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

Players can indeed play this sequence leading to checkmate (imagine setting up the position on a different board and only using basic rules of chess). However this continuation can't be part of the game, because tournament rules apply to the game.

As Arisktotle pointed out the dead draw rule is actually not necessary for tournament games, because the positions were it applies would eventually be drawn due to 75M rule anyway. You can extend the dead draw so that it includes 75M, but the risk of doing that is that spectators do not understand why a game is a dead draw. Do we really need to use a tablebase to show that it is a dead draw? Also 16-men tablebase does not exist yet.

So our difference is now pinpointed.

Art 5.2.2 mentions no particular set of rules to be used in deciding whether or not a player can checkmate. I contend that the rules to be used must be taken to be the rules in force for the game.

Would you also say that if the position of #40 were arrived at in a game with only Basic Rules in force then Black could claim a draw under 5.2.2 on the grounds that if the position were transferred to a different table and played under Competition Rules then neither player could checkmate? If not, why the asymmetry?

Come to that if a player is drawn against Carlsen and doesn't fancy it, could he immediately claim a dead position on the grounds that if the position were transferred to a separate table and they played stud poker then neither player could checkmate. (There are no checkmates in stud poker.)

Again why do you not say the position in #19 can't be won. It could be won if it were played under different rules at a separate table just as the position in #40. The only difference is the number of ply by which the win exceeds 150 and the rules under which the game is terminated. Why do you think a set of rules that is not in force should determine one result but not the other?

As Arisktotle pointed out the dead draw rule is actually not necessary for tournament games, because the positions were it applies would eventually be drawn due to 75M rule anyway.

Not true. If either player resigned or were penalised for infringements by forfeit of the game on plies 146-149 following on from #40 then the result would depend on 5.2.2. 

You can extend the dead draw so that it includes 75M, but the risk of doing that is that spectators do not understand why a game is a dead draw. Do we really need to use a tablebase to show that it is a dead draw? Also 16-men tablebase does not exist yet.

I'm not a fan of 5.2.2 because of the points you make, but FIDE decides the rules. I personally think they are reasonably clear. Including mandatory 75M and 5REP rules results in dead positions that would not be dead in their absence. The dead position rule is not extended. Its just that its effect depends on the other rules in force.  

The second pair of rules is not necessarily contradictory. That would depend on the other rules in force. (There must be other rules in force to specify what is meant by "wins".)

For example the rules are not contradictory in the following game, though the second rule is arguably redundant (as was your second rule).

3. At the start of the game two players have a box of matches containing 75 matches.

4. The matches are distributed into an arbitrary number of piles containing arbitrary numbers of matches.

5. A coin is tossed to determine the first player, who will be referred to as Tom. His opponent will be referred to as Jerry.

6. The players alternate turns.

7. A player is allotted one minute for each of his turns starting from the beginning of the game or the expiration of the time allotted for his opponent's preceding turn. He must remove some matches from a single pile before the end of the time allotted.

8. A player may not remove matches in the time allotted to his opponent.

9. If a player fails to complete the removal of some matches before the time allotted expires his opponent wins.

10. If 9. does not apply the player who removes the last match wins.   

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.

I think you missed my point. Of course, checkmate is a basic concept as is deadness. However, a fairy piece like a grasshopper is in an extended rule set (in the fairy dimension) like 5REP and 75M are extensions in the competition rule set. When the checkmate concept applies to grasshoppers, why would deadness not apply to 75M? The answer in itself is just mildly interesting, but the understanding that some chess rules are based on generic concepts, is critical in many extensions!

What sort of strange argument is this? Are you saying that the dead rule is necessary to prevent the possibility of either a player resigning or being penalized for infringment by forfeit during the next few moves? If you are serious, then add to the list: the possibility of a fire breaking out before your score was recorded, or the possibility of suicide leaving your final ELO-rating 5 points lower than you were entitled you.

"Not necessary" only means that there is no significant profit in keeping the rule, not that nothing changes on the fringes. Besides getting rid of the dead rule I also suggested strengthening the half-dead rule such that even resigning would not change the draw outcome.

Somewhere in the growing heap of messages I saw a reference to tablebase analysis. As far as I can see there is no effect of any tablebase evaluation on the dead rule with 5REP or 75M. The reason being that the tablebase evaluations assume competitive play, while all issues arise in (analytical) cooperative play.

What I intended to say is that it is not true that positions where the dead position rule applies would necessarily be eventually drawn by the 75M rule in its absence. They could terminate in a win for either side before that happens. That is not intended as a justification for the rule.

Ah, I see. Your denial is not on the first part of the sentence but on the second part. I agree with that though I think that the simultaneous strengthening of the half-dead rule might correct all eventualities. I am still happy with the suggestions I made in the 4 bullet points in post #24.

For small numbers of pieces it would probably be possible to produce helpmate DTM databases in the same way as normal EGTBs. These could also be difficult (i.e. impossible) to generate and store for 16 men owing to the ridiculous number of possible positions.

I assume @Numquam was using the term "tablebase" in a generic sense, rather like your fairy chess example. 

Yes, I'll have to do that. The answer can be simple but will inevitably lead to skyrocketing follow-ups. I'd rather take some time for a longer reply which will also explain how and why one can have different viewpoints on these matters. Unfortunately, we get so little guidance from FIDE that we need to fill the gaps with concepts and assertions of our own or from different game domains. For reasons I'll explain in my reply, I'll try to stay away from game theory and stick to basic concepts in formal systems.

I completely understood what you were saying. A better question would be, why would deadness apply to 75M? There is no reason whatsoever. Rules about how grasshoppers move etc are part of the basic rules of that game. The 75M is clearly not part of the basic rules. The tournament rules are not a similar extension as rules for fairy chess. Fairy chess could have tournament rules too and those tournament rules would not contain basic rules of the game.

Tablebase was used in a generic way. You'd most likely need a tablebase for evaluating dead positions if it included 75M. If a position is dead you have to prove that no series of legal moves exist which leads to checkmate and that is not so obvious if 75M is included.

You can indeed add rules such that rule 1 and 2 are not contradictory. If the state that Tom wins after 75 minutes can never occur, then the rules are not contradictory. However then rule 2 is indeed redundant. Either they are contradictory or a rule is redundant in some way. You could add a third rule that Tom never plays a game against Jerry, which makes rule 1 redundant.

In my example the second rule was not redundant btw, because there could be other players besides Tom and Jerry. Tom could get a penny for winning a game against them within 75 minutes.

In your third example, rule 2 does not interact with rule 1. So that example is not meaningful for this discussion. If the game ends after 75 minutes without decisive result, then you don't need to check what happens if someone wins.

Rule 2 in the second example is also not quite redundant. In the example game it makes it explicit that Tom doesn't get a penny if he doesn't win a game. But there's nothing that disallows redundancy in rules; chess has stalemate and the dead position rule. 

First of all the moves have to be legal and indeed article 3.1 is included:

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.

Secondly while as I said earlier a 'series of moves' is not defined, I think that it is reasonable to assume that 1.2 applies to this series of moves. I agree that the rules are not precise in that regard and you can indeed interpret it like you did. The result would be that you conclude that the position is not dead. Then white plays h3 or h4 and it is a draw due to stalemate anyway. These examples were you get stalemate one move later are not so interesting. If there is no forced stalemate, then usually one side can triangulate and then both interpretations give the same result.

But the definition of "legal move" includes moves made out of turn and moves that are made after the termination of the game under rules that terminate games. These moves cannot be legitimately played so can't be used in the interpretation of the phrase "neither player can checkmate his opponent's king". In reality a player may checkmate his opponent's king using only legitimate moves which form a proper subset of FIDE's "legal" moves. (By legitimate moves I mean moves made in accordance with all the rules in force.)

As for the fact that art.3.1.10 refers to articles 3.1 - 3.9, in the absence of art.3.1 this would normally be taken to mean articles 3.2 - 3.9, but if we accept your contention that you can choose your own set of rules to interpret 5.2.2 you could presumably simply change art.3.1 to

FIDE also do not define the term "the". In the absence of a definition of any term in the rules the normal English meaning should be assumed. FIDE do define the moves, so there is no problem with interpreting the phrase "series of moves". (You can just look up "series" in the OED.) In interpreting "series of moves" in the context of 5.2.2, series of moves in which 1.2 doesn't apply can be ignored. Neither player can checkmate his opponent's king with a series of moves in which 1.2 doesn't apply because any such series would involve illegitimate moves and couldn't be played (at least if you accept that all rules governing the game apply in all situations). 

When you say, "you can indeed interpret it like you did", that is an interpretation based on the logic of your post #41, not my understanding of the dead position rule. I would definitely say both positions are dead because according to the universal (bar one) convention that all rules in force for a game apply in the situations that arise in the game, I am not the "bar one".

If either player chose to resign in the first position no stalemate would result. (In that case according to my reading, but possibly not yours, the result would be a draw under the dead position rule.)

But you didn't answer the questions. Do you believe the positions are dead or not?

I am not using my own set of rules to interpret rules. That is exactly what you are doing. You are reading stuff that isn't there. I take the rules as literal as possible. You can't just add the 75M to the dead draw rule like you do. You need a valid reason to make that assumption. 

The only assumption that I think is reasonable is that players move alternatively while playing this series. If a series then leads to stalemate, then a player simply cannot make a legal move. So that sequence does not lead to checkmate. That should answer your last question.

I think you are having trouble with reading rules one by one. Just try reading only 5.2.2 . word by word. You'll notice that a few basic concepts which are defined earlier are necessary like the concept of a 'move' and 'checkmate'. These concepts are explained in earlier articles. You can't choose what a move is or what checkmate is like you suggest. Also articles after article 5 are not used for the interpretation of 5.2.2. So you can't choose to add the 75M rule to the dead draw. The dead draw does not include the 75M rule. You can't choose your own set of rules to interpret 5.2.2. The rule itself explains which rules apply to the series of moves and this does not include the 75M rule. The universal convention is that if a rule depends on another rule, then that is explicitly mentioned in that rule.

@Numquam

Before answering, I'd like to synchronise again. Can you say which if any of the positions I posted in #55 you consider to be dead under 5.2.2?  

They are all dead. I assume that players alternatively make moves, so that the FIDE definition of dead draw is the same as the generally accepted definition of dead draw.