MSL (2)--Sometimes a Draw is a Good Thing

It often takes newcomers some time to wrap their minds around the concept that a game of chess can end in a tie. Once they start playing competitively, it often takes even longer to grasp the idea that playing for a draw is the right thing to do in certain situations. This insight usually comes first in games where the player finds himself in such a bad position that his only chance for survival is by making it as hard as possible for his opponent to win. However, it takes a little more experience to recognize another type of situation in which a draw is a proper goal. I am not talking about a player who (wimpily) decides before the first move that a draw is the best he can hope for because his opponent's rating is so high. Rather, I am talking about positions that are evenly balanced in such a way that it is impossible to upset the balance without taking unreasonable risks.

Prospect's second board at the MSL tournament, Andrew Berowski, showed himself to be quick study in these risk-reward calculations. In the second round, he took unreasonable risks in playing for a win against Fremd's Adam Cheng and wound up losing. In the third round, he agreed to a draw with Hoffman Estate's Amy Gill in a position where there was still a fair amount of lumber on the board, but there was no constructive plan available that did not entail substantial risk. Both positions involved bishops of opposite colors (meaning each side has only one bishop that moves on the opposite color square from his opponent's).

In round two, it was Andrew's turn to move with the White pieces in the following position.

Andrew is already down a pawn and he can do nothing to defend his pawn on g5. On the other hand, Black cannot capture that pawn without losing his own pawn on e5. White might consider trying to maneuver his bishop over to g8 where it could attack Black's h-pawn, but it would be hard to get past the Black king and the bishop could wind up trapped in the corner. White simply does not have a reasonable way to play for a win.

Black, on the other hand, does have an extra pawn and grabbing White's g-pawn at the cost of his e-pawn would give him an unopposed or "passed" pawn on the h-file. However, in order to advance, this pawn is going to have to cross some light squares, such as h3 which White's bishop can control from c8. Moreover, if White can trade his f-pawn for Black's g-pawn, the bishop can also control the Black pawn's queening square. Black would need to bring his king up to support the h-pawn, but as long as the White king maintains a defensive position, Black will be unable to do so.

Endings with kings, pawns, and bishops of opposite colors are notoriously drawish. Often, a two pawn advantage is not enough to win if the defender's king is active and his bishop is placed where it can both defend its own pawns and block the opponent's. A player trying to hold on in an inferior position should always consider the possibility of trading down to such an ending. HOWEVER, if there are rooks or queens on the board, the player with the better position can sometimes attack on the squares that his opponent's bishop do not cover, so a player who is looking for a draw must be careful when trying to reach the ending.

In the above position, however, Andrew's instincts were to try to win and he was attracted by the prospect of grabbing Black's a-pawn and c-pawn. Being an optimistic soul, Andrew played for a win with 39.Kc5 and ended up losing when Black queened his h-pawn before White could get either of his pawns to the goal line. Berowski v. Cheng.

After contemplating the perils of unseemly aggression over the lunch break, Andrew reached the following position as White in the third round against Amy Gill of Hoffman Estates and a draw was agreed after White's next move.

It may look there are still a lot of pieces on the board, but after the rooks are traded, it is very difficult to come up with a constructive plan for White. Black's bishop is protected by a pawn and is perfectly positioned to protect its own pawns while blocking White's from advancing. On the kingside, Andrew's only active possibility would be advancing his pawns to pry open Amy's kingside, but White's king would be exposed before the pawns got far enough to make life uncomfortable for Black. So for White, a draw is a good outcome.

Black, on the other hand, had more reason to play on. White's bishop does not protect his queenside pawns from a protected square as neatly as White's does. Black would probably be justified in probing about with her queen a bit before agreeing to a draw, although White should be able to prevent anything too bad from happening. On the other hand, Black may have been reluctant to leave her king alone with White's queen lurking about. Berowski v. Gill.

It is not always easy to tell whether playing for a win is fraught with such peril that maintaining the balance is the best course. A player who agrees to a draw never knows what might have happened, while the one who loses by playing on learns a valuable lesson. Nevertheless, the mature chess player always considers how his opponent might respond to whatever plan he chooses. When he determines that any winning attempt will allow his opponent even greater chances to win, he plays to maintain the balance and accepts a draw as the best outcome.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I may not be the best person to give advice on this topic. I often play several tournaments in a row without a single draw, which I think is pretty unusual for players at my level. I think I let my curiosity about what might happen get the best of me. Nevertheless, when I reach a position where I clearly cannot see a way to make progress without allowing my opponent the better chances, I have no qualms about playing for a draw.