Play for a Draw, but Don't Accept Draw Offers.

It's a drawish position. I had offered him about 10 times to draw that he declined. Then he started swearing. The game ended in a draw.

Well, if he thought he has a pawn advantage and winning position, he should be able to convert. Make a breakthru or whatever.

Well, I knew I should play on if he didn't accept my draw. But he should have known my draw offers did not come from nowhere.

If he wanted to take his chance, I understood. But he just played for a Draw, but hoped I would get tired and resigned. What a way to play chess.

I had already made a pawn gambit in order to achieve unbalanced position. But he played it safe, and hoped that I resigned for his one pawn or maybe position advantage. But it was a drawish position.

I guess white can try Kc3 and (assuming black keeps rook tied down to b-file to prevent Kb4) try to sac on e6, or play for a cheapo Rxd5 tactic.

Black doesn't have enough weaknesses to win this, IMO.

nice bishop

Haha, this reminds me of this game I played against Conrad Holt a few years ago: http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/563523 Every move I was like "ok, where can he sacrifice his bishop?" But there were no draw offers until the final position.

He maybe tried to win on clock or resignation, but he didn't accept the draw. The draw occurred after 50 moves and no exchange. Thanks for your comment. :)

I am learning, slowly, that there is always a chance for a draw in a losing position by repeated moves or stalemate.  This seldom happens in upper level games because you can't often hide your intentions from good players who will avoid it. 

On the other hand, repeated offering of a draw to a player who just doesn't see it can become offensive.  Be nice and play it out.

I am playing a correspondence game where everything is completely locked up and there are absolutely no possibilities for a pawn break unless my opponent is willing to lose. 

I offered a draw around move 30 in that game, he responded by offering a draw in the other game in the match where he was down an exchange for no compensation.

We are now at around move 50 in both games, and he is waiting until the last hours of the time control to make each move. I keep shuffling my king back and forth while he ambles aimlessly about avoiding any repetitions. I think I'm still winning in the other game, but there are technical difficulties.

The point is that I offered the draw once. He knows I want the draw in that game, I don't have to offer it again. He is exhibiting poor sportsmanship, or perhaps poor understanding of the game, but that doesn't mean I should start pestering him with draw offers.

It is annoying to offer so many draws, even if justified.

I think 31...bxa with chances for black. The bishop can try to come to a4 also. Closing the position is just silly.

10 times is excessive, no doubt about that, but when both players reach a point where none of them wants to move the position forward not accepting a draw comes down to bad sportsmanship(unless one clock is really low).

Wow, what a dull game lol. Clearly things got tied up, I agree, your opponent should of just accepted the draw after realizing you guys were not going anywhere. 

That guy must be 1 out of the half a million members here. 

When I've dropped a pawn or exchange or something, about half the time I can set up some kind of fortress (OTB games). Once I've got one set up, I'll give my opponent some time to try to break it. Once it's apparent that he doesn't know how, I'll offer a draw. To date, it's always been refused. I'll give him another 10-15 moves or so, until I think I've proven that I know how to defend all his tricks, and offer again. If it's refused again, I won't offer a third one in that game unless the character changes drastically. (One such game was a fortress down an exchange...I offered my two draws, he declined both, ended up blundering back the exchange, and we eventually got to a KQP v KQ drawn endgame. That's enough of a change for me to offer the draw once he had shown he could defend my pawn.) He knows very well that I think the game is drawn--he'll offer one when he agrees. 

Well, I think I have made excessive draw offers. It just didn't occur to me when I played.

I think it will good (and it's not sarcasm) that Someone should start a thread: "Limit 4 draw offers per game. Otherwise the machine takes offer to calculate 50 moves and no exchange then it is a draw".

Thanks all for your suggestions.

Reminds me of the guy who said instant resignation if you're 5 points down in material for two full turns. 

A good rule of thumb is offer a draw once, and then wait for your opponent to offer the next one.  Or if there is a major change in the position, you might consider offering a draw a second time.  If the position is the same, you should wait for them to offer.

I look at the game, they are similar, only it's more dynamic in Holt's game. White could still sacrifice a rook for 2 pawns, but would have lost.

On the other hand, black could do an unsound pawn sacrifice at c5, but would probably lost.

If you ask me, I cannot remember. But, ok, I have made excessive draw offers that I wasn't aware of.

The game is practically draw only after move 49 when white cemented his rook on c3 and e5. I dont think its right decision to make draw for white because he is clearly winning. The plan is put king on d6. And doubling rook on e file. With correct timing white can win the pawn on e6

I think you need a medal for not dying of boredom.

At move 91 either side could have hit the draw button in regards to the 50 move rule.

My rule of thumb is that unless there is a possibilty of gaining an advantage somewhere (barring White trying to hold the material and infiltrate from the Kc3 move suggested), then both players should play it out as if you draw on move 61 for example, you will never Know whether or not the oposition would have blundered on move 62. Here there is no advantage for Black to look for more than a draw since his Bishop is bad. This indicates he had a lesser understanding of endgames than some other players. He should have been content with a draw since barring White blundering, he cannot get a position to make his Bishop could without accepting an inferior and possibly, losing position.

If White had a way to hold the Knight and combine an idea of attacking the e pawn with Kc3 in place and then later the Rook sacrifice on the d file, his chances of winning might have increased slightly even in a RvN ending perhaps but even still, the win would likely be difficult to prove.

As the case was, White could not execute this idea fully and thus, was rightfully justified in offering (and later claiming a draw).

Here is a position where the opposite was true though not without problems until Black gaffed up the position making an easy win by playing b2?? after White played Rf8. The position took nearly 80 moves to set up and by evaluation, White was only a point ahead but had a winning game from the position though my opponent continued to offer draw after draw. Until the b2?? move, I almost accepted the draw but in post mortem found that even if Black had played another move besides the b2 advance, White still had the win in hand given he had a timely sacrificw and could stop the pawn on the opposite side of the board with the King. This is the ending from that game.