Unsportsmanlike

Wait a minute. Why are you ignoring my next point: if he had created a three fold repetition and pressed the offer draw button, it would have automatically been a draw. The opponent can't decline. Based on this fact, there's no justification to assume that he offered a draw.

He did create a threefold repetition, and he clearly did not press the "Offer Draw" button after that point.  This doesn't, however, preclude his doing so before that point.  The justification in the assumption that he offered a draw is the wording of his initial post -- he didn't say "I had perpetual check and my opponent refused to offer me a draw".  It's implied that he offered the draw and was declined -- I feel it's safe to give him at least that much credit.

Bottom line is that I think we can simply agree to disagree.  As I said, the measure of sportsmanship is subjective.  Yours clearly differs from mine.

This is the original post:

"Played this game today and managed to salvage a draw by perpetual check.

EXCEPT my opponent, Devol, thought it would be cute to continue playing the clearly drawn position and try to win on time. [I had 8 minutes on the clock still left]"

Unless I'm mistaken, the implication here is that the "unsportsmanlike" continuation came after the perpetual check. You seem to agree with me that if he created a perpetual check, he is obligated to claim it. You also seem to agree with me that it is pretty obvious that he did not do that, otherwise this game would in fact have ended in a draw.

So I'm left totally unclear on what it is that you disagree with me on.

I'm not sufficiently competent to opine on whether at some point prior to the perpetual check this game was so clearly drawn that refusing a draw offer would be bad behavior, and I've not commented on any hypothetical decision to decline a draw offer. That being said, I don't see how you can assess anyone's sporting behavior without there being a clear indication that at a particular point a draw was offered and refused.

The italicized statement is where you've misunderstood me.  If he creates a threefold repetition he has the option to claim it.  Perpetual check on the other hand, affords him no such option however I feel that any opponent who has enough understanding of the game to reach a ~1500 rating and refuses to agree to the draw at that point is exhibiting poor sportsmanship.

So we have two possible scenarios:  The original poster offered the draw after the perpetual check but before the threefold repetition occurred and it was declined in an unsportsmanlike fashion, or he did not offer a draw at all in which case he has absolutely no justification for complaint.  I think any reasonable person would give the original poster the benefit of the doubt on the implication that a draw was offered.

Is there a perpetual check that does not result in a threefold repetition?

Even if there could be such a situation, that was not this game. In this game, White used a series of checks to create the same position more than three times, at which point he had the right to claim a draw. Do you agree with this?

Are you assuming that sometime after the series of checks began but before the same position was reached for a third time, White offered a draw and it was refused?

If that is the basis of your argument, one difficulty I have with it is this: The claimed "injury" of the original poster was that through the bad behavior of his opponent he was forced to resign a game in frustration that he should have gotten a draw from. That "injury," of course, was just the result of his misunderstanding of how to claim a draw by threefold repetition.

So as I understand your argument, the injury you think was inflicted here was that the draw was offered and refused prior to the threefold repetition occurring. But that seems to be no injury at all since all one needs to do is continue the checks long enough to create the third repetition as was done here.

Is there something more to your argument that I'm missing?

I never said anything about injury being inflicted -- those are your words.  It's a question of etiquette and manners, offense of which does not necessarily cause injury.  That the opportunity to claim the draw eventually arose and was not capitalized upon is beside the point because by that time the offense, that being the declining of the draw offer I'm assuming was made, had presumably already been committed.

I find nothing unsportsmanlike in declining a draw offer, especially if the person who declined has an advantage, such as more time than the opponent.

If you do not want time to be that much of a factor, play with longer time limits, and move faster.

I don't believe there was actually a 3 move repetition.... the same position was never repeated 3 times.  the king was moving to two different squares alternately.  So in order to "claim a draw", the 50 move rule would have to come into effect.  I have never had anything like this happen to me, but I believe that after 50 moves the button does change to "claim draw"..... I have faith that it does anyway haha! 

the 3 move rule should apply. perpetual check is incidental.

Nope, playing the clock is blitz strategy 101.  A time advantage in speed chess is nearly as important as material in many cases.  

It doesn't matter if there are 500 intermediate moves - if the same board position occurs three times in a game (exactly the same position - this includes castling rights and en passant capture rights), then you can claim a draw by repetition.

Assuming your opponent did not want to draw, I would say this is a perfect example of bad sportsmanship indeed. In my view your opponent gave priority to winning the match over playing the game (and being sportive). One could argue that this kind of behaviour is in fact part of the game because there is no clear rule prohibiting it, but playing by the rules alone does not make you a good sportsman. Sports are about finding out which is the best skilled player. That means good sportsmen want to put effort into finding out who is the best skilled player, themselves or their opponent. Keeping games deadlocked until the official playing time is over keeps us from finding that out (we still don't know who the better player is) and therefore has nothing to do with sports. So, I would suggest an official rematch, it seems like the only fair solution to this chess problem.

TheGrobe,

That cartoon is perfect! Please, if you would, send it to me....

Donald

So, in summary, the opponent is a 'bad sportsman' for not claiming a draw on repetition, because the opponent was forcing him back and forth?

In my experience, it's usually the case that the player who forces a threefold repetition calls the draw (that's generally why they force the repetition in the first place).

I find that devol could have drawn this game simply by repeating the same moves. The starter of this topic did not have that luxury, because he could be given chess from more than one position, repeated chess but not repeated moves. And to me it looks like devol made this happen on purpose, with the idea of winning the game by 'stalling'. That is what I call bad sportsmanship. However, when devol agrees to a rematch I think he can no longer be labeled a poor sportsman by anyone.

You should be able to simply right-click and choose "Save Image As..."

I think you don't understand draw by threefold repetition. White created the same position more than three times and could have claimed a draw but did not because he did not know how to.

I apologize for using "injury" when you consider an offense committed against etiquette and manners to be something that is not an injury.

Is the offense committed against ettiquette and manners that you think occurred here only that at some point after beginning the series of checks but before creating the threefold repetition, white offered a draw and it was refused by black?

If that is the only offense you think occurred, do you dispute NM Forthoffer's assertion (post #51) that there is nothing unsportsmanlike in declining a draw offer?

Ah. That changes my perspective. I was in the understanding that in order to claim a draw the repetition is required to be sequential, no other moves in between. If what you say is true, I don't think there an easy way of telling whether devol is to 'blame'. Of course he could have offered the draw, but he might have been waiting for his opponent to do so, or maybe he didn't knew how to do it either, or maybe he was stalling, we just don't know. (still, a rematch is not a bad idea)

Well, thanks for educating me anyways ;)

Yes and yes.