I know from studying regular chess that it's possible for grandmasters to have lines they memorize and pull out at a moments notice to take games into known drawn positions. I'm wondering if this is also possible in Go where players are able to figure out sequences of moves leading to a certain layouts allowing them to head to calmer waters and possibly get away with draws. Is this feasible in Go or not?

No.

Most tournaments do not allow draws, and even in those that do, they are impossible to play for.

Komi generally makes draws difficult (the only thing close to a draw is a triple ko, which takes a great deal of skill to engineer). Without komi, a sufficiently strong player can aim for a draw against a sufficiently weak player, but this requires counting the game perfectly and playing to ensure that points are equal at the end. Doing this would require someone well into the dan ranks playing against a substantially weaker opponent.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Only if you're Akira Toya.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

Short answer, no.

Long answer:

In the komi era (now) there are no draws because white gets an extra half-point to decide them. Previously, a draw (even score) was seen as a sort of victory for white, because black had the advantage. In multi-game matches, it was expected that for two players of even strength, black should win, so a draw was a bit of an upset by white.

Nowadays, depending on the rules you use, it is possible to get a game with a triple-ko or other large scale repetition that prevents the game from continuing, but those games are generally considered void and replayed rather than drawn.

You may encounter draws in casual play without recourse to formal rules or an implicit komi, but it's not something one generally plays for, since there's no decisive endpoint like a checkmate.

I think seki is the closest Go equivalent to a draw in Chess. Although it does not bring the game to a draw, it does resolve a particular battle into a draw.

I'm glad you brought up seki. Have a look at these games:)

Wow at those whole board sekis. Are they actual games? Was anyone ever so skillfull as to pull something like that? Or ar they just hypothetical constructions to provide an example?

I cringed when I skipped to the last stone at first. So much unresolved tension... Gives me the feeling you get on those films in which everyone is pointing a gun at each other, all waiting for one to move a limb.

EDIT: Under certain rulesets, couldn't the second one be declared void because of the cycle at T11?

And in that case you can do it with 4 simultanous games at the same time.


Iirc they are actual ancient chinese games.

Seems they are contrived: http://senseis.xmp.net/?WholeBoardSeki

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I thought they were contrived, as even at my level there are some clearly "not great" moves... still very natural looking sequences, they're a bit of a work of art really, but they don't look like real games.

Thinking about the original question, one interpretation of a known drawn position might be a joseki. It's not for the whole game, but given a good choice of joseki by both parties, it should lead to an even result locally.

It's important to distinguish between a question Alberich didn't ask (is it possible for a game of go to be tied?) and a question he did ask (can you play for a tie rather than a win, as you play for a tie in chess?)

1a. Yes, when there was no Komi (or integer komi), both players could end with the same number of points. This was called jigo. Depending on the sort of competition you were playing in, this could count as a tie, a no result (with the necessity to replay the game), or as a de facto win for white.
1b. Yes, under certain ko rules, the game can end after both players refuse to back down from a cycle. (Usually a triple ko, but in the original rules this may have included simple ko as well.) Again, how this gets counted (tie, no result, etc.) depends on where you're playing.

2a. No, you can't really play to tie on points. If you think best play leads to jigo, you are still one point away from winning on either side. (if you are much stronger than your opponent, you can attempt to manipulate the final score with suboptimal endgame, but this is more for personal amusement or to practice counting than a drawing strategy.)

2b. The player who is losing is always looking to create complications. Frequently these complications involve creating ko fights and using local defeats as a source of ko threats. Sometimes this involves creating enough ko fights to lead to a triple ko. However, there is still no drawing strategy that relies on drawing lines to get to drawing positions. Rather, the player who happens to be behind on any board is looking for any sort of complication, up to and including that rare bird, the triple ko.

The last one is interesting. What happens if the losing side insists on getting into a ko fight to avoid losing? Can this be a way of avoiding defeat or are there rules to prevent players from using this tactic?

Ko fights don't prevent you from losing. A normal ko will result in one side "winning" the ko and the other side getting to play two moves (typically a threat and a follow-up) elsewhere. The reason the losing side looks to create complications is that it makes it less clear who is ahead and it makes it more likely that the current leader makes a mistake.

It really is almost impossible to "force" a triple ko under normal circumstances, but even a triple ko doesn't automatically end the game. The reason triple ko can result in a void game is that an endless cycle can occur if both players keep playing out the ko. However, if one player calculates that he is winning even without continuing to fight the triple-ko, he can just stop the cycle by playing a non-ko move, conceding some or all of the ko fight to the opponent. You can't just fight to put three kos on the board, the other player can just not fight for all three and win that way.

So, in short, there is no way in Go to force a game toward a draw/no-result.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

it is possible to play for a draw (of some kind), but it is always easier to play for a win

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.