poor form to repeat moves to get a draw?

I'm new to chess, and it doesn't feel right to me to repeat putting my opponent in check to get a draw, if I am clearly beat when I relinquish this constant check pattern.  

In other words the sporting part of me feels like i'm cheating. heres a link to a game that i could have put him in check endlessly, but as soon as i let him out, i was in checkmate.  thanks!  is it 'unethical' to draw out a game ?

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=299244161   

You feel that avoiding checkmate is unethical?

Nope, not unethical. Think of it as if your opponent had a good position and left himself open to a mate -- it's his fault for missing it.

We had the same question the other day, No!!!! it's by no means unethical. Your opponent should not have gotten in that position, so it's a draw. If he wants t beat you then he should beat you, you prevented that.

Not at all. It's just an added layer of complexity to the game.

You'll often see in high-level games (or games of most levels, really) players making seemingly strange king moves when it looks like they have a more pressing attack to be getting on with - the point is they're avoiding allowing a perpetual check.

You could be up eight queens, but if you can't avoid perpetual check then the position is a dead draw.

You were behind in material and had no attacking options; so in chess, you get the draw (repetition) and move on.

My personal opinion:

If your opponent, who is so far ahead of you that perpetual check is your only option to save the game, cannot stop the perpetual check, then that was his lack of foresight. However, often the opponent can find a way to stop the perpetual check that forfeits his imminent checkmate threat. For example, in the game you posted, Qf1! would do the above, and such is usually preferable to a draw if the would-be winner has a stronger position. If it is not preferable, then your opponent will have to take the draw. It would be his choice as much or more than yours to draw if you wanted to try to force a draw.

Can you explain your Qf1 scenario? I'm perplexed.

White missed a neat win with 26 Na5.

It's interesting to me that many beginners seem to think this. Rest assured that it is a perfectly legit way to draw.

Do you also think it's unethical to checkmate your opponent and suddenly win after being in a losing position?

lifeisdream

If your opponent cannot escape perpetual check, then you are not clearly beat, by definition. You have to think this way. It is up to your opponent to prove he can mate you. If they cannot do this, they don't deserve the win.

Hey thank you all for the replies. I appreciate the perspective and will add this to my repertoire ! I guess it just feels cheap in a way but I can see how that is part of the game and must be guarded against.

I think he refers to 31. Qf1 instead of 31. Kh2. However, black can then simply exchange (taking on c3 leads to a draw as white goes back to g5 and black has to check again). I like to think that the two bishop may turn out soon to be stronger than the knights ...

That is what I meant. If given the chance, black (lifeisdream) with the two bishops (stronger than the knights?), should be happy to trade queens. This forces an end to the checks done by black at least for a while, but it ends the checkmate threat to black. Afterwards, Kh1 by white prevents drawing by perpetual check.

The point, though, is that if lifeisdream's opponent was not willing to give up his imminent checkmate threat to stop the perpetual check and move on with the game, that is the opponent's problem, not lifeisdream's.

I think it is more unethical to do what you did (and prefer) based on the fact that it trivializes the work many players put in to avoid repititions.

Maybe unethical is the wrong word... *shrug*, but I personally believe you should change your ways OP. 

Unethical? Hell, no. If one is in a lost position and can salvage a draw by the opponent playing incorrectly, it's the right play.