forcing a draw

dont do it, it only leads to irrational anger,hatred and more new challenges which you dont want to accept unless you are into grudge matches!

it also works, and its probably one of the best ways to "win".

its part of the game

you dont hear me going around saying "don't use the knight, it moves funny".

yes it is part of the game, i have used it and it has been used against me and i have no problem with it, some people have though, they feel its cheating them out of a win, the knight doesnt move funny, i dont get your point

styxtwo is using a strawman argument tones. Let me break it down the fallacious argument for you.

1. Person A has position X.

You say that trying for a forced draw is a bad idea, as it leads to anger, hatred, and new challenges.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.

Styxtwo twists your argument into "doing something allowed in the rules is bad".  Of course, this is a gross exaggeration of what you said, you don't mean don't follow ANY rule, you only think forced draws are bad.  But styxtwo wants something easier to attack.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

Now styxtwo is attacking the twisted "doing something allowed in the rules is bad" argument.  Of course since many rules are good to follow, styxtwo easily defeats this twisted argument.  How for example could you argue that the knight shouldn't move like it does?  What are you going to say, "don't use the knight, it moves funny"?

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Of course, this doesn't actually refute your argument because an attack on a distorted version of a position does not constitute an attack on the origional version.  It's a fallacious argument. 

If someone tries to use a strawman against you in the future, point out that somebody is using a strawman argument (like I have), or attack the distorted argument.

I'm not convinced by your analysis, migraine. It seems to me that styxtwo was drawing a perfectly valid analogy.

Playing for a draw (using such methods as perpetual check, three-fold repetition or the 50-move rule) are hallmarks of advanced play. Avoiding using such techniques on the spurious grounds that it might cause annoyance is neither more - nor less - ridiculous than 'refusing to use a knight' because 'it moves funny' - or declining to use the en passant rule because it sounds French!

styxtwo very neatly highlights the absurdity of tones' original proposition.

The original point is also dubious; I don't think there's a lot of irrational anger and hatred from chessplayers over a draw.

 Dear Borg

I couldn't agree more - if someone can't beat you then they don't deserve to win. Obvious init?

Ok so i wasnt completely serious about the anger and hatred. As i have said i have no problem with this aspect of the game, i will use it. I have been accused of unsporting behaviour however which got me thinking...

 I honestly don't know what this is about. Forced draws are a perfectly natural part of the game. If your opponent had a long lasting advantage (up material) and you only have an attack as compensation then you should try to use the attack to create a draw (e.g. perpetual check). Maybe the other person is annoyed that their "advantage" didn't lead to a win but that is entirely their fault for missing the drawing chance.

migraine,

what i used was not a strawman agrument.

the point in my comparison was to highlight the rules and the fact that they are there for a reason. if we do not follow the rules the game will fall apart. (i hope you agree with this statement, if you do not i'd like to hear it also).

following up on this single assumption you have to agree that all the rules are good and equal to each other. if you can force a draw you are playing accoring to the rules and you deserved the "win"(draw in this case but you get the point). 

coming back to my analogy, i simply stated that declining one rule would be as crazy as declining another rule(in my analogy the knighs movement). so in this case. as every rule is as important as the others. following migraine's analisys, X=Y and my analogy is legit.

without the rules the game will fail and that is why a draw is a perfectly legit way to win. and i do realise that it may cause the losing person some greef, but we all have to deal with that at some point or another. 

i hope this clears up my previous statement.

Stop thinking. That person who believe you should let them win is probably that same person you starts taking three days to play once he/she is in a losing position.

Sorry migraine, but styxtwo is right.

What he used was a generalisation, not a strawman fallacy. 

There are a vast number of novice players on this site (or any such site) who haven't a clue yet about this game, at least from the point of view of what is fair, what is appropriate, etc. Such individuals take their sense of justice from another sphere and morph it onto the game of chess while somehow thinking the rules don't factor in, resulting in all sorts of inappropriate accusations or opinions.

Of course, given my handle (DrawMaster), I could be biased on this issue.

And your picture! Interesting choice. 

Im not talking about a draw in general, im talking about forcing a draw from a losing position.

It's just a game. If people get mad because someone forced a draw from a losing position, they're just getting mad because they fell for it, not because they really think forcing a draw is unsportsmanlike. Since chess is a game of negotiation over positions and analysis after the fact, then forcing a draw is a sign of skill, not spite. People who are angered over it should just take a minute to calm down and analyze the game to figure out where they went wrong.

Of course, the last part goes without saying...

 Nice wikipedia use, my pretentious friend.