- Joined
- 20 Oct 05
- Moves
- 81687
I would be interested to know what the board thinks of players who simply swap pieces with the intention of simply being 1 piece up on you constantly throughout a game.
This has happened against me a few times.
I am not a good player by far and thought that tactical manouvering was more correct unless this is included.
I would be grateful for your thoughts
Originally posted by king creoleIt's very usual & is solid basic strategy.
You mean tactically inept?
If you're ahead than it makes sense to simplify (ie exchange like for like pieces off the board) because the less pawns & pieces on the board, the more your comparative advantage will be over your opponent.
Ceteris paribus
😛
Originally posted by king creoleWith a full board, and assuming pawn=1, bishop/knight=3, Rook=5, Queen=9, then you have a 39 pawns plays 39.
I would be interested to know what the board thinks of players who simply swap pieces with the intention of simply being 1 piece up on you constantly throughout a game.
This has happened against me a few times.
I am not a good player by far and thought that tactical manouvering was more correct unless this is included.
I would be grateful for your thoughts
If you have a 1 bishop advantage, then it is 39 plays 36: You have an advantage of about 7.7%.
If you then manage to swap off most of the other pieces, leaving you with a bishop and rook and 3 pawns V rook and 3 pawns, then it is 11 plays 8, which equates to an advantage of about 27%.
Once you have a material advantage, generally, swapping off pieces should increase your advantage.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak^ provided of course, that after all the trades, you havn't simplified into a draw.
With a full board, and assuming pawn=1, bishop/knight=3, Rook=5, Queen=9, then you have a 39 pawns plays 39.
If you have a 1 bishop advantage, then it is 39 plays 36: You have an advantage of about 7.7%.
If you then manage to swap off most of the other pieces, leaving you with a bishop and rook and 3 pawns V rook and 3 pawns, then it is 11 plays 8, wh ...[text shortened]... a material advantage, [b]generally, swapping off pieces should increase your advantage.
D[/b]
eg. N+N+K v K
if we simple used numbers, then it would be 11:5 white (*where king=5) which would appear to be advantageous to white....when it isn't.
there's 2 occasions when I'll trade down. The obvious one is when I've a material advantage. The one I'm not proud of is when I'm in a complex middle game and find it hard to formulate a plan... I simplify and find it easier. Same goes for cramped positions, trade off to free up space.
It's a perfectly reasonable and normal strategy. If you are a peice down then you should avoid the piece trades. Pawn trades can be ok as they could open up the enemy king, create passed pawns etc.
If you are a piece down and you feel there is a chance for you to continue play so that there are as many complex tactical possibilities as possible. That usually means try to make passed pawns, point your pieces at the enemy king and queen, put your knights on good outposts near their king etc - and avoid trades where possible!
Originally posted by king creoleThis is normal strategy. The onus is now on your opponent to force swaps (difficult), and you must try to avoid them(difficult). It's part of the game.
I would be interested to know what the board thinks of players who simply swap pieces with the intention of simply being 1 piece up on you constantly throughout a game.
This has happened against me a few times.
I am not a good player by far and thought that tactical manouvering was more correct unless this is included.
I would be grateful for your thoughts
Originally posted by king creoleReciprocate by trying to swap all the pawns off, if he's a minor piece up with no pawns then you get a draw.
I would be interested to know what the board thinks of players who simply swap pieces with the intention of simply being 1 piece up on you constantly throughout a game.
This has happened against me a few times.
I am not a good player by far and thought that tactical manouvering was more correct unless this is included.
I would be grateful for your thoughts