How to play drawish positions?

[Kevin Pacey]

How to play drawish positions? This might make for an interesting topic of a chess book (let alone this thread). What are some/the ways one can strive to win in such cases (rife as they are), or (maybe less interestingly) how does one strive to nail down the draw, i.e. steering for a forced draw, or dead draw(ish) position?

At least 3 books I have allude to this topic. Secrets of Endgame Strategy by Lars Bo Hansen deals with what he calls Strategic Endgames, i.e. where the proper result is not yet known (as opposed to Technical Endgames, where the proper result is known). However, this book does not seem to touch much on positions that are rather drawish, i.e. the most likely result with proper play is a draw (not only that, but I'm referring to cases where neither side starts out with much of any kind of an edge, however intangible). Still, drawish endgames that are not dead drawn would be classed by the author as Strategic Endings, one would think, if he were to be asked.

In Understanding the Grunfeld by Jonathan Rowson, the following line (see PGN viewer, next) is given as best play vs. a certain continuation by White in the so-called Carlsberg Variation of the Grunfeld. It results in a rather drawish position, which the given elite players promptly agreed to a draw in. However, not every time this line has been trotted out has a draw resulted (moreover, luckily for Grunfeld players, since this book other ways have been found to hope for playing for a win with Black without going into this line). What's also interesting is Rowson's remarks:

"You may well find that last line baffling and it is also disappointing that such a dazzling flurry fizzles out to a draw. Though analysis does suggest that this was best play after 11 Qd1 it is dissatisfying to feel that a move like 8 Qa4+ can 'kill' the game in this way. I have never liked having 'dead draws' anywhere in my black repertoire mainly because I don't accept that Black should necessarily content himself with a draw. I just don't think we know enough about chess to reach that conclusion yet. Of course 'living draws' are another matter and if you can find an equal position with just a little bit of tension there is still a chance of out-witting your opponent. If you are up against a weaker opponent who bangs out the theory to reach this position I can only suggest you play on from the final position. You still have about thirteen units as well as your active king and there are many pawns to be won." I would add that, why play on as Black just against a weaker opponent in such a situation, if you're not fully content to draw?:


[Event ""]
[Site "Gausdal"]
[Date "1991"]
[Round ""]
[White "Shirov, A"]
[Black "Ostenstad"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6 8.Qa4+ c6 9.dxc6 Nxc6 10.Nf3 Bd7 11.Qd1 Qb6 12.Qd2 Nxd4 13.0-0-0 Rd8 {13...0-0-0 14.Nxd4 Bc6 15.e3 e5 16.Nxc6 Rxd2 17.Ne7+ Kd7 18.Rxd2+ Kxe7 19.Nd5+} 14.Nxd4 Bc6 15.e3 e5 16.Qe1 exd4 17.exd4+ Kf8 18.d5 Bxd5 {18...Bd7 gives some dark-square compensation for the pawn} 19.Rxd5 Rxd5 20.Qe7+ {20.Nxd5+ Qxb2+ 21.Kd1 Qb1+ 22.Ke2 Qb5+ wins for Black} Kxe7 21.Nxd5+ Kd6 22.Nxb6 axb6 1/2-1/2


In play 1...Nc6! by Wisnewski, a Canadian game is offered at one point (reached properly by an Alekhine's Defence move-order, rather than by the author's), which reaches a drawish position after Black's 15th move. At that point, before giving the rest of the game without notes, the author remarks "Of course this position is dead level. But the rest shows an aspect of the game you should always remember: a strong player, you draw with him; a weak player, you beat him with your superior technique." Aside from once again noting that, why try to beat just a weaker player, in such a situation or otherwise, I'll note (as we'll see in the PGN viewer below) that Black made the first significant error (and in short order), but then the rest went well for him as per the author's script:


[Event ""]
[Site "Richmond, CAN"]
[Date "1999"]
[Round ""]
[White "Jiganchine, Roman"]
[Black "Wright, Stephen"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.d4 Be7 9.Bf4 0-0 10.d5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Qxd5 13.Bxd5 Rfd8 14.Bb3 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Rxd6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.c3 Bd3 18.Rfe1 Na5 {A serious error} 19.Ne5 {Better was 19.Re7 with a large edge} Nxb3 20.Rxd3 Rxd3 21.Nxd3 Kf8 22.Ne5 Nc5 {Black is slightly better here. White's next move loses a pawn, to start with} 23.Nf3 Na4 24.Rb1 Nxb2 25.Kf1 Rd1+ 26.Rxd1 Nxd1 27.c4 Nc3 28.a3 Nb1 29.a4 a5 30.Ke2 Nc3+ 31.Kd3 Nxa4 32.Kd4 Ke7 33.c5 f6 34.Kc4 Nb2+ 35.Kb5 a4 36.Kb4 Nd3+ 37.Kxa4 Nxc5+ 0-1


At this point I can list a few general themes I can think of offhand, for players hoping to eek/grind out a win from such drawish situations; perhaps posters may add to these:

1) First, take into account clock situation, tournament situation, rating difference of the opponent, in trying to guess if he's also playing hard to win (or if he likely will know how to draw a technical ending that just might arise);
2) Setting tactical traps both big and small for the opponent;
3) 'Planning', or setting strategic traps/problems for the opponent that he should counter or disallow;
4) Maneuvering, to again set strategic traps/problems, if no clear plan to do so presents itself (if nothing else, keep the game 'alive' this way).

What's less clear to me is how to neatly and clearly define 'outplay/outwit' opponent, or 'beat with superior technique', unless the 4 above points already cover most or all of that.