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

I am not using my own set of rules to interpret rules. That is exactly what you are doing.

In interpreting 5.2.2 I use the rules that are in force for the game being played. If those rules are the rules contained in the Basic Rules and Competition Rules of the current FIDE handbook then I am not using my own set of rules. Those rules are specified by FIDE.

In my post #55 I am not advocating that 5.2.2 be interpreted in the ways stated. I say only that this would conform with what you have previously stated as your position. In answer to my post  #40, viz.

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?".

You answered (post #41):

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.

I have taken that to mean that you would decide the truth or otherwise of the statement, "a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves" (the requirement for a dead position), not with regard to the rules in force, but by a different set of rules. You chose Basic Rules but gave no reason for that choice.

My examples, instead of excising all the rules of articles 6 to 12, chose instead to assume Basic Rules were in force and excise just one rule in each case.  

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. 

If by "stuff that isn't there" you mean the 75 move rule, it is there, it's art.9.6.2 and it would be in effect in the game as described. I don't add anything to 5.2.2, I use the text exactly as it appears.

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'm sorry I don't understand which series is referred to here, or which question. My last question was, "Do you believe the positions are dead or not?" and the text doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps you could clarify.

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.

I don't think I have any trouble reading the rules one by one, I just think (as do most people) the relevant ones should all be in force at once when the game is played. 

I have to confess I don't recall suggesting that you can choose what a move is or what checkmate is. To which post(s) are you referring?

Also articles after article 5 are not used for the interpretation of 5.2.2.

Where does it say that? The FIDE handbook has never had a convention that the rules are logically in the order of appearance in the text. For example, in previous versions of the handbook the basic rules version of the repetition and 50 move rules referred forward to the competition rules version.

So you can't choose to add the 75M rule to the dead draw. The dead draw does not include the 75M rule. 

I don't advocate adding the 75M rule to the dead position rule. I do advocate applying both rules if both rules are in force for the game.

You can't choose your own set of rules to interpret 5.2.2.

As I said earlier I don't. The examples in post #55 were based on your reply in #41 and don't represent my view of the situation. In a game the set of rules I would use would be fixed according to the type of game (Basic Rules only or both Basic Rules and Competition Rules, but either way defined by FIDE).

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.

Absolutely not. The rules in force for the game constitute what rules apply. I think your universal convention is a universal (all but everybody except one) convention.

Consider the following position:

Can White (to play) play 1.Nh3? According to 

he can. Art.3.6 makes no reference to art 3.9.2

Neither should it. This is taken care of by the universal (all but one) convention that all the rules in force apply to situations arising in a game. That art.3.6 doesn't "include" 3.9.2 is not an error on FIDE's part. 

The possible moves of the knight depend on rules 3.1 and 3.9.2 (and in some illegitimate positions 1.4.1), but that doesn't mean that the rule describing the knight's move should explicitly mention these rules. 

By the way you don't have to make any assumptions about a series of moves being alternately by White and Black in interpreting 5.2.2. If you interpret it under the rules in force that would include 

There may be many series of non alternating legal moves (in FIDE's defined sense) but the players can't play such a series under the rules in force. In particular neither player can checkmate his opponent's king with any such series (in my view).

We strongly disagree on this. Fairy chess variants are not separate games but just extensions of chess. You will not find rules on fairy games with grasshoppers as they are simply inherited from the orthodox game. There is no difference in the relationship of basic rules to 'chess with grasshoppers' and the relationship of basic rules to competition rules.

In fact this is the fundament of orthogonality. You can combine basic chess with competition chess and with grasshoppers and with lions and with "capture chess" and with "losing chess" and with retrograde logics and so on. The principal of orthogonal design requires that concepts are generic such that nobody can object to for instance "forced captures by lion", "retrograde logic in losing chess" on the basis that it wasn't specifically defined in the rules of that type or extension. If you read a problemist magazine you will often see a fat list of applicable rule sets in the stipulation of problems. Orthogonality and genericity are omnipresent. 

Whether or not there is a reason for deadness to apply to 75M is in itself a valid question. Even with deadness as a generic concept, FIDE might not intend deadness to apply to 75M. However, before extending reason, first reason needs to be present. I can find no reason in the FIDE rules on deadness, claim draws and automatic draws whatsoever and we have discussed their weaknesses at length. So how are we to establish reason in all this? For instance when you find it 'unreasonable' to apply deadness to 75M why do you think it is 'reaonable' to apply deadness to stalemate? Because it is in the basic rule set? Do you thiink that's why FIDE put one in the basic set and the other one in the competition rules?

Actually I will argue the opposite in my formal system analysis for MARattigan. A vaild dead rule (useful or not) only works on a background of axiomatic draws like stalemate, 75M and 5REP.  Without them, the axiomatic verdict disappears in thin air.

Note: I do not disagree with MARattigans universality approach but I acknowledge that some rules may have been intended to exclusively serve their own niches. I am pretty cynical about reading the minds of FIDE law makers. My estimate is that they haven't even considered 10% of the issues we are discussing here and wouldn't understand what the fuss is about. They make laws from bug lists. Let's fix what went wrong in the past decade and was reported to us. I know that for sure about the WFCC retrograde team as they acknowledged using this method.

I have taken that to mean that you would decide the truth or otherwise of the statement, "a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves" (the requirement for a dead position), not with regard to the rules in force, but by a different set of rules. You chose Basic Rules but gave no reason for that choice.

Strictly the ruleset used in 5.2.2 is article 3, articles 4.2-4.7 and article 1 which explains checkmate. Article 3 and 4.2-4.7 apply to the move producing the position. The rules which apply to the series of legal moves can be found in article 3 where possible legal moves are given and furthermore basic concepts from article 1 are used like checkmate.

If by "stuff that isn't there" you mean the 75 move rule, it is there, it's art.9.6.2 and it would be in effect in the game as described. I don't add anything to 5.2.2, I use the text exactly as it appears.

No you use 9.6.2 for your interpretation of rule 5.2.2. while it isn't mentioned there.

I'm sorry I don't understand which series is referred to here, or which question. My last question was, "Do you believe the positions are dead or not?" and the text doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps you could clarify.

The series is a series of legal moves used to check if 5.2.2 applies. You made positions where all possible series end in stalemate.

I have to confess I don't recall suggesting that you can choose what a move is or what checkmate is. To which post(s) are you referring?

All the nonsense about studpoker and excising rules.

For example, in previous versions of the handbook the basic rules version of the repetition and 50 move rules referred forward to the competition rules version.

Exactly, if 9.6.2 would apply then rule 5.2.2 would have refered to it. Rules usually have some logically order. Concepts like checkmate are explained before they are used in rules.

Consider the following position:

A move should satisfy all rules. 1.Nh3 can indeed be played in accordance with 3.6. However 1.Nh3 cannot be played in accordance with 3.9.2. Conclusion: Nh3 cannot be played. Note that we do not need to read 3.9.2 in order to see if 3.6 allows Nh3.

Neither should it. This is taken care of by the universal (all but one) convention that all the rules in force apply to situations arising in a game.

That is indeed a universal convention, but that is not the same universal convention you were talking about earlier. The series of legal moves in 5.2.2 is not played out in the game. The issue was how rules interact with each other. In your example 3.6 and 3.9.2 did not interact with each other.

This must be the most dorky chess thread I have seen, that's not an insult BTW.

The rules in the FIDE handbook are intended for regular chess. You can't just copy paste them for fairy chess if you want to be precise. You'd need to adjust some rules. For example either article 3 would need to include how grasshoppers move or rules which refer to article 3 would need to be changed.

You could view deadness as generic concept and you do not need what you call axiomatic draws in order to check deadness. By definition you only check if a series of legal moves leads to checkmate. If stalemate occurs in a series, then that series immediately ends there because there is no legal move. It does not even matter that stalemate is a draw. The 5REP and 75M rules are not necessary and generally used for dead draws.

The terms you are using make it confusing. I never read all rules at the same time like you seem to mean with 'run time interact'. For your example, I checked individually if 3.6 and 3.9.2 apply  (two 'compile time interactions') and after I did that I gave a conclusion. By the way I would have preferred if FIDE formulated article 3 like this: 

A move is permitted if all the following conditions are met: (followed by a list)

Articles 3.1-3.9 are clearly intended to be a list of conditions and a legal move satisfies all these conditions (3.10.1). So you can't conclude from only one rule in 3.1-3.9 if that move is permitted. That does not mean you can't read these rules individually. Just you can't say yet if a move is permitted until you went through all of them.

If you never use all rules at the same time when deciding your actions in a game, then sooner or later, you will run into trouble with the arbiter.

What you did in evaluating the last position in #61 was firstly to look at 3.6 individually and say that in that specific position it allowed knight moves to h3, f3, and e2, secondly to look at 3.9.2 individually and note that it disallows any moves that expose the king to check then thirdly combine the results by noting that each of the moves permitted by 3.6 in that position result in a violation of 3.9.2 and the move is therefore not allowed.

It's the "thirdly", the conclusions reached in specific situations arising in the game according to all rules in force irrespective of whether they have a compile time interaction, which I call a run time interaction.

What you say so far hasn't explained why you feel the situation in the first position in #61 with respect to the dead position rule and the 75 move rule is not precisely the same as the situation in the second position with respect to art.3.6 and art.3.9.2. Feel free to use your own terms.

I did explain that. What part do you not understand about that articles 3.1-3.9 should be read as a list of conditions? FIDE didn't make that clear in their formulation and only 3.10.1 indicates that it is a list. Feel free to make examples other than articles 3.1-3.9 which are not clearly a list of conditions.

@Numquam

Art.3.10.1 only defines "legal move". It is clear however without art.3.10.1 that arts.3.1-3.9 constitute a list. The same is clear of arts.1.1-12.9.9. Each of arts. 5.2.2 and 9.7 constitute a list of one. Why does that fact explain why you feel the situation in the first position in #61 with respect to the dead position rule and the 75 move rule is not precisely the same as the situation in the second position with respect to art.3.6 and art.3.9.2?

It's art.1.1 that determines you can't make more than one move from the list at a time. Each rule is in force for the game.

I don't understand what you don't get. It is not my fault that FIDE did not formulate article 3 precisely. The rules 3.1-3.9 are not really separate rules. They are elements in a list. You could read it as a single rule like:

A move is permitted if the following conditions are met:

a.)It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour.

b.)The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands.

etc.

And no there is no reason to put some random articles in one list. You can't even read 5.2.2. as a condition. It is a rule which terminates the game, it is not a requirement to terminate the game. It does not say the game is possibly drawn or something like that.

Each of arts.3.2-3.8 is a rule. During the game all rules are in effect including 1.1. So only one of arts.3.2-3.8 can be applied on any player's turn. There's nothing specially imprecise in the FIDE formulation.

If you want to regard them as a special list then you could point to the fact that they all occur under Article 3. "The moves of the pieces", but then arts.1.1-12.9.9 all occur under "FIDE laws of chess taking effect from 1 January 2018" so all the rules could be counted as a special list too.

Why would I want to read 5.2.2 as a condition? It's a rule like 3.6.

What I don't understand is the relevance of any of it to my question, "Why do you feel the situation in the first position in #61 with respect to the dead position rule and the 75 move rule is not precisely the same as the situation in the second position with respect to art.3.6 and art.3.9.2?".

A rule can be a condition, but it isn't necessarily a condition. 3.1-3.9 is a list of conditions which are used to determine if a move is legal. They ARE a list of conditions regardless of whether you agree with that or not. I have tried to explain this, maybe someone else can do it better.

@Numquam

Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by "condition". I can't find it in the rules and 3.1-3.9 wouldn't correspond with my understanding of the term in English. I would understand 3.1-3.9 as rules governing the movement of pieces. Then you could say what in the rules says that articles are not rules if they are conditions (if that's what you intend) and then what in the rules says how to recognise such articles and what in the rules says that articles that are conditions should apply differently from articles that are rules.

But at some stage of course, if you expect people to accept your interpretation of how 5.2.2 works, you'd need to say how your answer applies to the question, "Why do you feel the situation in the first position in #61 with respect to the dead position rule and the 75 move rule is not precisely the same as the situation in the second position with respect to art.3.6 and art.3.9.2?", which you don't seem to have addressed so far.

I use 'condition' similar as in programming. For example you could use it in an if-statement.

if(move y meets condition x)

then move y is legal

3.1-3.9 is a list of conditions: So

if(move y meets 3.1 AND 3.2 AND.....AND 3.9)

then move y is legal

Rules usually aren't conditions, but they can contain conditions. For example 5.2.2. contains the conditions for a dead draw. Now if you would put the dead draw rule in an if-statement together with let's say the 75M, then you don't use AND but OR.

if(position is dead OR 75 moves without capture or pawn move occurred)

then the game is drawn.

So you don't need to put them in the same if-statement:

if(position is dead)

then the game is drawn.

if(75 moves without capture or pawn move occurred)

then the game is drawn.

Example - Lputian vs. Harutjunian, 2001.

On 86th move, the players got stuck in a theoretically drawn position. White had queen and two pawns, Black a queen.

For next 55 moves, Black held the draw - no capture and no pawn push. After 136th move, Black had the right to claim for lack of progress. But never exercised it. On move 141, Black finally blundered to a position where White had a forced checkmate. Still no captures - the right to claim draw was intact. Still the Black resigned instead of claiming his draw.

Under the now 75 move rule, does an arbiter have the right (and duty) to reread scoresheets, point out that the game ended under 75 move rule several moves before one player blundered and resigned, and impose draw on a player who has resigned?

@Numquam

OK, but there is no support for that in the FIDE laws and I can't see what difference it makes. What laws would you say are not conditions?

Some laws say certain things may occur (e.g. knight's move, resignation), some that certain things must occur (e.g. playing of pieces that are touched when possible), some that certain things must not occur (e.g. moves that expose the king to check, moves made out of turn), some that certain things may occur and others must not (e.g. castling) and some rules result in termination of the game (e.g. resignation, stalemate, 75 move rule).

As you agreed in #63, "A move should satisfy all rules"; I would extend that to, "an action should satisfy all rules" (all the ones in force that is). There is no distinction between rules in this respect. During the game (but not before or after) a player may take any action that any rule says may be taken, so long as no rule says it must not be taken. The player must take any action that any rule says must be taken. The game terminates if any rule says it terminates.

Do you agree with that?

By the way, my apologies. I've referred to art.1.1 in some of the last few posts instead of art.1.2. It's the alternation of moves that prevents a player moving pieces under more than one of arts.3.2-3.8 on a single turn.

And apologies again. I've only just noticed your last post was #75.

The question was addressed to Arisktotle, but my answer would be yes. The rule simply says the game is drawn, so anything after that is not part of the game. A player may not resign after the game has terminated. The correct result is a draw under the 75 move rule. (Not as onerous as it sounds, because it's hardly likely to happen at all, and if it does the arbiter should have plenty of time because everyone else will have finished.)

I may be reading the numbers wrong, but I do not see the 75M mark passed on move 141. Sum: 141 - 86 = 55. No draw under the old or new rules unless claimed by the player. The valid question is: would black have continued the game for another 20 moves without a claim not having made the blunder? We don't know, but I can see a very awkward sort of mental battle going on in this game. I'd love to see that continue for another 1000 moves comparable to that infamous tennis match on Wimbledon some years ago.

Anyway, I concur with MARattigans verdict, were that to happen at some point. And by the way I think that rule was more addressed to computer games where the beast will have no trouble promptly halting the game when required (as long as it is permitted to ignore the dead position rule).

Yes.  NGTOC in Norfolk, Virginia, 2017.  Fourth round.  VERONIKA ZILAJEVA v. SASHA KONOVALENKO.