Originally posted by king creole 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
sorry, am i missing something...? isn't this what the game is all about, winning... once i'm a piece up i will simply trade piece for piece with the intention of being one piece up at the end game... whats the problem with that...? it's called tactics... am i suppose to let you back into the game then...?
Originally posted by king creole You mean tactically inept?
No it is the logical thing to do because if you do simplify you do have a very good endgame advantage and if your opponent avoids simplifying he is then is being compromised in his move selection
WHAT??!??! someone is using a winning strategy thats completely logical !!>!!> this is an outrage good sir and you can be assured my chess club confederates and I will have a gentleman's laugh over it
Originally posted by Dies Irae WHAT??!??! someone is using a winning strategy thats completely logical !!>!!> this is an outrage good sir and you can be assured my chess club confederates and I will have a gentleman's laugh over it
Originally posted by king creole 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
It is chess 101 to simply when a piece up. But likewise, if you are a piece down, you should avoid exchanges and keep as much of your material on the board as possible. The course of the game depends on both players. If you don't like what your opponent is doing, prevent it.
Others have mostly covered it, but I trade under the following conditions:
1) When I'm up in material. This has been discussed, and hopefully everyone understands the value in doing so.
2) When I have the opportunity to trade a bad piece for my opponent's good piece. If he has an active bishop on a diagonal that is applying pressure to an area of the board that I consider vulnerable, then I might trade it off even if I'm down in material to reduce that threat.
3) If I'm feeling pressured. Sometimes my opponent will get a lead in development, and if I can develop a piece that threatens one of his pieces, I will do so with the expectation of trading that piece; if not, then I still developed my piece. Trading would have the effect of nullifying some of his lead in development.
Looking at the above, there seems to be a more fundamental formula here, a formula that's often espoused by others:
1) Find the imbalance on the board. This could be in terms of material, development, king safety, pawn structure, etc. etc. Anything that is an advantage or disadvantage for you.
2) Create a plan to amplify your advantages and neutralize your disadvantages. The most obvious example is to not trade pieces if you're down in material. That's an obvious disadvantage.
Players who just swap pieces
14 Feb '07 18:25
Back to Top