I hate the threefold repetition rule

@Numquam

Art.3.2 says

not "A bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands excepting the square on which it stands", so arguably the mating sequence in #105 could also be 1.Nc8 Bg6, 2.Ne7 Bg6, 3.Ng8#. This would also be playable since the game would not be terminated by stalemate before the mate occurred and the initial position would therefore not be dead on either interpretation (unless every mating series of legal moves would be terminated instead by the 75 move or 5 fold repetition rules in which case it would still be dead on my interpretation).

But I digress.

Curious, does the 75 move rule mean that whoever reaches move 75 or completes move 75. Is there a difference between the 149th half-move and the 150th half-move in terms of when a draw is claimed, declared?

When both sides have made 75 moves the game is automatically terminated under the rule. The draw is not claimed. The rule doesn't apply unless Competition Rules are in effect.

well all I can say is if you have a better move to play than to repeat the position threefold, then by all means play it and avoid the draw. otherwise you are tacitly admitting you have nothing better than to repeat the position which means you must feel that is the best you can get. Your opponent obviously feels the same. if you both simply shampoo, rinse, repeat, shampoo, rinse, repeat it sounds like no one will make any progress. no one will win, no one will lose. Voila - it's a draw baby!

The rule does not say that the series has to be playable under tournament rules. That is where I disagree with you. The series can be played using basic rules. I don't see any reason to use a different dead draw rule for tournament games.

The comment about stalemate applied only to the previous example, because black had only a king. In that position black's last move had to be a king move which is impossible. In your current example black's last move is a pawn capture.

Funny, but I don't fully agree. The word 'move' implicitly suggests that the piece 'moves' and does not stay on the same square. The rules can be formulated more precise as you say. Maybe add a rule that keeping pieces on the same square isn't considered a move. 

That's one of the reasons I said "arguably", but of course you can usually move a piece just slightly without transgressing the boundaries of the square it's on. I'm pretty sure FIDE didn't intend a move to the same square to count as legal.

On the contrary, I don't need to justify my argument because I make as few assumptions as possible. You need to justify why the tournament rules would apply while they are not mentioned. 

If you read the rules from top to bottom, you'll find the dead draw rule a second time in the match rules, article 6.9. The 75 move rule is not mentioned at that point. So it would be illogical to assume that it would apply. Rules are ordered in a logical way and if they are not they should mention relevant articles. If the rule is as you think, then article 9.6.2 has to be mentioned. In absence of anything only the basic rules apply.

The 3-fold repetition rule is quite fascinating. Sometimes even GM's don't realize they can declare it.

Remember when that time when Bobby Fischer claimed a 3-fold draw against Petrosian and he freaked out ?

@Numquam

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. The Basic Rules are also not mentioned. I think you assume more than I.  Article 6.9 is a rule governing the outcome if a player runs out of time and is couched in different terms from 5.2.2 which is normally understood as the dead position rule and terminates the game irrespective of the situation regarding the clocks. They're allowed to make the rules different. The article I was referring to in post #63 was 5.2.2. I was assuming neither player had run out of time.

Google writes:

In the third game^[6] of the 1971 Candidates Final Match between Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian, Petrosian (with a better position) accidentally allowed the position after 30.Qe2 to be repeated three times (see diagram). Play continued:

30... Qe5

31. Qh5 Qf6

32. Qe2 (second time) Re5

33. Qd3 Rd5?

and then Fischer wrote his next move

34. Qe2 (third time)

on his scoresheet, which is the third appearance of the position with Black to move, and he claimed a draw.^[7] At first Petrosian was not aware of what was going on. Incidentally, this was the first time a draw by threefold repetition had been claimed in his career (Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005:283–84), (Kasparov 2004:422–23), (Byrne 1971:682). This also illustrates that the intermediate moves do not need to be the same – just the positions.

To be more relevant than my last few posts have been, I have always understood that the threefold repetition rule could be claimed only at the point a position is repeated or about to be repeated on the next move.

I've just looked at this game:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705

and I notice that after White's move 102 the legend Three time repetition claimable appears to the right of the board and continues to appear until the end of the game, implying the draw can be claimed any time after such triple repetition has occurred.

What are other readers views on that?

If you hate the 3 fold reputation rule, then logic would be that you as one of the players would play another move instead. Why should the responsibility be on your opponent? No one is going to make a move that worsens their position, so it is logical that after 3 fold reputation, the game is deemed a draw.

Well - another way to interpret the 'threefold repetition' rule, could be that a player who repeats moves has no other options and can't force a checkmate, and thus - has lost the game. 

Well drawn it at any rate.

The O.P. has a rating of 1000.