Rather than railroad the game thread, I wanted to share this with SG and the gang. I jokingly said to offer a draw to which SG replied

[quote]Originally posted by SwissGambit
Rescinded! We fight until someone dies. Offering draws is for pansies.

Consider this, your first goal as a chess player should be to not lose the game. Winning is great, but if you flat out lose winning ain't happening.
Think of Iron Tiger and his tenacious steel like reserve. Pansies?? Fischer/Bronstein, and all the tactics and sparks you'd expect from such a clash of ideas. They ain't pussies. 😛

[Event "Blitz"]
[Site "Herceg Novi (Yugoslavia)"]
[Date "1970.04.08"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "7.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "David Bronstein"]
[ECO "C16"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "93"]

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Rather than railroad the game thread, I wanted to share this with SG and the gang. I jokingly said to offer a draw to which SG replied

[quote]Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Rescinded! We fight until someone dies. Offering draws is for pansies.

Consider this, your first goal as a chess player should be to not lose the game. Winning ...[text shortened]... 8 {44...Ka6 gave Black more chances for a win.}
45. Be4 Qf8+ 46. Kg6 Qe8+ 47. Kf5 1/2-1/2[/pgn][/b]

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You can offer a draw in that kind of position. That's pretty much the only way Fischer would give anyone a draw - you'd have to take him down to the endgame and prove that your position was still equal.

I disagree that the first goal is not to lose. The first goal is to [b]win. Playing purely defensive chess can lead to positions in which y ...[text shortened]... Alekhine showed that you can play for a win in every game and succeed against the world's best.[/b]

I translate SG's "...pansies" as the equivalent of a Klingon war whoop: "Today is a good day for you to die!"

A draw is a flubbed opportunity to have won.

Here's a fixed version.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Here's a fixed version.

[pgn]
[Date "2013.11.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Fischer"]
[Black "Bronstein"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "2013.??.??"]
1. e4 {Notes by Bobby Fischer} e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. a3 Bf8 {For a time Robert Byrne, the American grandmaster, enjoyed considerable success with 5...Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 but a ...[text shortened]... a6 gave Black more chances for a win.} 45. Be4 Qf8+ 46. Kg6 Qe8+ 47. Kf5 {draw agreed} *
[/pgn]

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.