As a player develops you have a few more games that end in Draws than years before & Less Losses

Turning bad positions into Draws & sometimes Wins ... Happens

Well, the masters database (tools > opening explorer) speaks for itself :) too many draws.
Giri approves, though

It's a Database of Masters Right ?

It is mostly tournaments I think. While I recently learned that not all tournament have matches (series of games), it is quite possible that those matches are in sizeable numbers. And there are strategies that are about saving energy, or else, which might conflict with the assumption of best play for some individual games. It may sometimes be in both players interest in such a series of games, at some game, to not play competitively. They have to do it under the referee radar though. I have been explained in previous similar threads, and other discussions. I did encounter puzzling early middle-game 3 fold repetitions. No idea of the proportion of those. case by case for now. But I have stopped concluding a draw from that opening filter, to be a probable draw for me or many of us.

I basically look only at the win and lose statistics there. or I look at which move does the draw actually happen.
good to follow some of those until the book end. sometimes. I do, as sometimes even for win or lose, when too few games in the remaining set in the explorer, I want to see if the win is a fluke, in case i spot a blunder, which would mean i would have seen it as such myself, and etc... my point is to check the statistics sometimes.

Simply a FACT that Draws are MORE COMMON at the TOP Level because THEY PLAY WELL . My whole point is that if you DRAW you can do better at chess because you are becomming bettr and fighting using ALL YOUR RESOURCES ... AND LEARNING HOW TO DO SO ... The people that say horrible stuff about draws are ussually not IMPROVING to the TOP LEVELS >>> Kasparoc DREW 40 games in a ROW with his back to the wall 0-4 he was behind Karpov then I believe 0-5 !!

#5 That is possible. But I like to look at data before believe population statements based on personal experience and existence cases of actual draws.

Without checking, people might even want to draw just to look like they know their stuff.... (I don't really think that there could be such immature behavior).

But just repeating that level unveils a new realm of perception, very early in any game, seems like we should make sure at the database level. Should I go get the more than 200 early middle-game i encountered, and we could have an expert to newbie explanation of why those were high level perception draws? I had shown it to a stronger player than mine, and that person could not justify the 3-fold repeat.

I think the problem is neither the masters or the draws that do exist but the tournament form and the database curation. (and then the book digestion that does not discard or allow filter on game length).

The belief in "master"s draws, should get checked once in a while by curation. but who is going to dare look like a low level patzer (is that correct use of term).

I do believe what you say at very high levels under very close scrutiny. but not in the database, not yet. and i am not throwing mud, I just care a lot about the quality of data in general, because I like to have reliable tools to learn from, not being an expert myself at chess. no offense intended. just being clinical.

If someone does not too play for win how can they win ? How many grandmaster play for win in 21 st century ?

#7 matches contain games where winning may not be advantageous to their tournament outcome being the hypothesis?

I recently have been suggested to look at defensive style innovator games (Steinitz). Has to search for contrasting games historically, and find the public games that would illustrate that new style attempt or adoption, so that I could build some sense of what that meant with high level examples. Point is, his new game style games seem to come from a tournament with very short matches (perhaps just one game, or max 3, unless the public record lost the rest, but i don't think so).

Then the pressure for winning the game (assuming tournament still motive), would apply at all games mostly the same amount.

Well, the goal is to convert the apparent draws into wins and the apparent loses into draws. But after you progress, you find tougher opponents too, so i would argue that you tend to draw more.

not a database or population argument. This is a mono-game argument. not a match or tournament argument. There is more at stake (or less) there than just the one game. is the point.

And likely perfect is near draw however thin it is from standard chess position. But who can claim perfect chess. We navigate real chess, mine is wild, the higher one goes with 1-game challenges, yes I would expect exactly what you say and increasingly tamer fine line walking type games. again 1-game challenges (no other knowledge than the game positions).

I don't think that arguing without evidence and statistics is going to settle this. But have they all been made those arguments?
I wish I had the presence of mind to document clearly that position cluster with 3 fold repeats.... I relied on future grep of my files. but now which keyword. The lichess inbox had to be flushed, no back search there. So I do have the way to retrace but lots of grep work or file archeology.