmate his opponent in a tournament game by a series of moves that reaches the position in #19 after 75 moves by both players without a pawn move or capture?

I am not claiming what you say I am claiming. I have everywhere said that it is (almost) universally accepted that all rules should be in effect for a game. 

If the rules are:

1.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game against Jerry.
2.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game within 75 minutes.

then I would say that both rules are in effect. But the second rule doesn't amend or override the first in any way (in fact it's redundant unless it's meant to imply Tom gets two pennies if he wins within 75 minutes) so Tom would get a penny if he won after 75 minutes.

This would not be the case if the rules were instead:

1.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game against Jerry.
2.Tom gets a penny, only if he wins a game within 75 minutes.

In that case, which is similar to the case under discussion, I would say Tom doesn't get a penny if he wins after 75 minutes. In that case the second rule would obviously be intended to limit the scope of the first.

Of course if the rules were to say:

1.Tom gets a penny, if he wins a game against Jerry.
2.The game finishes after 75 minutes.

then Tom couldn't win the game after 75 minutes so the question of whether he gets a penny if he wins after 75 minutes doesn't arise.

The knight's move rule:

doesn't refer to any other rule, in particular not to 

so if we adopt your structured approach we could finish up with our king and knight sharing the same square.

I would suggest the structure of the rules intended by FIDE is not the structure as you understand it.

The issue of interactions of rules in both rule sets:

The question is not about how the rules interact but about how the basic concepts interact. For instance, fairy chess variants feature many different pieces like nightriders and grasshoppers. Their definitions describe the geometries of their moves. They do not, they do never, describe how they check or checkmate an opposing king. Why not? Because it is considered a generic function. In the basic rules you will find absolutely nothing about nightriders and grasshoppers and there is no reason to assume that conditions like attack and check could refer to different pieces than the ones defined in an orthodox chess game. Nevertheless, everybody accepts they do and no protest is ever raised. Simililarly (and much less obvious), anyone who sees a bishop placed on a 10x10 board will assume intuitively that it commands full length diagonals on that board. Why is it? For the same reason as the grasshopper can checkmate, the genericity of concepts. Genericity, inheritance and orthogonality are the principal connectors between the game rules and chess (composition) variants.

The questions on Tom and Jerry should be approached from the previous paragraph. If death is a generic concept to handle non-termination or shorten long termination phases, then it will apply under whatever active rules are in place. In "competition context", 5REP and 75M are active rules and affect the operation of dead reckoning but when absent in another chess variant, deadness works without them. 

In case you wonder, I consider the competition rules with clocks, arbiters, claims, rapids, bullets and blitzes as much weirder than many chess (composition) variants. With the exception of the necessary termination rules, they represent nothing that is native to the game of chess. So they are quite correctly separated from the main universe.

The best argument against the genericity of the dead concept is that it creates awkward situations while completely unnecessary. True, but in the places where it does, the dead concept is completely redundant anyway. Why let a position die when a 75M waits around the corner? Nothing can go wrong anyway since the half-dead draw claim is available when your flag falls. The point is that deadness adds nothing when half-deadness is in force. Half-dead is non-automatic and perfect. If you favor the fixed interpretation of death (as applying to the basic rule set only) you would actually want to get rid of the rule alltogether.

The reason you might like generic deadness is because it opens the door to interesting chess compositions which are not only based on "scores". Not too much of a justification for a game player but there is more: (a) Formally, because stalemate is in the basic rules, it will always be affected by premature death .... when stalemate is unavoidable, you must stop ... and it is of course hard to explain why it would be different for stalemate from 5REP or 75M (b) There are good reasons to separate the competition rules from the basic rules but such is not true for the rules required to complete the game rules (see my previous post) like 50M, 75M, 3REP and 5REP. Actually, these rules belong in the basic set with the annotation that they can be flexible as long as they enforce completeness.

No, you just don't understand what I mean with reading the rules in a structured way. Let's say we got a position of the board and it is your move. Now we can go through all rules individually and see if they apply to the situation. We don't read two rules at the same time. We go through them one by one. A move should satisfy all rules, but how do we determine if it satisfies a specific rule, x? By only reading rule x.

I agree that the issue here is how the rules interact with each other. However I believe that if a rule interacts with another rule, it should be mentioned in that rule to avoid confusion. If that isn't the case, then there is no reason to assume that the rules interact with each other. The exceptions are as you say basic concepts, but I think that is is clear for this case what these basic concepts are. The basic concepts are all discussed in the basic rules. So concepts like checkmate and that players move alternatively apply to the dead draw rule. However the 75M rule and 5 REP are not basic rules and therefore do not interact with the dead draw rule. If 75M and 5 REP were included in the basic rules, you'd have a stronger argument. 

@Numquam

Before replying to your latest post, it would be helpful to see what points of agreement we have. To start, could you answer the question I posed in #30 please? 

The dead draw rule isn't the only way to draw, so I disagree that  adding 'only' makes it more similar.

However this example is interesting. By adding 'only' you get contradictory rules. If Tom wins against Jerry after 75 minutes, then rule 1 says that he gets a penny, but rule 2 says that he only gets a penny for winning within 75 moves. The set of rules is invalid. So you'd have to change rule 1 such that it includes rule 2.

You can't formulate like this in the rules, it is not clear what is meant with 'in a tournament game'. Does time left matter? It is better to refer to the 75M and 5REP rules. If those apply to the series, then the answer would clearly be no. 

Sorry. What I meant by "in a tournament game" is "in a game where both the FIDE Basic Rules and FIDE Competition Rules are in force".  I hope that clarifies. 

The question makes no reference to time left. Would you say that affects the answer?

At any rate given my clarification, which would mean both 75M and 5REP are in force your answer would be "no". I agree.

The next question to agree is "If the following position occurs after 145 ply without pawn move or capture in a game where both FIDE Basic Rules and FIDE Competition Rules are in force, can the players play the sequence leading to checkmate that is shown?".