You sit down across someone 300 ratings points lower than you. What are you thinking? Probably, "I'm going to win this game." Now switch that person with an IM. What are you thinking? For a lot of people, it's something like, "I hope I can get a draw."
Is that really your goal? Are you really satisfied with a draw? Is that your ideal outcome?
 |
| Woohoo, I didn't win! |
During my youth, I went to a lot of karate tournaments. This often meant driving 2-3hrs, both ways. You don't do that any say, "Gee, third place might be achievable." No, I tried my damnedest to win. I pulled out all the stops. I trained hard for the last three months, I'm in the best shape I've ever been, and if someone is going to beat me, then they will have to freakin' earn it.
I didn't win a lot ... but sometimes I did. And then it happened more often. By the end of highschool, it was almost constant. I set the bar high and I met it. And let me tell you, karate is much more intimidating than a board game. Oh no, I lost a pawn ... versus oh no, I got punched in the face.
If you sit down to play chess and aren't playing for a win, why are you playing chess? I mean that literally. I don't know why anyone would intentionally play for a draw.
Psychological Poisoning
Let's get this out of the way: chess is a draw with best play. I think we all agree on this. Getting a draw therefore isn't bad per se. Indeed, it's the logical result. My concern isn't with getting a draw, it's with aiming for one at the outset.
Chess is a three-result game: win, lose or draw. If you try to get a draw from the beginning, that basically turns it into a two-result game: either you draw ... or you lose. I think you can see the problem.
That's not a coy remark, either. It's the truth. In order to win, you need to push, you need to create pressure, you need to make your opponent make hard decisions. All of this entails a certain amount of risk. We therefore think, hey, let's eliminate risk, play risk-free, and everything will be fine. That's exactly wrong. If we do not take any risks, then we are putting zero pressure on our opponent. That means they almost certainly won't make a mistake, since, after all, mistakes come from feeling pressure. That means they can do whatever they want, and that usually means putting pressure on us. Do you know what happens next?
Yup, your position becomes worse. You soon blunder. That's game.
My Own and Only Example
I can only remember playing for a draw once. It was a correspondence game against an IM. As White, I said at the outset I would play simple, solid chess, trade down and keep a draw in hand. Drawing against an IM would be awesome, right? This dictated my opening choice:
Yup, the Exchange Ruy. Now I can trade everything and maybe win a pawn endgame. Trading pieces is White's main strategy here. That's exactly what happens just a few moves later:
Queens are off, mission accomplished. I just need to keep exchanging pieces and life will be good. Even if I don't win the endgame (because, honestly, I'm not great at endgames and definitely wasn't good at them back when I played this game), a draw isn't bad either.
Want to know what happened a few moves later?
Look, I've managed to exchange another set of pieces. It's also a blocked position, and Knights are better than Bishops in blocked positions, rights? So I'm sitting nice and pretty ... until you turn on the computer and see that it favours Black. Huh, it's almost as if just trading pieces and letting my opponent do whatever he wants isn't applying any pressure, letting my opponent get a good position...
And do you want to know a secret? Strong players are strong because they excel in such positions. They wouldn't be strong players if they weren't. Let's keep going:
I've managed to trade off even more pieces. Good job, Young Smithy! What's that? The computer evaluation is almost winning for Black? Uh oh...
This entire game I've just tried to trade pieces. I've put no pressure on my opponent. He hasn't had to make a single hard decision. Now he has the two Bishops in an endgame with pawns on both sides of the board. My Knights are clumsy and have no good squares. I'm fighting to hold on.
Now it becomes clear. I don't have any squares for my pieces. I can barely move. Black is advancing on the Kingside and threatening to win my advanced e5-pawn after chasing after my Nf3. That's exactly what happened.
I'm down a pawn with terrible pieces and no prospects. I resigned ten moves later once my opponent entered mop-up mode.
Do you know what sucked about this game? Everything. It wasn't fun. I had no play. I had no threats. Most of the time I felt scared, worried that my opponent was getting threats and pressure and that my carefully laid plans of achieving a draw were going up in smoke.
And it gets worse! What would have happened had I "succeeded" with my strategy? I would have gotten a draw. Big whoop. Am I really going to brag about that later? Put that in my best game collection? "Here's where I was a big chicken, played a titled player, traded all the pieces and got a draw. I'm so proud."
The best case scenario is pretty terrible. The worst case scenario is exactly what happened, where I lost an uninteresting game. Worse, actually, because it's hard to learn from this game. My main takeaway is "Don't play for a draw out of the opening." Duh.
I want you to compare the above with this position. I was Black against someone rated 300 points higher than me, over 2100:
What do you notice? Two things stand out: Black has a pair of amazing Knights ... and Black is down an exchange. I sacrificed material to reach this position. I've got pressure. It was a messy game, the evaluation fluctuated, and my opponent finally bailed out with a three-move repetition, Ra7-Ra8 in this position.
This game was a huge success, even though it was "only" a draw. Why? Because it was a much better experience. I didn't play for a draw. I fought for the advantage. I put my will on the board. I made my opponent make difficult decisions. In the end, my opponent basically begged for a draw, initiating the repetition. Let me tell you, having someone 300 points higher than you beg for a draw feels really, really good. Highly recommend.
By playing for a win, I managed to draw against a much stronger opponent. That's much better than playing for a draw and losing. I should emphasize, these are not isolated incidents. Think about the last time you lost to a much lower-rated player. Was it because they played for a draw and you overpressed? Or was it because they made your life difficult and you made some poor decisions? Overwhelmingly, it's the latter.
Simon Webb makes the same point in his entertaining book "Chess for Tigers." Players make mistakes when they feel pressure. If you face strong players, you should go for the throat. Sure, you'll probably lose ... but that's a given. They are stronger than you. You are expected to lose. By giving them hard problems to solve, though, you make it more likely they will make a mistake. Conversely, if you do the "trade everything and hope" strategy, they have no risk. They are playing with house money. And because they are stronger than you, they'll probably win. And even if they don't, your reward is to suffer in a long game and escape with a draw. Yuck.
Play for a win. Everything else is a losing strategy.
Conclusion
I like to talk about the "main" or "root" mistake. Often we blunder not so much because we are blind but because we are focusing on the wrong thing. It's a thought-process error. Here, the though-process error happens before the game even starts. By playing for a draw from move 1, I basically shut off my brain. Instead of looking for good moves, I'm looking for safe moves. Instead of looking for tactics, I'm looking for trades. Instead of playing to win, I'm hoping not to lose.
That's a really poor way to play a game. It's not fun, and even the best case scenario is pretty miserable. So let's not do it. Play to win. It's a lot more fun, and the rewards are much greater.
No comments:
Post a Comment