Draw Ethics / Strategy

I have a very low draw percentage.  I suspect this is typical of most lower rated players like me since games at my level are commonly decided by fatal blunders.  But in my case it is also because I will push questionable attacks when I cannot find anything better and I often suffer as a result.

Currently, I have some games going with some higher level players that I am playing well in and the games are pretty even going into the end.  I am not going to offer a draw, since I understand that it is generally the priveledge of the higher rated player to offer the draw, but I am tempted to play for the draw.  Trade a bunch of pieces, lock up the pawn structure and maintain opposition with the king.

This is not something that comes easily for me.  It seems like the cowards way out and perhaps a loss of an opportunity to fight a better player longer.  On the other hand, learning to achieve a draw against a higher level player is not such a bad skill.

So coward or strategist?  Comments please.....

It seems to me that the goal in chess is as much to keep the other person from winning as it is to win. So, it only follows that, if you don`t think you can win, going for the draw is the best strategy. However, I am very much the novice and know little about chess etiquette or theory so I only offer my intuitive response.

There is a lot that can happen from middlegame to the end of the game.  Generally speaking, higher rated players are only letting you trade the pieces if they're getting a better endgame out of it.  (Well, I guess it depends on what their rating is).

In one tourney game I had a guy 300 points below me try just that.  He locked up the center, traded off many pieces including the queens, and started to offer me draws.  The only catch was I was completely winning by that point, and went on to win easily.

If you want to play for a draw, that's perfectly fine, but be sure you're not being passive.  Don't overpress an attack, but try to find active things for your pieces to do.  Trading down and trying to build a fortress is very hard, as your opponent can, at his luxury, try every type of position and idea the board allows before giving you that draw you want and often defense is much harder than attack when the attacker risks nothing due to his passive opponent.

It seems to me that, at the highest level of play,e.g., the World Championship matches, more games are drawn than won by the two contestants. Being able to draw a game, therefore, would not seem the least bit dishonorable, especially when you are well into the game, have a locked position and no improvement in sight.

Thanks for the comments.  I wonder how much of the higher draw percentage at higher levels is a result of the opponents playing without mistakes versus recognizing a position in which they are at a disadvantage and playing for a draw. 

I also wonder how much you should take your opponents rating into account in playing for a draw.  I have won a few games against higher level opponents that I was losing and I just decided to launch a desparate attack and got luck.

I guess, part of progressing is being able to assess a position.  Losing, but not my much and perhaps you play for a draw.  Losing by a lot and perhaps you go for broke.

fetchingimage - I struggle in endings also.  I think it is because most of my games never get to a close ending.  They end in death in the middle or an ending so out of balance that there is really no end game strategy.  However, I think I am improving and I am getting more interesting endings recently.  Hopefully, I will play them better.  But I tend to do it by spending enormous amounts of time reviewing alternatives.  I would like to be able to understand the positions better so I do not have to work at so much calculation.  Guess that come from doing a lot of calculation and learning from it.

Sorg67, I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.  You just got two nice wins over higher rated opponents.

I would not offer a draw to someone rated 300 points higher than me.  I would figure he would recognize a drawn position and if he wanted a draw, he would offer it to me.  However, I might play for a draw.

When I do offer a draw, I only offer once.  If my opponent refuses the draw, then it is up to him to offer me if he changes his mind.

I consider it rude and annoying when people repeatedly offer draws, especially when they are losing.  It really seems that the stronger side should generally offer the draw if he sees no way to break through.

 Thanks TheBone1"

 Although, playing for a stalement is one strategy I would look at in playing for a draw

I also tend not to play for the draw, largely because of my disposition predisposing me towards always playing for the win, but as a result of this I've had the opportunity to see some very successful attacks from strong opposition after what are ostensibly sound moves that later turn out to be minor errors (or occasionally, outright blunders).

Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and rationalize my tendency to avoid playing for the draw as taking the opportunity to learn as much as I can from my opponents.

I think it also depends on the format of the game. I had one OTB tournament game with an opponent over 500 rating points stronger than me and I thought about offering a draw at a certain point in the game.

It was what looked like a roughly even position, though I thought I had a slight advantage. The reason I thought about offering the draw was that I had about 10 minutes on the clock to his less than 2. I thought I was in a better, maybe winning position, when he was down to less than a minute and I had around five (I may be a little off, since I didn't end up notating time, but it was close).

I didn't end up offering the draw, since I thought I might have a win at that point, especially with him in extreme time pressure. However, he was a faster player than I was and I ended up losing on time. Sad thing was, just before my last move and then running out of time, I had a perfectly drawn endgame, assuming no mistake on his part, as I could have forced a triple repitition and any other move by him would have lost a Rook, but I didn't see it in the time I had (saw that after analysing with an engine).

I have never played any serious OTB games. Stopped by a chess club once and played a few blitz games, but I kept forgetting to hit the clock after i moved. But i could see offering a draw to a higher rated player in the situation you describe.

I don't think this is so much a question of whether it is cowardly, rather of whether it is effective. The most effective way to achieve a draw, especially against a stronger opponent, is to play for the win and come up slightly short. If you try to snuff the position out, you allow your opponent to keep asking questions of you without being in any danger, and there's a pretty good chance you will go wrong somewhere and end up losing.

I think it's best to play positively, even if a draw is a good result.

 I would agree.  I certainly would not play for a draw from the beginning or when the position has a lot of play.  I am more thinking of the fork in the road positions.  Positions in which I have a choice between two moves.  One opens play for both and the other closes it off for both.  For example, there is often a pawn structure choice, trade and open up a diagonol or file for play or push the pawn and lock the position off.  Obviously, if you are in a position to capitalize on an open diagonol or file or if a locked pawn structure give you a better chance, that would drive the decision.  But, my question is where the chances are pretty even late in the game and you can shut the game down some locking pawn move or massive material exchange.

Some of us even play openings/defenses that can be a bit "drawish" by nature... I have an OTB Rating of 1774 - I open with the London System as white, Scandinavian Defense and the Slav as black.

The reasoning here is that I play something positionally solid and familiar to me.

Against higher rated players I win rating pts with draws (or wins if my position yields that result) and against lower rated players I usually win with endgame technique.

My mantra - "Avoid losing whenever possible!"

I have a game going right now in which I have offered a draw and been refused.  I think the only way either of us can win is if the other tries something unwise.  And, based on my opponents moves, I think he is considering something aggressive.  While I, on the other hand, am just moving my rook back and forth between two squares.

So, I think, that perhaps, having offered a draw and playing like I want a draw, I have made myself appear unthreatening.  When in fact, I have an idea that I think is winning for me if he takes a certain pawn.

I wonder, if in this case, having offered a draw and played passively may lean my opponent to do something that will cause him to lose.  Which begs the question, can playing for a draw be part of a psychological ploy to get the win?