I hate the threefold repetition rule

Generally it is a bad idea to make war with rules. But rules are born from concepts which determine the character of the game or sport. For instance, the central figure in chess is the king. It would be out-of-character to buy the revival of your king by donating material to your opponents army. Another one. Chess is a two player game. It would be out-of character to allow a coach to shout hints from the sidelines, whereas this is totally acceptable in soccer. Different concepts. People may always argue about the concepts of a game and that may lead to rule changes in the long run. A well known example is "how long swimmers may stay under water before emerging in a formal competition". How much is swimming under water out-of-character and for which swimming styles? Which has led to rule changes over time.

After seeing higher ranked (in FIDE) arbiters, a looming 75-move rule situation does not, in and of itself, trigger a dead position.

If the rule is to stand on your head and drink hot chocolate on exactly move 17. And you know its the rule. Then it should not cause you problems. Its jus not as obvious as stalemate. But it took both players to cause it.

Could I have tea or coffee?

Thanks for the info.

That doesn't alter my position that it does according to the FIDE laws. It only puts me at odds with additional eminent people.

I have to agree that my argument is shaky, but not because the 75M rule is somehow different from, say, the stalemate rule. Rather because the dead position rule is itself self referent.

The self reference comes in the phrase, "neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves". The word "can" is necessary to rule out series of legal moves such as seriesmover mates which result in checkmate but cannot be played within the rules of the game. (Arts. 1 & 4 prevent it.) But as the rules stand the rules of the game include the dead position rule itself, which in Russell's logic at any rate renders the rule strictly meaningless.

It allows you, for example, to assert that the position after the first move is dead. If you're up against an opponent you don't fancy, simply stop the clocks after his first move and claim a dead position. If the arbiter shows you Scholar's Mate or some such, you can agree that it's a series of legal moves ending in checkmate, but assert the players can nevertheless not checkmate with that or any other series because the position is dead and that immediately terminates the game.

All the rule then tells you is that the position is dead if the position is dead, but if it's not dead then it's not dead (which you probably already suspected).

The problem would be eliminated if it were phrased, "neither player could checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves if this art did not apply", which is the way I think most people take it.

But the self reference problem is not related to the discussion about 5R/75M. A player cannot checkmate with a sequence of legal moves that encounters either the 75M rule prior to checkmate or the 5R rule even in a continuation where the dead position rule doesn't apply.

I wouldn't worry about Bertrand Russell. He was a bit of a bird-brain.

But in your opinion @Optimissed, anyone who is awarded an FRS is a bit of a bird-brain in comparison with yourself. (Some people might suspect a touch of jealousy.)

Russell was a fool on quite a few levels. Newton was made President of the R.S. and he had all of Hooke's notes burned.

It's incredibly childish to talk about jealousy. Why don't you grow up at some point? I was pointing out that you made a reference to a confused interpretation by Russell.

Never really fancied doing that.

Pray explain to us why Russell's interpretation is confused.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

As you know, I formally support your side and FIDE has no right to change the DP-rule under the pretext that the DP-rule was always intended that way - not even when I predicted they would say that!

Worse than that is that the composer community has adopted the right interpretation and has already produced a large number compositions based on it. However - on a legal detail - there is no head-on collision due to the fact that the composition world had their own automatic draw-rule-versions for 3R and 50M which are the same except on the numbers! However the DP-concept never targeted any particular rule but simply the impossibility to win which is the same for the 3R/50M set as for the 5R/75M set! Perhaps, looking back at this moment in time in 50 years, it will be recognized as the definitive split between FIDE and WFCC! Btw, we need a verdict on a looming stalemate as well. It is interesting as there are no "legal moves" beyond stalemate. But like 5R and 75M, the stalemate rule takes care of terminating games itself and needs no DP-rule support to put an end to endless game continuations! So FIDE judgement on it could go both ways.

Here is the link to the message I posted in the other thread to @anselan summarizing the potential impact for the composition field https://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/whats-the-quickest-possible-draw?page=4#comment-98128583

Finally, your analysis approaches the core of the matter we discussed in an infinite topic earlier (haha). I will return to it when everyone is ready for the shock.

"... the stalemate rule takes care of terminating games itself and needs no DP-rule support to put an end to endless game continuations!"

Precisely. I feel the easiest and best sulution for FIDE would be to simply drop DP. Even if they corrected the self reference you have a rule without any algorithm to tell you if it applies. Mess up the situation regarding DP problems of course.

The stalemate rule

5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

is correctly worded.

If instead of, "the player to move has no legal move", they had said, "the player to move can make no legal move", it would have had the same self reference problem as DP.

FIDE and others constantly mortifying themselves about such things is indescribably anal. No offence to present participants of course.

A good way to look at it is, it's not the 3 fold repetition is taking the easy way out, like escaping with a free draw, but it is the result of being in a position where the only good move is to check the king, and in the next position once again the only good move is to check the king, and so on, each position requiring a check to avoid getting mated for example. This likely results in positions being repeated obviously, but it's not the like the goal is repetition as an end in itself. The goal is to make legal moves for as long as possible without getting mated.

The interesting point is that FIDE rulings related to dead positions are much more relevant to the domain of composition because:

1. The Codex has no DP-rule of its own other than stating that the FIDE-rule only applies to the retro-composition type - which leaves its concepts and interpretations to inheritance from FIDE as with most chess rules. This is the first time where it is made clear that FIDE's DP-rule handling is fundamentally different from the one assumed in the composition environment. Without either side having taken an official stand, having identified and clarified the difference or having justified why that difference exists.
2. This is a major blow to the composition field which already produced a significant body of good compositions on the reasonable expectation that "no way to checkmate" does mean "no way to checkmate".
3. The distinction between FIDE and WFCC-Codex cannot be brushed off as a distinction between the 3R/50M set and the 5R/75M set since the DP-ruling does not attach itself to any particular termination rule (other than checkmate). Its evaluation algorithm for both termination sets should therefore be identical apart from the "numbers". 

I predict a war.

I agree with the arbiters.

It's quite simple for over the board play. The FIDE Laws define DP in terms of legal moves, which themselves are defined very clearly. There is no term for playable or unplayable moves after the action of DP/75M/5Rep rules. Why would there be? From a FIDE perspective the game is over.

Clearly, one cannot refer to "legal and playable"/"legal but unplayable" moves simply as "legal"/"illegal", or the definition has become circular. Of course one can use the terms "legal"/"illegal" casually in this altered sense, but when it comes to working out the exact rules, we must be precise.

Since DP is defined in this way, it has no visibility over 5Rep or 75M.
Now what effect do we want to see? Although it might seem desirable to truncate overlong games by having DP see 75M, I suspect that the amount of hypothetical reasoning and argy-bargy required late at night would take more time than just playing out the moves.

I thought you might say that! Simply because you never understood "legal moves". But fortunately you produced the example that brings your viewpoint down yourself! The SPG 12.5 "game over" is now invalid since the FIDE judges will tell you that your diagram is not "game over" until the third repetition is actually produced - under their interpretation of DP. You actually agree to both sides - whichever is convenient!

Please calm down

I merely spoke of FIDE Laws over the board. "Part Deux" of all this must be compositions, which is a different case. I don't "agree to both sides", rather I want to find the best place for a fence.

I went through your problems in PDB yesterday, and I couldn't find one in which the last move was forced, but maybe I'm being dense. In both P1004354 & P1011937 the final move is optional. Please remind me of the detailed situation, because I don't want to opine on DP/3Rep for problems until I do.

I did see your sublime https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1080442 3Rep/castling/RS which was missing a detailed solution so I added one.

There is no "self-reference problem". Just read "legal move" as it is defined in the Laws and all is good over the board. Algorithm:

1. Do I have a legal move?
2. - If no then the game is over by mate or stalemate depending on whether there's a check.
3. - If yes then is the game over by DP, 75M or 3Rep?

DP, 75M & 3Rep are all completely separate considerations. DP just looks at the tree of legal moves, which has nothing to do with 75M/3Rep termination.

I agree some clarification is needed for the composition world, but over the board it's fine

Won't work. Read especially point 3 of my post above the previous one in which I anticipated this trick as well. This is precisely the point where you cannot make a distinction between FIDE games and Codex. The Codex has no different DP-rule or different official interpretation or different understanding of legal moves - only a different DP application domain (obviously).

You will not find the fence you're looking for except by permanently diverging from FIDE on fundamentals.

I don't know what's in the PDB but I won a 2nd PB prize behind Caillaud with a 3-rep PG41.5 problem with a 12-move repeat cycle. The last move of that cycle is forced. Year should be around 2009 but I don't know exactly.