Does anyone have a good opening to play for a draw?

There are several people much better than me at my local chess club and I would like to draw them.I know I should always try for the win but I think that it would be nice to be able to force a draw out of the opening. I know this is probably not realistic and my mind innediately jumped to BERLIN DEFENCE! SYMMETRICAL PAWN STRUCTURES! PETROFF DEFENCE!, etc. i would like your thoughts on this. Thanks 

()
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/what-is-the-most-drawish-opening
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-annoying-exchange-french
()
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-openings-would-you-recommend-for-a-boring-player

If they're better than you, they will beat you.

Some openings have more forcing moves and some have less.

I know of only these attributes of openings that lend them drawishness:

(1a) symmetrical pawn formations, especially with symmetrical piece placement

-OR-

(1b) very locked up pawn formations

(2) early trade of queens

(3) limited tactics

(4) bishops of opposite colors

(5) castling on the same side of the board

(6) few or no open files

The openings you named, and those named in the links I posted, are all good openings to produce those characteristics.

Don't play for a draw

Play to win

Playing for a draw => playing passive => going for defeat.

Not good at your level.

I'm leaning towards complicated positions myself so I wouldn't know how, if it somehow ends up with a draw it's because it's dangerous for both sides to ask for more.

I mean if they are better than you, and you go for simple positions playing for a draw, they're just going to outplay you. In my experience, the best chance you have against someone who is better than you is going for the most complicated, sharp position possible, because when the board is a huge mess you have just as good a chance as them at coming out on top

In my experience many players under 2000 don't go for a draw in a sensible way.

For example, trading pieces at every opportunity. If we trade into an endgame where my two pieces are better than your two pieces, then 100% of my pieces are better, and it may be a win as certain as if I were up a queen (and I've won games like this of course).

Or they try to have no weaknesses... a sort of middlegame fortress. But they suffer enormously in mobility for this.

If you really want a draw, my advice is you should work extremely hard to have at least as many active pieces as your opponent, and not more weaknesses. This means attacking is good (active pieces) and doubled pawns are not bad (as long as they also have targets).

When your pieces are active, you wont have to look for trades, your opponent will exchange of his own free will. And accepting a few weaknesses is not bad as long as you also have targets. This will also facilitate eventual exchanges.

Until finally you reach an endgame where both players have roughly equal activity and chances, and most of the play is gone from the position.

Trying to remove all play from the middlegame (or opening) often only results in removing your play, and giving your opponent a free hand.

The best way to draw a much stronger player is to get a winning position... they will often offer you a draw right away 

Thanks! I will use this and everyone what you are saying is: Always go for the win which I will do unless it is a clear draw and I gain points from draw.

The elites tend to play 1.e4 when they want a draw as white! Karjakin chose that today, Svidler did too, against Anand. When Ivanchuk wanted a draw as white against Kramnik in the Candidates a couple years ago, he chose 1.e4. Even Mikhail Gurevich chose 1.e4 against Nigel Short in a must-draw game. That didn't turn out too well for him tho, as he lost a famous French Exchange variation as white!

As Poucin and others have pointed out, playing for a draw is nearly impossible for players below ~2000. It's far better to play for the win, get the better position, then offer a draw.

ok SmyslovFan

I will watch Anish Giri's games. I have a lot to learn about how to play drawish moves!

I agree. Read (I believe) pfren's comment about him avoiding the French Defense (in that link I provided) whever he expects the player to play the Exchange Variation. There was another post here I read several months ago where a master player said one problem in getting to master level is that you have to struggle for that extra 1/2 point when playing against Class A players who are just playing to draw (Class A players will gain rating points by drawing with a master), so those posts are evidence that people *do* play for a draw. I certainly do, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. All this macho talk about playing only for a win is not logical to me, but when I argued this point a year ago I was just ridiculed for it, so I'm not going to get into that debate again.

I have a re-occurring preference, for " 'Philador's defense" myself. Oftentimes allowing, the early 'queen' trade; Even though, it precludes 'black' from 'castling' .. which oddly, is No big deal' If, you're familiar with the various move selections; Plus, the intuitive reasoning, behind them.

 A Big 'if' incidentally!  ..{also good, for playing for a Win, in my experience!}

Playing for a draw will get you a loss.  

There are no openings where you can force a draw.

That's an extreme overgeneralization, too vague to be useful, and isn't even a logical statement: You're saying that a player cannot become skilled in knowing how to produce drawish games?

Of course not. Nobody is claiming that. However, most people (including myself) do claim that the character of certain openings is that they can tend to be drawish or sharp, and this can be seen to some extent by plotting the statistical win-draw-loss progression as the games with that opening progress:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/how-to-measure-the-drawishness-of-a-game

Playing not to win is not the correct mindset.