For a certain type of chess player, I imagine, there exists the following hierarchy: First, there are boring chess games; second, there are incredibly tedious chess games; and last, somewhere between somnolence and apathy, there are the games of Ulf Andersson.
This reputation for boring play is not entirely undeserved as Andersson, especially in recent years, has had a tendency to agree to many short draws. Witness Andersson-Ruck, Banja Luka 2007:
1.Nf3 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 e6 6.e3 Nge7 7.O-O O-O 8.d4 d6 9.b3 d5 10.cxd5 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.exd4 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Be3 1/2-1/2
In that tournament, Andersson scored 4.5/9, a perfect record of nine draws with no wins and no losses. His games with White, in particular, consisted of draws of 14, 25, 14, and 11 moves.
I don't know Andersson's reasons for agreeing to so many short draws, but I can speculate, based in part on his recent tendency to drop out of open tournaments before they are over, that perhaps he feels with particular acuteness the phenomenon, known to so many chess players, that the pain of a loss far outweighs the pleasure of a victory.
But Andersson's games were not always like the one quoted above and, indeed, in the past a simplified position like the one reached at the end of Andersson-Ruck would have been the starting point for a long attempt to grind out a win, rather than the time to shake hands.
In this post and its sequels, I will discuss some of Andersson's fascinating wins in the endgame. In addition to showing that Andersson's games are not all boring, I want to make another point about the nature of good endgame play. For some players--probably including many of the ones who find Andersson boring--endgame play is a matter of slowly and patiently grinding away with a static advantage (like a knight on a strong outpost) or against a static weakness (like a weak pawn). The exploitation of static advantages is of course a key component of good endgame play, but very often, to win in a simplified position, one must play dynamically. As there come to be fewer pieces on the board, the differences in their activity can assume decisive significance. Andersson is a master of such dynamic endgame play.