Draws By Repetition

I think forced draws by repetition shouldn't be allowed.

I recently played someone who i was on the verge of beating but they kept checking my king with their queen, and it was in a corner so i could only move it to one spot, then back.

His reasoning was "you had a better chance of winning, so i should draw you"

Am i the only one that thinks that forced draws by a losing party shouldn't be allowed?  They seem unsportsmanlike and unethical.

What do you think?

Draws by repetition definitely seem like a almost cheap way of avoiding a loss, even though a loss is inevitable.  One could reason that it is an aspect of strategy in the end game to avoid the loss and keep a ratings loss to a minimum, and I understand the logic behind this, but it seems a way of giving in to the fact that you lost, and are only looking for a way of avoiding the obvious.

If you can force a draw, then you haven't really lost, have you?

The draw by repetition is a convenience - without it, you'd have to repeat the position 50 times instead of only 3, to claim a draw by the 50-move rule.

And if you extend the case to eliminate that draw as well, then the game could continue indefinately, or be decided by a clock with no bonus time.  I don't see either of these an an acceptable result.

I agree with RandomPrecision.  :)  If you don't have enough defense to stop the perpetual check then you really don't have a winning position since part of winning is to protect your own king long enough so you have time to checkmate the opponent's king.  :)

Separately, I'd also like to point out that not all draws by repetition are to avoid a loss.  Consider the opening of a game I recently played:

In this game, it was not the case that the position was repeated to avoid a loss (although it turns out that 50 moves later, it would have), it occured in an intricate position where I didn't feel I could advance my pieces, and white didn't really have any better options than to have the queen dart between a3 and d3.

draws by repitition are fine and if you dont want to draw then look aheadd and make sure you wont get into that situation

If this the game that you were referencing to, you should be ecstatic that your opponent allowed you a draw. Also, you can easily prevent the draw by blocking with your queen, so if you really believed that you position was better (which it definitely wasn't), you could have prevented the draw that way.

That being said, I agree with RandomPrecision and Einstein that if you can't stop the perpetual check, you don't have a winning position.

also, i struggle to identify a reasonable alternative. should the player who keeps checking eventually be forced to play an alternative (and perhaps clearly inferior) move to allow the game to continue? what if the only other move would be to hang his/her queen?

"Should the player who keeps checking eventually be forced to play an alternative (and perhaps clearly inferior) move to allow the game to continue? what if the only other move would be to hang his/her queen?"

In Xiangqi (Chinese Chess), it works exactly that way.

In Shogi (Japanese Chess), it's a draw if the same position  repeats oneself 4 times, but doing it by perpetual check is considered a loss for the checking player.

You don't win the game by getting to a winning position. You win the game by checkmating your opponent. If you can't get out of check, then you can't checkmate your opponent and you can't win. Your griping about a perpetual check is just sour grapes over not having the foresight to defend your king.

http://blog.chess.com/Loomis/perpetual-check

Agreed -- being on the verge of beating someone isn't the same as beating someone and a position in which your opponent finds perpetual check isn't a winning position.  It's a drawn position.

There's some real skill involved with finding a draw from an apparently losing position -- it's an admirable ability and I wish I was better at it.

Good, so you're aware of the alternatives to playing games with the three-fold repetition rule.  I suggest you go play those instead of suggesting chess be more like them. 

 Thankyou LWE, that is very interesting. You do learn something some days.

Meanwhile, what about where you are clearly winning materially and from most positional perspectives but get a bit over excited and, even worse than a perpetual queen check, end up backrank mated by a lone castle. A number of 'cheaters' have pulled this repeatedly on me. Could we design a rule (which doesn't require me having to become any better at chess)?

Draw by repetition is a great part of the game.  You should look for creative ways to achieve it as a way to attain a draw from an inferior position or when down in material.  If you are ahead you have to avoid it - otherwise the best you have done is draw.

If that fly-ball to medium-deep left field had only been a home run I would have had a "winning position"...if the goalie had vanished and my kick had scored a goal I would have had a winning position...etc, etc.

A "winning position"...wins...  If not, it was maddeningly close to winning, so close you could see it...but when the bat cracked and the fly ball had no real momentum...you get my point.

If someone can earn a draw from a "losing position"...good on them I say.

Draws by repetition are the ultimate form of dishonor and a direct affront to my warriors creed.

So... not a draw then?

Of course the ancient Japanese didn't allow draws *rolls eyes*.

No real chessplayer ever draws by repetition. And they never resign either.

Well that just goes without saying.