Playing for a draw

At what point will you start playing to draw?

Slightly behind in the endgame?

Hopelessly lost?

If playing a much higher rated player or in a tourny situation where all you need is the 1/2 point do you play for it sooner than you otherwise would? Or do you play to draw at all?

I find some people either don't understand that you can play to draw, or just don't like to even if it means they will lose. A draw game is always better than a loss.

as black, you must first play for a draw before you play for the win

I used to never play for a draw, attack 100% of the time, and go down in flames if I had to.  Lately though I've played for the draw if I felt that my position was objectively worse and the material was still even. 

If I somehow lose material without any compensation such as a pawn, I'll then try to exhaust every attacking option I have to get that material back and/or press for a win, regardless of the material deficit.  If it doesn't work, then I'll probably lose, but I'd rather lose while fighting then wait for a slow death so to speak.

Not willing to draw was one of my main downfalls OTB last season. 2 of my 4 losses were when I spurned a 3-fold repetition in a worse but solid position that my opponents couldn't break through. Very silly.

It (playing for draws) all depends on many factors. If I am black against an IM or GM then certainly a draw is fine with me, IF I can get one. However, maybe my tournament situation demands I play for the win ? Maybe my opponent's tournament situation demands he plays for the win ? Maybe its the last round and all I need is a draw to clinch clear first place ? In that case it would be rather crazy to risk losing imo. If my opponent offered a draw in such a situation I would take it. I would probably offer a draw myself. I had a very unique situation in a tourney here in Lisbon some years back. I was leading the event with 6-0 and in the last round was paired as white with my nearest rival and he had 4.5-1.5 .  In this situation I would win clear first even with a loss ! In an even position he offered a draw around move 25 and so I had a long think...... I didnt really need to win so why not just agree a draw which clinches first and assures me of being undefeated ? What would you do ? My opponent was a little lower rated than me, maybe 50 points. However, I was assured of clear first anyway, even should I lose !  This was an opportunity for me to go for 100% in a tourney and I would be risking nothing but a few rating points ! In 35 years of chess I have only had 3 or 4 100% results so I said no and fought for the win and got it !  This has been my ONLY 100% result on this side of that big pond ! 

^^^  Nice job Reb, I think you made the right choice.  I would have definitely gone for the win too in that situation.  I think it's important for strong players to exhibit a killer instinct when necessary.

er, WFM, the point was that it wasn't necessary there, so your point is a tad misplaced. But I agree that going for the win there was the right thing to do.

if its a matter of pride then playing for the win, i guess, is understandable.

but from a strategic standpoint when do you begin looking for a draw? does anyone agree with Vincey in saying that as black you have to play for the draw 1st? or do you let the middle game and/or endgame develop before looking for a draw? i think that if i have made some questionable moves, which happens ALOT!, and my game is looking weak then pulling out a draw from the jaws of defeat is almost as good as a win - regardless of opponents rating.

Yea marvelous, I read the post.  It was totally necessary.  Why would you ever agree to a draw and losing points in your rating (no matter how insignificant) to a lower rated player?  Even if there were no points to be lost from a draw against the weaker opponent, which might have been the case, that would be weak.  I didn't mean it was necessary in terms of the tournament standings.  That was obvious from reading Reb's post.  I meant going for the win was necessary on a competitive level.  That's the time the stronger player needs to drop the hammer, and Reb did.  Had he not, it would have been a weak, lazy, and overly timid move.  Which would have been unnecessary, given the success he had so far in the tournament.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of 'necessary'.

To be blunt marvelous, In my mind it was necessary for Reb to press on for the win and close that tournament, which he had dominated to that point.  Had he not, in my mind, he would have looked like a coward.

That is all I meant.  Was it necessary in terms of the tournament standings, no?  Was it necessary on a competitive level?  In my mind, it was.  Don't you see you simpleton, deeming something necessary is subjective.  What is necessary to me might not be necessary to you, and vice versa.  Maybe you like to play like a girl and will accept any draw that comes to you.  That's fine, I have a different view on how strong players should approach the game.

If you continue to have any doubts, just keep repeating this to yourself so you will eventually understand the nuances of the word, "necessary."  "What is necessary to you might not be necessary to me, what is necessary to you might not be necessary to me.."  repeat, repeat, repeat.

ouch.

Marvellosity, Wildfire is a d*** but he has a point. lol

Well for me, I detest all draws and fight from move one to win a game.  Come to think of it though, that might be why I'm not as good as y'all.  Maybe some more restraint is necessary.  Oh crap there's that word again.

Marvelos I swear I only meant that some restraint would be "necessary" to my game.  I didn't mean for you, or anyone else.  Please don't get on my case about semantics. lol

If losing a game, and you can salvage a draw isn't that worth something? Well its worth 1/2 a point but... you guys know what I mean right?

Recently in a game where I was already a pawn down, I sacrificed another pawn to exchange off all the rooks and arrive at a bishop-of-opposite-color endgame that was a clear draw. Sometimes playing for a draw is the most creative solution.

My general philosophy is: first, be sure you aren't going to lose. Then, try to win.

It's interesting that you find an action 'necessary' simply on the basis of other people's perceptions of you.

I play to win, until I am sure I am going to lose. Then I play for the draw.

If you are sure you are going to lose, it's too late to play for a draw.

That's one of 2 good ways to play as Black. The other would be in an opening like The Dutch Leningrad or Sicilian Dragon to imbalance the position and fight right away, probably with the most minutest disadvantage..

As an experienced young player (Been playing for 8-9 years, but mostly in the first 5 years) and been only 21 now, Im not so sure it was my youngness or else my lack of expereice, but as i remember ever playing a high rated player i was always on about how i was going for a draw from move one, but now i definitely think this is a bad idea from move one no matter who you are playing. (What about the GM who lost to that 14 year old 1800) No matter whom im playing i always play for best situation (which should be a win). Its only until later in the game that i would consider "going for a draw". This wouldnt make a big difference to me except in situations where i might go for a safer option which would probably result in a draw rather than a wild sacrificial attack, that i cannot see an end, soon enough for my liking (in fact this happened in a game for me recently, which i went for the safer option after a long time spent on analysis board). Often ive offered draws and accepted then before there was time to see if there was or would be a winner, which now i would be more inclined to refuse and go for the guns!