Is it possible to win someone playing for a draw?

I have been observing grandmaster games recently (for few days). I seem to notice that many chess grandmaster games show tactical victory over their opponent, only when both strive for a win. Take a look at this :http://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html . The number of draws are 34%, which is unimaginably high. The reason I feel this way is, when a player wants to play for a draw rather than for a win, then he would play in such a way that each move he makes defends vulnerabilities and makes sure the pressure is reduced. Doing so will make it difficult for his opponent to win, who actually fights for a win. Is my analysis correct? Or what's your opinion on this? Look I don't see too many tie matches in tennis or any other outdoor sport... Again, is it possible for a grandmaster to win another grandmaster who actually plays for a draw rather than for a win (regardless of who has the white pieces)?

For GMs, white's first move offers a very small advantage. So usually black hopes to equalize first before trying to play for a win.

If white offers black equality in stale position though, it can be very hard for either player to win. When the files that have pawns are the same for both players (like an exchange french or exchange slav) there tend to be fewer imbalances. With a similar structure and very skilled players it's difficult to win.

There are also some black defenses that are very solid and merely aim to draw. Some are technically very difficult and aren't good ways to draw for players like you and me, but they're very effective for strong GMs. For example if the only thing you do is "defend vulnerabilities" then the pressure is actually increased because you will be passive, but strong players can deal with that pressure.

---

Chess is not like outdoor sports  The player who makes the best moves or fewer mistakes doesn't always win. You can make 50 perfect moves and lose the game on move 51. It's more like a difficult puzzle than a game of tennis.

OK, it makes sense. By "defending vulnerabilities" I don't just mean defending the hanging pieces being attacked. I meant defending any anticipated attack (by a grandmaster) whenever possible, making sure that he doesn't give his opponent any opportunity to launch any attacks on his king. Also simplifying the board as much as possible (I am referring to Anand vs Carlsen's games for this) will start driving the game more towards draw. Look, in the past two world championship matches, Carlsen kept simplifying the board position (like playing for a draw, which apparently he won't; he said in his interviews that he never plays for a draw), and making it nearly impossible for Anand to launch any attack. And this made it difficult for the former world champion because it was quite different from his playing style.  

This made me assume that if two grandmasters were to play, with one grandmaster striving to win and force to destroy the positional advantage of his opponent and the other one simply wanting to "play the game" without any solid plan, just trying to defend all the possible threats and passively waiting for the endgame to arrive, it is most likely that the game ends in a draw (of course, in most of the games, Anand lost on playing games which were theoretically supposed to be a draw, because of his inexperience playing such end-games. But that doesn't count for my argument as again, it is supposed to be a theoretical draw position!). So to put it straight. Is is really possible for a grandmaster to win another grandmaster (theoretically) if the other grandmaster was to play for a draw?

I don't remember the 2nd match as well, but in the 1st Anand - Carlsen match, Anand was also playing very conservatively. Even though he was behind he wasn't pushing for a win. This made it extremely easy for Carlsen to draw. I don't know why Anand did this. He received criticism from several grandmasters for the way he played.

But to answer your question, yes, GMs can try for a win even if their GM opponent wants a draw. If one person wants a wild attacking game, and one person wants a slow and safe game, what happens is somewhere in between. I.e. you can't force a wild game, but you also can't force a slow safe game.