im going to face 2000s otb

lol

beating a gm to get 400m ratingers mus6 be good@

Cough cough you 😐

You can block him to stop more nonsense of this kind.

Agreed.

You don't get a draw by playing safe moves. You get a draw by playing GOOD moves.

Aren't you ignoring the role of your opponent? If your plans are predicated on hoping that the opponent blunders, your progress is going to stall as soon as you climb high enough to face opponents who do NOT blunder in every game.

What if he plays good moves?

When I think of "playing for a draw", I think of a player aiming for safe, simplifying moves - steering the game toward balanced and dry positions.

When I think of "playing for a win", I think of a player aiming for sharp, complicating moves - steering the game toward imbalanced and messy positions.

I always found that the best way to get a draw was to play for a draw. That's when I was starting out. You don't win by playing safe moves but by playing for traps. If there's a choice between a safe, developing move or one that maybe slightly improves your position and introduces the possibility of complexities, then if you can see enough lines in the latter that either may lead your opponent into an unsound attack or simply overload your opponent mentally, giving him a vast array of complex moves all of which you probably have a position sufficient to at least hold your own in, and a couple of safe lines he can go into where actually you develop a small edge, and you want to win, then go for the latter, even if such a move is very slightly worse than the first option, which is the move that's safe and sound. It's still probably a good move and your results, in that style of play, will reflect how good you actually are at seeing just two plies further than your opponent, in a variation that has about a dozen divergencies. Such calculations take time and there's a trade off between time used and the number of potentially winning continuations you can generate. Playing for a win is therefore the more risky option.

I think that someone is missing the point that if you play merely good moves and your opponent plays good moves too, then it could be you who suffers in the end.  On the other hand, playing very safely also tends to build up a time advantage, which can be traded for an agreed draw or for the potential to reinvest that time in calculation.

playing for a draw literally depends on what you're playing - for example, if your play the b5 najdorf against bg5(a very sharp variation), you're allowing the qe2 nxe6 variation, which allows white to comfortably draw. If you play, as, the caro, there are certain variations that lead to mass complications.

how are you 2000 then?

@immaculateslayer dont worry about the result play what u think is the best move in all positions and if u lose then analyse, study and get better because nobody in the word can expect to win all their games. You can only hope to improve along the way

Good one. 

What you're describing sounds more like a 2500+ grandmaster.

2000s certainly make occasional blunders, and it's more common for them to calculate about 2 to 3 moves ahead.

They likely won't hang a piece for no reason. Though they might wander into a continuation that, after the dust settles, leaves them with a weakened pawn structure, or ends up leaving their pieces on inferior squares.

Like any player, a 2000's weaknesses become more apparent when you see them play against higher-rated opponents. (Higher-rated experts, for example. Or against masters.) ...

I agree, there's definitely a big difference between the quality of blitz games and OTB classical.

My main point is that 2000s do make mistakes. They're just less obvious than one-move blunders. There's still a chance of beating them - but you have to play sound chess to do it.

his peak is near 2300 blitz, he can be a genius or a patzer

And you see what I mean

so uh I just beat a 2000 online thanks for the support

now I have to beat a national 2000

This man is Carl schlecter 2.0