07 Dec 07
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?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30It's not bad form in my mind. Perfectly acceptable.
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?
07 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I 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.
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?
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.
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30The 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.
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?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by chessisvanitythanks 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.
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"
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by Mark Adkinsyeah, I think that may be correct, as he did have a bank rank threat that I eliminated with the exchange sacrafice.
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.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by Mad RookWould 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.
It's not bad form in my mind. Perfectly acceptable.
Renegade
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Simplification is a perfectly fine strategy, and a very practical and intelligent one, in my opinion.
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?
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...
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by KaworukunIt 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.
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.
08 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Sometimes exchanging off makes perfect sence and an easier although perhaps not quicker win but a Queen for a Rook is rather drastic.
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?