Empirical question: Is a drawish opening line really a concern for an ambitious player? While similar questions have been asked before and many comments were given, I couldn't find a thread dealing with my particular experiences. So:
Whenever I discuss openings with professional and even with semi-professional players the issue inevitably reaches the point where somebody says that he doesn't like a particular line because he would have no prospects of winning this position at all - meaning that it is equal and dull, too drawish etc.
This fear is not foreign to me but after all those years I concluded that it is hypothetical in nature. I played several thousand classical games but I cannot remember a single one that resulted in a draw exclusively due to both sides knowing a long main line. Very seldom did I reach a position after about twenty moves that a book's author evaluates to &quot;=&quot;. And even in these rare cases, the rest of the game saw complications that granted winning chances to one side. Without checking it, I guess I had more decided games then draws in the Exchange French and the Exchange King's Indian.
Even on low GM-level I don't have the feeling that this is a common scenario. In the few cases I witnessed a GM game where both players were blitzing out their prep and agreed to a draw quickly, I never had the feeling that one of them was disappointed and doubted his opening choice, although this is different on world class level.
For some years now, I bring up this point again and again - this &quot;empirical&quot; objection to a concern understandable form an &quot;analytical&quot; perspective. But it never catches on. (Most surprisingly, a lot of people expressing this concern also show a tendency to make quick draws.) Recently I heard of a talented 9-year-old. His caregiver was concerned that he exclusively plays the Petroff against 1. e4. His supposedly weaker opponents learnt about this and prepared drawish lines against him. As it turned out, during that tournament he didn't draw a single game in the Petroff.
So to my eyes, this is an unjustified concern for players below, say 2500. Sure, you can loose half a point due to being out-prepared. But not in lines of which you know the details. But nonetheless every opening adviser seems to be proud to state that a certain position is full of life, although there is no objective advantage. I wonder whether I am misled by my subjective experiences. Is the scenario of a fully bloodless game more common than I am willing to grant? Is there anyone who is experiencing this regularly? And anyone who got so bored by this that he quit chess? And if not: Why is this concern so pervasive anyway? Might it be that weaker players mimic super-GMs, pretending we all share the same problems?
And if someone shares my feelings: What is the threshold above which this becomes a problem?
You're right that drawing lines don't really affect people who are lower rated. However, your bar for 2500 isn't practical. Most people who are close to master rated (say 2100+, and even some lower rated) will have memorized some of the main drawing lines in their main weapons. That being said, there's a huge difference between playing openings that give you level positions but with a lot of play left in the position (such as the Petrov or the London), and playing openings that give you drawing lines (such as the forcing variations of the English attack Najdorf or Bg4 Panov-Botvinnik attack).
If it's easy and practical to memorize one or two main branches in a &quot;drawing line&quot; you can be sure: the higher-rated your opponent, the more likely they are to know these lines. If your opening simply gets you a roughly equal position, but there are enough pieces still on the board that you have something to actually play for, then that should be totally fine for most people up even to the highest levels of chess.