When I break out white and black:
Draw Percentage

I think my sample size is too small and need to continue to playing. I still my draw percentage is high but hopefully it levels out with more play.
I have been told higher draw percentages are normally reserved for higher rated players as they are more accurate vs beginners who tend to blunder more.

I guess. Just played three rapid games. Won, draw, lost one each. But the one I lost would have petered out into a draw if I didn’t overthink and drop a second pawn in the rook endgame.

I guess. Just played three rapid games. Won, draw, lost one each. But the one I lost would have petered out into a draw if I didn’t overthink and drop a second pawn in the rook endgame.
Thanks for the input.
I am more apt to accept and offer draws as well. My last tournament game, I accepted a draw because my opponent was 5 minutes late into the game and I already had the championship locked.
Call it good sportsmanship?

I Was playing a 25 5 tournament game online vs my state's national master (2250 uscf). He offered me a draw somewhere near the end, I declined, and ended up losing. Declined it because my coach said that I learn more that way, and most of my books to argue for declining draw offers.

I Was playing a 25 5 tournament game online vs my state's national master (2250 uscf). He offered me a draw somewhere near the end, I declined, and ended up losing. Declined it because my coach said that I learn more that way, and most of my books to argue for declining draw offers.
You make a valid point; learning is very important.
Ive always looked at it as is the position drawing?

I Was playing a 25 5 tournament game online vs my state's national master (2250 uscf). He offered me a draw somewhere near the end, I declined, and ended up losing. Declined it because my coach said that I learn more that way, and most of my books to argue for declining draw offers.
You make a valid point; learning is very important.
Ive always looked at it as is the position drawing?
I once had a floor national master beat me in a drawn endgame. I had 50 minutes on my clock; he had five. I could have seen it. I could have drawn.
But I didn't.
The annotations were already there, and I didn't feel like removing them because I like my annotations (chessbase)

Looks like a good try in getting your pair of rooks active early.
I know very little theory so I am not sure what the middle planning entails int eh Alekhine.
I also don’t take engines serious because they can calculate lines that NM and IM just don’t see or inhuman.

Yeah, I'm often skeptical of engines too. If I don't understand one line, then I go with the next best line. Assuming it doesn't change the eval that much.

Yeah, I'm often skeptical of engines too. If I don't understand one line, then I go with the next best line. Assuming it doesn't change the eval that much.
There’s a few transpositional lines I like to bother the engine with:
1. Transposing from the Cochrane-Staunton to the Botvinnik System.
2. Engine always pushes d4 for a Catalan but most times go with d3 into the reversed dragon because it’s comfortable as a Sicilian player migrating to the English. The engines just loves d4 lines and grabbing more space in general.
3. Engine calls the Botvinnik System drawish which I wouldn’t argue but it has its place when I want imbalance and a clear middle game plan against blacks fianchetto lines or when black declines grabbing the centre with e5 or d5.
4. Engine doesn’t like the McDonell Attack or La Bourdonnais variation but I like the straight forwardness of the game and win quite a bit this way. I also like dividing the board in half to king side play lol.
5. Open up with the English and run into c6 (CaroKann) , then transpose with 2.e4 and white becomes a prospect.
5. The engine dislikes the London System, but then again who doesnt?

For #4, I don’t understand why you don’t just go for a Grand Prix attack or an advance French. You get similar structures but it’s more sound; McDonnell attack stopped being played at high level due to 2…d5, while La Bourdannis French gives up control of the d4 square too easily

I guess I’m in the minority.

For #4, I don’t understand why you don’t just go for a Grand Prix attack or an advance French. You get similar structures but it’s more sound; McDonnell attack stopped being played at high level due to 2…d5, while La Bourdannis French gives up control of the d4 square too easily
The McDonnell Attack could technically transpose to the Grand Prix if you chose too. To be honest, I don’t know any e4 theory and just like to troll with 2. f4 to accelerate the game.

For #4, I don’t understand why you don’t just go for a Grand Prix attack or an advance French. You get similar structures but it’s more sound; McDonnell attack stopped being played at high level due to 2…d5, while La Bourdannis French gives up control of the d4 square too easily
With regards to 2. d5, why did you have to mention that? Now everybody is going to know and play it lol. I have yet to run into it but do like playing against it with the O’Kelly sideline because a fianchetto bishop pointing at a weakened castles king looks scary enough.
What’s your draw percentage in rapid play?
I primarily play Swiss Tournaments and after 3 months, my draw percentage is 17%. Thought that was kind of high but my accuracy rating is respectable.