The horrors of the drawoffer

Well it's super played out by the GM's, but considering it took that long, and that most amateurs wouldn't play out 25 moves of marshall theory, I think it would probably lead to some interesting play. It was the one time I played against it. it's an interesting opening, but most of the complications had just been played out at the top.

So then study endgames.

I used to feel that way, then I think my endings improved, at least relative to my middlegames. So now when the endgame approaches, I'm totally confident that I can hold drawn but slightly worse positions and I even think I can get a win sometimes out of a slightly better position. That's the whole key of endgames. The sure wins are easy, the sure losses are just gone -- the dead draws are dead. Maximize the points you get out of the "slightly better" and "slightly worse" games.

I'd rather have a win and a loss, all else being equal.

Just goes to show how different the views of the commonfolk are from the pros. They see the Marshall as drawish, and the Four Knights as an opportunity for inventive dynamic play.

Why does a mirror reverse left-right but not up-down?

About drawing stronger players with good positions. I know too that you can't be afraid to play out your better positions MOST OF THE TIME. However, consider you're below on time, only somewhat better, you're rated 400 points below your opponent, the game is super tactical, AND you never won or drawn against anyone that much higher. At that point you should be realistic that although we really want to win it will be very tough and considering the time pressure you could blow it extremely easily. This happened to me yesterday, and I proudly claimed my first draw against someone rated approximately expert strength. Now with not all losses, will I play for a win more? Quite possibly. If the position is not complicated and I'm simply a pawn up, then yes I will try for the win, but some positions are MUCH more complicated so an always play on policy will probably get burned in some cases (and pay off in others, but you should still be open to settling for a draw depending on the circumstance).

I think of super GM chess as a completely different world, seperating them from everyone else.

rob9258 Excellent point, I totally forgot about that but I agree with you. Just like the Russian puzzle I posted maybe a year ago. It shows the same possibility of leveraging piece play in simple positions to get better at more complex positions.

The Puzzle: Empty board. White queen on d1, black bishops on c8, f8. Black to move. Yes there are no kings. If black can last for 8 moves without getting a bishop taken, he wins. If white captures a bishop in 7 moves or less he wins.

It's best if you try it against someone OTB. Pretty fun, and obviously has nothing to do with chess, but helps.

I think that he is trying to say that, after an interesting and tight game, a draw will be a somewhat disappointing result. Then again it's better than a loss, and it's not wise to try to win at all costs.

as long as the games are interesting I don't mind whether I win lose or draw.

Mirrors don't reverse left-right either.

HTH.

Just because he said it, doesn't mean it has to be right.

I distinctly remember a Kramnik-Leko WC match where the Marshall scored a crushing and pretty win...

With everything else being equal, given that I hate losing so much, I would probably be happier with 2 draws.

The question seems artificial to me, there would be no point in playing if you knew the result in advance.

I would rather go for two draws as well, for the exact same reason as tonydal. I'm a bad loser. :P

The creed of that person who will keep pushing wood to and fro in an obviously drawn situation.