Avoiding draws

I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I realized I can not win them. On the other side, when I see how Aronian won against Anand...so much tactics there...

My question is: how can you avoid this simplifications? Should I try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

Check out some Tony Miles games, his approach seems to have been unbalance the position then outplay the other guy.

Originally posted by Knightlore
Check out some Tony Miles games, his approach seems to have been unbalance the position then outplay the other guy.

Sounds a lot like Jeremy Silman's theories.

Originally posted by vipiu
I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I re ...[text shortened]... try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

Sometimes it is necessary to avoid exchanges if you want to win. That said, if it happened twice, you were probably just off your game a little that weekend.

Originally posted by vipiu
I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I re ...[text shortened]... try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

I think that has to do with the openings.

I had similiar problems and had to switch to more aggressive openings.

In some openings, the game is just to straightforward and once you get a few pieces off the board, it's very diffucult to win if you don't make obvious mistakes.

Which openings did you play in those games? Or you can just post the games on here.

Originally posted by vipiu
I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I re ...[text shortened]... try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

strange. that is exactly what happened to me too. I drew 4 games in a row against 200-500 points weaker players. Only one of those was winning for me but I managed to blew it.

Maybe its an epidemic?

Originally posted by RahimK
I think that has to do with the openings.

I had similiar problems and had to switch to more aggressive openings.

In some openings, the game is just to straightforward and once you get a few pieces off the board, it's very diffucult to win if you don't make obvious mistakes.

Which openings did you play in those games? Or you can just post the games on here.

Game 3106481 I started with a passive opening which was very ineffective during the short game.

In the above game I could not understand why my opponent resigned. I'm a pawn up but in this position it matters so little.

I could -no way- find a win and the game would at least take 20-30 more moves and probably a draw. 😕

Is there any obvious thing I missed?

[edit] Advice appreciated RahimK. Thx in advance.

[edit2] or anyone.

It depends how well you know your opponent. The part of the game that really tends to seperate weaker from stronger players is the endgame, so a reasonable approach is to play for a simple endgame position, but not so simple it's obvious, and then make your opponent hold the draw. It's not invariably true, but you'd be suprised how many players (including very strong ones) play simple positions badly.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It depends how well you know your opponent. The part of the game that really tends to seperate weaker from stronger players is the endgame, so a reasonable approach is to play for a simple endgame position, but not so simple it's obvious, and then make your opponent hold the draw. It's not invariably true, but you'd be suprised how many players (including very strong ones) play simple positions badly.

This is quite true. I have played davidmacc a number of times now and have not won despite decent openings/middlegames. He has simply continued to grind the games out until I blunder.

Originally posted by vipiu
I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I re ...[text shortened]... try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

Its funny, I play very passive lines and yet I very rarely get draws.

I am an optimist and think I will beat my opponent. I have played with players much stronger than me that agree draws in positions that might be equal, but with loads of play.

Also I love endgames, when you see how Capa etc win match after match from nothing, it is an inspiration.

The fact that I normally make at least one huge mistake a game helps me not to make draws, but maybe not in the way you want.

Originally posted by RahimK
I think that has to do with the openings.

I had similiar problems and had to switch to more aggressive openings.

In some openings, the game is just to straightforward and once you get a few pieces off the board, it's very diffucult to win if you don't make obvious mistakes.

Which openings did you play in those games? Or you can just post the games on here.

ok, I will try to post the games today(with a few comments)

Originally posted by vipiu
I recently played a couple of long games OTB against weaker(at least by rating) opponents and I drew both of them. After the games I analyzed on the computer and their moves (and mine too) were preaty close to the ideal ones(so no mistakes)...
Somehow the games went into a lot of trades and I was not able to complicate them without weakening my position. I re ...[text shortened]... try to make a bit weaker moves just to keep the position more complicated ?
What do you think ?

I would say if there were a move which a computer would mark as giving a .5 advantage but simplified, versus an equal position but complex(against a lower rated player) I'd choose the latter. In a complex position, they are more likely to make a mistake, and thus, increasing you chances to win.

Originally posted by Jusuh
strange. that is exactly what happened to me too. I drew 4 games in a row against 200-500 points weaker players. Only one of those was winning for me but I managed to blew it.

Maybe its an epidemic?

you mean endemic

Broadly speaking, a player should complicate/unbalance a position when playing someone stronger.
When playing someone weaker, then 'tis best to simplify.

The first thing is to look for the best move, whether it simplifies or complicates the position. If you just follow this policy at all times you won't go too far wrong.

Against a much stronger opponent, going for complications is often a smart thing to do. The strong player likes to be in control, he doesn't want too much danger in a game that he expects to win. But make sure that you've analysed as far as you can, and evaluated the positions that arise. If the opponent seems to have better chances, don't play it !

Sometimes in a more or less even position you will find yourself with a choice to make : do I go down this road, which keeps my position intact, but looks as if it's inviting a draw, or this other road, which is more dynamic and gives me more attacking chances, but also gives my opponent an opportunity to counterattack ?

In the opening phase of the game, such choices are more a matter of style. They may influence the character of the game, but won't shut off opportunities to win.

As the game proceeds, these choices become more critical. The starting point has to be a careful analysis of the position, as any move that you play has to stand up to the test of analysis. But then the strong player, once he realises that there is a real choice to make, will generally opt for the move with better attacking chances. Why ? Because that's the way to improve and become competitive : by not accepting a draw until you have to, by trying things out, taking risks, and putting the maximum pressure on your opponent.