Is it bad etiquette to force a draw by repetition?

For me, depends on the situation. If done after you’ve played terribly and are way down in material, the argument that you’re a mastermind for finding a repeating series that cannot win falls flat. Maybe there are other situations where it is impressive.

I don’t put this in the same category as a stalemate for lack of a legal move. That’s just me.

It’s more like being annoyed by a pestering fly.

Being "way down in material" means nothing if the opponent can't checkmate you.

Even if you played terribly, the opponent did not play any better if he allowed you to force a draw.

The case I’m thinking about is where one player is a few moves away from checkmating the other (i.e., it is nigh inevitable), and the player who is about to lose goes after the repetition as their only option. Maybe one will say nothing is inevitable but in same cases the probability is extremely high.

I realize it is a rule so should be exploited but I’m questioning the rule itself, attempting to understand it differently than the way it is typically explained. It seems to be less than ideal although I can’t immediately think of a variant that would address this apparent shortcoming.

Certainly I will pay more attention to this going forward since it has started coming up for me more frequently. (I’m just a beginner.)

He's not "a few moves away from checkmate" if repetition is forcible, that's the whole point smh

That rule makes a win more valuable because you then also played in a way that your opponent couldn't clown around with your king. Point is it doesn't matter how close you think you are to a checkmate if your opponent still has counterplay, even if that counterplay is forcing a draw by repetition or forcing a stalemate.

If you almost made it to the restroom but still **** your pants you also wouldn't call it a win, right?

I suppose I view the repetition as failed attacks. If a fencing opponent continually tried unsuccessfully to score a point, I wouldn’t call it a tie. Although, one could view the situation as though the king was trapped.

A variant of the rule that would not reward failed attacks so much would be to not award stalemate and require the attacker to make another legal move, ie the repeated move become illegal. But Perhaps that is too imbalanced the other way.

Of course the rule is unlikely to change. I do agree a player is stronger if they can attack and defend against this type of attack simultaneously. I should spend some time looking at how to defend against these. Usually it happens when the king’s motion is restricted.