Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 07 Dec '07 19:28
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
  2. 07 Dec '07 19:32
    Originally posted by rubberjaw30
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
    It's not bad form in my mind. Perfectly acceptable.
  3. 07 Dec '07 19:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rubberjaw30
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
    I guess there's no absolute answer to this. probably the factors are your blunder range (more pieces on an open board brings more blunders, therefore more risks), the time left on your clock (again this connects to blunder risks I guess), tiredness, etc.

    If these factors would call simplification, even with material loss, if the win is more clear and simpler to me then, I wouldn't mind giving material.

    also there's the stalemate risk factor. if there are a lot of material left on a board but there are very few pawns, and you're clearly way above material and close to checkmating, the biggest threat is stalemate. It once happenned to me where I had 3 queens, and yes, I felt so very stupid.
  4. Standard member chessisvanity
    THE BISHOP GOD
    07 Dec '07 19:38
    I do it all the time. If i have say....a Queen/rook/bishop vs his rook/knight...i'll grab that rook with the queen and win the game.

    what is the name of this strategy? "Winning"
  5. 07 Dec '07 19:40
    Originally posted by rubberjaw30
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
    The reason you simplify is so that, after getting a winning position, you prevent your opponent from shooting you in the back by taking away his weapons; also in cases where you have a significant material advantage attrition frequently works in your favor. If in trading your queen for one of his rooks you were able to queen a pawn easier, or get checkmate easier, then it was justified. But to trade a queen for a rook in the general case, just to have less pieces on the board, would not be. If the trade was justified and your opponent was too unsophisticated to grasp the reason, that is his problem. Possibly he had one last shot based on his rook pair (e.g., for a back rank mate), and you eliminated it, and this was his reaction.
  6. 07 Dec '07 19:41
    Originally posted by chessisvanity
    I do it all the time. If i have say....a Queen/rook/bishop vs his rook/knight...i'll grab that rook with the queen and win the game.

    what is the name of this strategy? "Winning"
    thanks for the response, and I agree with most of you. my opponent's response just led me to believe that maybe it was poor form.
  7. 07 Dec '07 19:42
    Originally posted by Mark Adkins
    The reason you simplify is so that, after getting a winning position, you prevent your opponent from shooting you in the back by taking away his weapons; also in cases where you have a significant material advantage attrition frequently works in your favor. If in trading your queen for one of his rooks you were able to queen a pawn easier, or get checkm ...[text shortened]... on his rook pair (e.g., for a back rank mate), and you eliminated it, and this was his reaction.
    yeah, I think that may be correct, as he did have a bank rank threat that I eliminated with the exchange sacrafice.
  8. Standard member chessisvanity
    THE BISHOP GOD
    07 Dec '07 19:46
    after you traded your queen for his piece he should have respectfully resigned.
  9. 07 Dec '07 19:47
    Originally posted by chessisvanity
    after you traded your queen for his piece he should have respectfully resigned.
    he did resign, though by disconnect.
    which I do not consider respectful at all.
  10. Standard member chessisvanity
    THE BISHOP GOD
    07 Dec '07 19:58
    this was blitz?
  11. 08 Dec '07 09:06
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    It's not bad form in my mind. Perfectly acceptable.
    Would you have said that to Philador, he sacted his queen regularly in end games just to speed things up usually. I think its good straight forward stratagy. I teach my Kids the same thing. As long as they can make another Queen sac the lot I say.

    Renegade
  12. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    08 Dec '07 09:20
    Originally posted by rubberjaw30
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
    Simplification is a perfectly fine strategy, and a very practical and intelligent one, in my opinion.

    However, I would might see a difference between this and, for instance, giving up material when your opponent has none himself, just to "make a point." Not that I've never done it before myself, I'll admit...
  13. 08 Dec '07 11:08
    Heck I consider people who dont do it complete idiots. I even laugh at people who promote to queens in simple end games. If you got pride get a rook and mate them with that.
  14. 08 Dec '07 11:18
    Originally posted by Kaworukun
    Heck I consider people who dont do it complete idiots. I even laugh at people who promote to queens in simple end games. If you got pride get a rook and mate them with that.
    It depends what speed you are playing. In a fast blitz game you can end up regretting it if you waste the moves needed for the mate.
  15. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    08 Dec '07 11:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rubberjaw30
    does anyone else do this?
    in an endgame where I am clearly winning, with 4 pawns, a knight, queen, and rook, versus a rook pair, I opted to trade queen for one of my opponent's rook, just because in my mind, fewer pieces on board offer fewer complications, even if I lose the exchange. he asked if I was stupid, and disconnected. is this (simplifying at cost of material) bad form?
    Sometimes exchanging off makes perfect sence and an easier although perhaps not quicker win but a Queen for a Rook is rather drastic.