Game draw for repitition

I played a game with someone recently that was pretty well matched... then at the end the person kept checking me cause they weren't sure what else to do. I had no choice but to keep moving from one square to the other with my King... I had no other option. However I still had many chances to win myself if this opponent hadn't "cornered" me like that. Why should I get penalized with a draw just cause they ran out of ideas?

P.S. I meant "repetition" not "repitition":)

The person who didn't know what else to do knew to play for the draw and was able to do so.  And the draw for this person is better than a loss.

I understand that... it's almost worse that someone would do it on purpose. You couldn't do that in a regular game; both party's would have to agree to a draw, not just find a loophole in the program. Am I the only person who thinks that's a bit wierd? Anyway, thanks for replying:).

Not a loophole in the program. Draw by repetition is in the "FIDE Laws of chess".

See 9.2 "The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)"

It's also a perfectly valid tactic, just like looking out for stalemates when you're in a winning endgame and avoiding them is a skill, looking out for things like repetitive check is something you should learn, because people WILL do it in real games.

It is a standard part of the game.  And it is a draw even if one of the players does not agree to it.  Repeat a position three times and either player can claim the draw. Further, not only is there is nothing wrong with it, it is quite proper play.  

A common theme in games where one side has a large material edge is that the games shifts in strategy as one side is playing to win and the other to draw.  Happens all the time and not because one person ran out of ideas, but rather due to another person not being able to counter another players ideas.

Any book on tactics will have a section devoted to perpetual check. Its a valid strategy to salvage the draw, and your opponent did a great job to see this and draw in an otherwise lost position. You can only blame yourself for not adequately defending against it, as when your up in material you should always be wary of perpetual check/stalemate possibilities. 

This reminds me of a game I had with a friend in which I was able to attack his queen without end as she was bottled up and constantly attacked by my bishop. Besides this fortune, I was down material but was able to force a draw since, of course, he did not want to give up his queen.

We argued for quite some time about this tactic of mine, even going so far as to claim his position was superior.

The bottom line is, so long as a player is in compliance with the rules of chess and making legal moves, there are no dirty tactics, cheap moves, etc.

stats man, it seems you had the superior position because your friend couldnt stop the repetition other than losing their queen

 Agreed. And this was the basis for my argument.

The bottom line is this: The goal of chess is to checkmate your opponants kings, or make checkmate inevitable before one of the following occurs:

a. you are checkmated or resign.

b. A draw is agreed upon.

c. The game is stalemated.

d. The game is drawn by insufficient material.

e. The same position has on occurred on the chessboard 3 times (there are small exceptions to this involving en passant and castling, but these are very rare).

f. 50 moves with no pawn being pushed or a piece captured.

If any of the above conditions are met, then you do not win (i.e. lose or draw).

This is the world of chess.

Isaac

How can you argue that either of your positions were better since with best play on both sides it was a draw?

have you not seen any tactics trainings that go for a draw in a losing position?  Perfectly fine move to force.  YOU need to keep from getting in those positions when in a "winning" position.  So it was technically YOUR fault for getting in a perpetual check position. 

Don't worry, you will learn the rules as you play more games.

 I never argued my position was superior. But now that I look closer I only partially agree with Nachos and see how you might think this. My friend argued that his position was superior, I argued that if this was the case then (a) the queen would be able to find her way out of the prision or (b) his "superior" position would stand after trading Queen for Bishop.

Isaac

Wow, I didn't know about the forced draw, it's never come up before. Thanks everybody for the input.

So if Ka3 has been occupied three times and either player requests a draw is it automagic by the computer?

I think it means all the pieces have to be in the same position 3 times in a row.  If you move to Ka3 three times, but pieces have been moved and taken between them, it's not a draw, at least in my understanding. 

The position must be EXACTLY the same.  The exceptions mentioned earlier, castling and en passant, mean that if a rook could castle in the position the first time, then it couldn't in the second and third time the position is occupied, then it not the exact same.  Or if a pawn can capture en passant and then cannot, it doesn't count as the same position.