Why are people like this?

You know the game is going for a draw, but just for the sake of frustrating people.... keeping continous check is horrible.... check the final stages of the game.

Your opponent (who should be unnamed when posting games to this forum) was trying whatever legal means possible for a win with a worst case of draw by perpetual check.

Do you remember the time control situation for both of you towards the end of the game?

Here's how I would see this from your opponent's side:

1) Either I can force a draw by perpetual check

2) Or he screws up with a mistake trying to stop these frustrating checks.

Assuming your rating is an accurate reflection of your playing strength, I don't think mistakes are out of the realm of possibility for both of you.

So what happened? You didn't fall for 2) so  1) occurred.  

This is frankly a practical way to play in most positions that "look" drawn but are not dead drawn, especially when the time control situations are iffy and you have queens on the board with additional pieces.

Reminds me of a game between Shirov and Carlsen. It is a teoretical draw but Carslen had a little material advantage(if I remember correctly) and kept playing on. Carlsen could have drawn much earlier and many GMs would, but he didn't. Why? Because it is hard on your nerves to defend and you could make a mistake. Shirov didn't have that much time either. A win is a win. Chess isn't fair. If you have an advantage and you can win, you should go for it. If your opponent makes a mistake, you should try to punish him and win the game.

I'm curious, if you played white when would you have drawn?

I'm curious, if you played white when would you have drawn?

May be a some steps back, i just don't want the opponent to make a mistake by frustration. chess is all about making your opponent fall in trap without his knowledge, that's the thrill and that brings joy.

Well, it is very honorable of you to not wanting to win games because of the opponents' frustration. However, I do believe that is an approach that in the long run will hurt you more than you gain. As in all sports, often it is the level of determination that decides who wins.

Here is another scenario: you can see that your opponent is very frustrated as he moves a defending piece away which means you can now mate him. Do you not mate him? I think you should mate him. It is not your fault that he doesn't have a grip on himself.

It is the errors that we make that allow the opponent to win. Regardless why those errors were made, we should always try to punish them. If we didn't, chess would very quickly become very dull. Imagine commentators saying, "Another honorable move by Kasparov, made while he politely clears his throat as to direct the opponent's attention to...".

 Tough eh?  Could he crush beer cans on his forehead?  No, I thought not.  Not so tough now, Bobby...