bad etiquette to force a draw by repetition?

@MisterWindUpBird Can we at least agree that if you blundered 2 rooks and then verbally requested a draw that would be rude. Just because you take the non verbal approach doesn't make it totally fine. Just because it's more skillful doesn't make it 100% okay. Of course this only applies to games outside of tournaments and such with something other than pride on the line. Also, even if it is rude, it's over the top to think of yourself or someone else as a victim because someone was rude. His reaction to the draw was probably worse than the slight rudeness he was faced with. The comments I read treated this case like it is black and white, so I talked about the other side. In reality, this was one guy being a little rude and another guy over reacting and being rude back.

I think "verbally requesting" a draw and making a draw by repetition or whatever are completely different things not even in the same universe wrt this question

forcing a repetition is often best.

In Japanese, 'orange' is 'orenji.' 'Apple' on the other hand is 'ringo.'

I do not understand how this is even a point of contention. If you blunder a perpetual in an otherwise winning position, do you seriously expect your opponent not to make the best move?

What's next? When in a winning position you blunder your queen, you think it is bad sportsmanship for your opponent to capture it and ruin your winning chances?

     Sometimes a player sacrifices material for good attacking chances. Should their opponent defend well the attacking player may be able to get a perpetual check--no need to apologize for taking that draw.

     Another situation is when one player has built up an overwhelming advantage but left the "losing" player an opening to take a perpetual. That's the "winning" players own fault and the opponent can no more be blamed for taking advantage of it than the would be for accepting any blundered material.

     In a complicated, unbalanced position with many chances for both sides a player will sometimes grab the perpetual because they are unable to see what will happen otherwise and may feel they're out of their depth in any ensuing complications. The other player may be eager to play it out to see what will happen and feel cheated out of their chance for an exciting conclusion, but the first player can't be forced to take a risk where they are in doubt.

I'm not saying if you see a perpetual you shouldn't go for it. Also, sacrificing a piece to try and gain some other advantage probably doesn't apply in this case. At least I've never heard of a 2 rook, 3 pawn gambit to open up a perpetual draw. This seems like someone who blundered multiple times and decided to bet on the low percentage chance that his opponent would make multiple mistakes in the end game to avoid a loss. Once he noticed the draw was available, of course the right move was to go for the draw. I'm just saying he probably at a point were he should have resigned before he knew that he could force a draw. The person who blundered into a perpetual draw with a big lead and then complained about it made multiple mistakes both on and off the board, but the original question was about the other player. I don't know if anyone has ever written a book on the proper time to resign a match, but if there is such a book, then there was probably a point before he knew about the perpetual draw that the book would have advised him to resign. And while I agree offering a draw in a losing situation is worse than playing for a draw, but there is a threshold for when playing for a draw is insulting if you have no idea how you're going to accomplish it. I also want to say that this is originally an etiquette question. The whole point of resigning is because you don't want to waste anyone's time when you don't think you have a chance. It is purely an etiquette decision. Logically speaking, you should never resign because a loss is the worst possible outcome. In hopeless situations, you should always play for a draw or win. If you were playing a robot then resigning shouldn't even be an option and it should offer you a draw every turn once it is no longer possible to win. If chess.com had analysis of etiquette, then at some point after one of his blunders and before his opponent left himself open for the perpetual, it would have said playing for the draw was a good move and resigning was the best move.

Nothing wrong with a Draw vs a higher rated, in fact it is what you WANT to do because a Draw vs a much higher is still + to your rating. So yeah, you drew, that was his fault for putting himself in that spot. Man imagine blaming others for all my bad moves....

Once happened to me (a long time ago), I managed to swindle my opponent and escape with a draw by repetition in an otherwise completely lost position. When my opponent noticed what I was up to, he told me to stop checking his king and let him win. Naturally I refused and he got pretty angry calling me names and stuff. Best half a point of my life

I will never understand people blaming their opponent for not letting them win . It was his fault that he put himself in that position for you to repeat the position.

how arepeople fining this toppic after so long

This happened with me once , I had a winning position but the opponent forced me to move back and forth and it was a draw by repetition, he could have moved any other pieces but he didn't , I mean if you can't win then resign , don't force someone to draw , our elo is decided from the match points afterall.

Would you do that? Lose instead of drawing?

Just so you know, losing intentionally is against the rules.

Wtf why are you guys so soft imao

No, you didn't. Your opponent could force a threefold repetition, therefore it was a drawn position.

Its sad people support this. Forcing draws is really annoying and is just plain rude.

Because it's a problem that's probably getting worse because of bad people playing chess.

No, it's a basic tactic and fundamental rule of the game that is encouraged at all levels of play. It's your job, as the person with a winning position, to make sure that it can't occur. I bet you think stalemate should be a win as well (hint: you're wrong). 🤷🏻‍♂️