SG is correct, always play to win.
Playing with a draw in hand is all very well but if you have the advantage,
even it's sligjht then it is your duty to chess to attack.
Infact it can be classed as blunder if you don't.
By not playing to increases your advantage it will disappear and
that means you opponent may possibly be better.
I read recently that Petrosian discovered that with his snuffing out
attacking ideas, even before his opponent knew they were there,
style of play that he could beat fellow GM's.
They added this is why he never really fully developed as a strong chess player. (EH?)
I consider being champion of the world fully developed but I know what
he means. Petrosian did agree to an awful lots of draws by setting up these
no play for you defences because he left himself little chance of winning
unless he opponent decided to batter his head against them.
Larsen is the best exponent of a player always playing to win.
He knew he would lose some but figured he would win more than the lost
(and he did) so he took what other GM's would call risks.
Larsen 6-0 loss v Fischer is a perfect example.
Fischer offered him draws in a couple of games via repetition when the
position was level or indeed when all Larsen's attack would yield was a perpetual.
Larsen refused them trying to post a win.
Game 6 Larsen v Fischer.
Larsen played 30.Rf4 going the win and lost. Instead he must have seen...