An opponent 200 points below me was a drawmonger

After qxd4 , 7 nb6 Is better

The higher the rating, the more often you will run into drawmongers. As White, your opening choice wasn't to blame, but as others pointed out you didn't give your opponent enough chances to go wrong.

The real difficulty is trying to win as Black against a drawmonger. If you really want to win, choose asymmetrical positions, or ones where your understanding will be worth more than the tempo.  Avoid lines where White has a known repetition even if it means choosing a line that is theoretically inferior.

Sail close to the wind.

Lasker developed a nasty trick, encouraging his opponents to trade down into positions that were lost.

Study the complete games of players such as Tal and Carlsen to see how they strive for the win against inferior opposition.

Actually, not really! They both took huge chances, and both relied heavily on their superior positional and calculating abilities.

The most obvious similarity tho is how hard they both fought in even positions to change the balance. If a player managed to get to an even Endgame, they would then have to fight for many more moves to salvage the half point they thought they'd already earned.

Become a fighter!

You gotta do what you gotta do to get the win...

Hmm, both 37...Rd8 and 37...Ra8 look tough for white to deal with. Because 37...Rf6 was played I thought maybe this was a speed game, but I see it was a daily game.

Obviously just because you're a better player than me doesn't make you perfect, but I thought your move 37 was a little odd.

By that point black has an advantage, and there may be multiple ways to make further progress, but the point of 37...Rf6 is to free the king from defending the b6 pawn and allow it to invade. After 37...Ra8 or 37...Rd8, white plays 38.Kf2, and after e.g. 38...d4 39.cxd4+ exd4 40.Ke2, it's not simple to make progress.

Ok, I was just curious.

In the game after 25.a4 I'm thinking ok, this shouldn't be too hard to draw. Of course the game goes on, but if I were either player I wouldn't be expecting a decisive result. So I'm also curious at what moment you started thinking you had realistic winning chances. Maybe after 30.Rf3 because your e5 will give you that center duo that eventually created a passer for you in the game?

Or maybe not until after move 40, I guess.

Ah, that question goes to the heart of the whole mindset we're discussing.

I thought I had realistic winning chances from move 1. In fact, I planned pretty much the whole game, starting with 9...cxd4. It went something like this:

(1) With the ...cxd4 exd4 exchange, I will create a pawn structure conducive to a minority attack on the queenside.

(2) I will exchange pieces as needed to minimize his attacking chances on the kingside, starting with exchanging the white-squared bishop and building a pawn wall on the white squares.

(3) In the endgame, I will threaten the minority attack, forcing him to misplace his pieces to prevent it.

(4) Taking advantage of the misplaced pieces, I will open a second front in the center or on the kingside and break through.

Certainly, with best play he could have stopped this plan and achieved a draw, but he allowed the entire plan to unfold.

The big picture point being: It's important to study the games of great players, especially with commentary, and learn from them how to plan out and create wins, even from balanced positions, just like an earlier poster said.

Yeah, it was a good example game for this topic for sure.

As for the... I guess it's called an orthodox structure (?) it's nice to hear you talk about the ideas. Of course I'm at least a little familiar with the minority attack, but I wouldn't have kept thinking in those terms all the way into the rook endgame, so your elaborating was useful.

AFAIK white's setup with the rooks on the 3rd rank is somewhat ideal, but of course particularly the rook on a3 is cut off, and you were already thinking to open a 2nd front.

In light of that, I probably would have been pretty happy as black to see 32.Rb3 because it seems white isn't aware of this defect. Since you've abandon the c file for the moment, it would make sense to fix the defect with a move like 32.Ra1.

Of course this is not the critical position, but this is what I was trying to ask about without stating it very well. You had a particular plan to generate play, and white (perhaps) was not aware of the danger, and some of his move show it. When you started to generate ideas in the center / kingside, that rook remained awkwardly placed.

And of course this is what it's all about... you ask your opponent to solve problems even if the position is objectively equal. With this, especially against lower rated players, you'll win games.

I was black in this game, and my opponent simply wanted a draw against a very theoretical line that I prepared greatly on.

Anish Giri Is good!

Giri CRUSHES players 200 rating points lower than him. That is, he crushes run-of-the-mill GMs on a regular basis. His high draw record is against players rated above ~2725.

Here's Carlsen playing one of his two famous victories against Gawain Jones, who was rated almost exactly 200 points lower than the World Champion. Jones is perhaps the world's leading authority on the Sicilian Dragon and the author of a very highly respected book on the subject. 

Here's the game that guaranteed he'd have the highest rating in history. Take a look at Carlsen's opening moves in this must-win situation:

Here are two examples from Tal's games of how he fought against lower rated players:

There are probably dozens of games like the following one in Tal's game collection. Tal's opponent reaches a quiet endgame and thinks he's safe. Then Tal starts playing like a world champion!

Outmaneuver me, will ya?!

I have an above average mile time for my age

So I could outrun a tomato, at least, but not an auk or eagle, or even a Pikachu😁