Practicing what I preach. This is a game from an OTB tournament last year. I confused my opening lines and got a worse endgame. Then I equalized... then declined a draw offer... then ground down my opponent.
Check out 41...a6!! Zugzwang! How did I learn to find things like this in OTB games? Certainly not by studying openings, or by arguing with people who are trying to help me improve.
Yes, I have access to an engine too, I'm aware of what it says. Now try turning it off and defending the position after 42.exf4+ Kxf4, using only your own brain.
I will try playing the black side again, but how is it resignable??? I give an assessment of "Black is Slightly Better". However, there are few winning chances.
So, do I try to pull a Petroff or French then? Or a Latvian Gambit? I played a dubious gambit in the last round against the 1600 French defense and won with an exchange sac. So, like that? I guess that I rely nearly solely on the psychological momentum, making my opponent think more than he wants to in the opening.
New Orleans, you mean? Or Orlando? I can understand Orlando only in December, for that is where the grade level nats are held
But New Orleans???
I will try playing the black side again, but how is it resignable??? I give an assessment of "Black is Slightly Better". However, there are few winning chances.
How about 14...Be6, depriving the white bishop of c4 and aiming at b3, planning ...a7-a5-a4? How is white even going to complete development? 15.0-0-0 a5 with an attack coming. 15.Be2 Rfd8, and you can't castle because the bishop on d2 hangs. 15.Bd3 a5 (or maybe 15...c5), and you still can't castle because 16.0-0 Rbd8 wins a bishop. Meanwhile black will break the queenside pawn structure and invade. This is just from a minute's worth of thinking, with no engine and no board. The only reason it looks like "few winning chances" is because you don't see them.
My opponent was very young
Or I guess I could use a gambit to make them think more than they want to in the opening, the Latvian seems pretty good
I had once a rook and pawn vs a bishop and three pawns. I had no passer. However, I decided to cat and mouse my very young opponent. My opponent soon got impatient and blundered a pawn. Then, I focused on mate threats and eventually won his other passer. Then, I just sacked my rook for his bishop and pawn and quickly won. It was a triumph of logic and strategy. (In the same tournament I actually won $400)
Oh, and I was black and facing the Yugoslav-totally drawn again, but managed to grind it out! So that's what your after.
Yes, I have access to an engine too, I'm aware of what it says. Now try turning it off and defending the position after 42.exf4+ Kxf4, using only your own brain.
This is another invitation to look at positions practically.
If you can manage this @holographwars, you'll be way ahead of me. This stuff didn't occur to me (playing moves the engine doesn't like, or says is drawn) on purpose because they have practical value until I was 1900.
But it happened for the same reason... I suddenly had these 1800 kids, who only knew theory and tactics, play a bunch of drawish crap against me. So to keep improving I had to round out my game. Part of that was changing my opening mentality... but a big one (maybe much more importantly) is to grind out these endgames.
If you're higher rated, and you force your opponent to be accurate as long as possible, then in the end you'll usually win. If you shrug your shoulders, and tell yourself the position is boring, then usually that's a big hint to go home and really dig into that position.
For example I've had 2300 players play the 4 knights and Italian (boring version) against me. What do they want, a draw? I'm lower rated...
But in the end I lost both of those games 
Because I was tired of players playing the London against me, I decided to use the Dutch!
"Any advice to help combat drawmongers?"
Complicate the position.
That is a great advice in my opinion.
Another good idea is: Go for an unbalanced position. When you have different type of material it is not as balanced compared with having the exact same type of material, so instead of exchanging a bishop for a bishop or a knight for a knight look for the possibility of exchanging a bishop for a night or a night for a bishop.
I think an unbalanced position could be a little annoying for the player who wants to draw but great for the player who wants to play for a win even if the position objectively speaking could be a draw by best play from both sides.
***
I have tried out that idea myself. In a game where we both had a bishop and a knight (plus a rook and a queen) I exchanged my bishop for his knight even though I believed that it would give my opponent a slight advantage in the end game because there were pawns on both sides of the board. And lo and behold I managed to win the game (our playing strength was rather even), but he played for a draw after that exchange as far as I could judge by his rather passive play, while I was looking for tactics like mad.
Ok, so that means I should risk the Yugoslav? It is claimed much better for white today, and my opponent have tons of theory. I don't have v any theory.
Well, it is up to you what you will do of course; but if you are playing many games against players who go for a draw and they succeed in getting the draw it seems like a good idea to experiment with some other strategies than what you use to do.
Oh, and if my opponent keeps offering me draws like crazy I will go to the TD
Keeping offering draws is against the rules, so calling the TD is certainly an option.
Quote from the laws of chess:
| 11.5 |
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area. |
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article
As a more specific example of what everyone is trying to get through to you, the position you posted after 14.b3 - you know, the one that's "drawn, of course" - looks nearly resignable for white to me. I can confidently say I'd win 9/10 games with black from there, at least against anyone <2500 FIDE. Study endgames, and eventually you'll be able to get to the same place. Or, keep focusing on openings, and you'll get nowhere.