You do not resign a draw position, do you?

If the position has been repeated 3 times you don't have to offer a draw you can claim it.

Yes, but this happened before the third repetition (he had several choices to place his king after my checks)

Your opponent is complaining that you forced a draw by perpetual check?

I would ask your opponent, "Why did you allow Lievin into a position where perpetual check was available?  Clearly you have gone wrong somewhere, if you are unhappy about this result."

BTW, if this was the game, then from a quick glance you have done well to draw there.  I do not like the look of the opponent's extra, passed pawn, and I would have done the same thing.

That's the game. If they perpetual heck you, well, thats not lack of imagination or cowardy. It's part of the game.

Anyway, related to this, the question that arises and may be more interesting is:

Is the attitude "let's see if my opponent makes a mistake" appropriate? Of course the rules allow it, but...

For example, take a two bishop vs. king endgame as an example. The normal thing to do for the player who only has the king is to resign. But he can also think "well... let's see if you know how to give mate with two bishops and king!" and force to play until checkmate -or, in a more positive mood, he can think "man, I would not know how to win this... let's see how you crush me, so I can learn!".

Any thoughts?

(The example may not be the best one, as we know any average player would give checkmate with two bishops and king, but I hope that the question is clear anyway)

Exactly, it seems like it worked much better than any opponent could have hoped for too.

i think white's possibly miffed that he felt the game was playable. had he moved the king to d3, he would have been able to end the constant checks. yes, he would lose a pawn, but the game would still have been level.

he lacked the will to make the move and sacrifice a pawn, but in return he would have had a much better shot at continuing the game and pushing for the win.

thus, it's the player's own fault if the game was drawn against his will.

btw, i admit that i have played for draws by repetition (maybe twice)... but only in games where i feel that any other result will be a loss for me. it's not a great tactic, but i play it occasionally.

Thinking of drawing by repetition as a dirty trick that taints the name of an honest chess player is like thinking of a pin or fork as a dirty trick to pull on an otherwise winning opponent.

It's a well known tactic that is looked for and guarded against.  It makes perfect sense.  There's nothing dirty about it.

Well, of course! But the point is why do some people need to "rile somebody up". Chess, as long as I know, should be played on the board by good moves, and not by persecuting your opponent verbally.

So complaining about harassement is naive... Then I will look for the video lessons in this site covering the topic: "the roughness of life" ;)

Tonydal:

"It's just a matter of... how long have you been playing chess anyway?"

Several months.

"(haven't you ever met guys like this before?)."

No. Am I a lucky person, you see...

"Sheesh."

Such naivete is kind of touching really... (touch of humour, if you allow me).