Well, it depends on how good you are in the endgame with pawns and the king, and maybe a minor piece or two. However, I think the game would come down to who could maybe get a passed pawn promoted, and then the queen would simply fly across the board and capture everything.
And if you exchange too much, you may not have enough pieces to actually checkmate the king.
well, I don't write chess books for a living, but here's my best answer on that subject.
when you say momentum, do you mean psychologically? If that is the case, then fine, it can be disregarded, however if it is actually initiative that you mean, then thats very impoartant. If your whole goal in the game would be to start trading down pieces as quickly as possible, it would take you some developing moves to move your pieces into attacking position, then to attack. If your opponent is wise, then they can develop normally, using they're pawns for support or to block attacks, and then spend their time adressing your threats and re-capturing with pieces that grant a superior position.
Either way, if you trade a bunch of pieces off, the game gets less positional and way more tactical, due to the space on the board. A more experienced player has seen and practised more combo's and is going to outcalculate you in that kind of game.
If you still try it out and end up winning any games, lemme know. Might be interesting.
Minor pieces aren't all equal - it depends on their position on the board and what influence they have over important squares and diagonals.
If you exchange a weak piece (one that isn't doing much) for one of your opponents strong pieces then you are getting a favourable exchange. Knowing when to exchange and when not to is one of the key factors that makes a strong player.
Other aspects include keeping a pair of bishops in open positions or knights in locked positions, blocking off your opponents pieces so that they might as well not have them etc. You might simplify a game against a superior opponent by exchanging everything, but they are more likely to come off better by only allowing exchanges that favour them.
the chances of a draw increase when there are less pieces on the board, however, whn playing a superior opponent, he knows this, and he will get a positional advantage out of it and you wont.
trading increases draw, and can cost momentum.
So in the end you will have to end up playing chess after all, considering positional play.
In general it is safe, but most people don't want to draw.
Most of the time i will trade off knights and bishops, and the occasional pawn, but I usually focus on trading queens... A queen-less endgame is a great game for me.
Most of the time i will trade off knights and bishops, and the occasional pawn, but I usually focus on trading queens... A queen-less endgame is a great game for me.
The funny thing is when I trade queens , so my opponent doesn't have it, I still end up losing most of the time.
I think that if you're playing somebody very much better than you are, in a simul maybe, then the usual advice is to mix it up as much as you can. Yes, the GM will be much better at combinations, but s/he hasn't got as much time as you, thinking about complex sharp positions is tiring, and anyone can make a mistake. If you exchange everything down, you might last longer, but the GM will also be much better at endgames than you are, and it will be a matter of routine technique for them.
i usually trade material out when ive won a peice or something. or when the trade benefits me positionally. or, of course, when im forced to 
In my opinion, the thing with trading is that it's not "just taking some pieces away from the board". The position changes drastically after an exchange, even if the pieces where equaly strong. You should allways thing about the influence of each exchange, and wether it does you any good. Some of those things can be:
1- squares that where potencially in danger will be safe, (for you and him)
2- lines and diagonals will be open or closed for other pieces (specially when pawns capture)
3- King position, and/or pawn chains can be very weakened by the loss of an important defender in an exchange.
4- A given player can loose the bishop pair, with all that implies to the position.
5- An exchange is not allways forced.. don't expect your oponent to ALWAYS retake immediately, or you may get some nasty tactical surprises.
Those are some pointers I can think of, but there must be many more. Hope it helps.
This happened to me in a game a while ago. I was playing a guy ranked under me and he exchanged an equal value piece at every opportunity. I don't know if this tactic works on other people, but it frustrated the hell out of me :( I couldn't get any offensive power going and was denied any option of my own tactics. I ended up winning only because i was better at pawn end games than my opponent. On the whole: i did not enjoy the game one bit.
not quite. a superior opponent actually initiates those exchanges for positional advantage.. so be cautious.
Listen to jonnyjupiter (#4); he knows things.
No, this is bad for you. Less pieces doesn't mean less chances to blunder. The chances of that remain the same, but an eventual blunder will cost you more.
The basic guideline is if you are up in material, exchange down to remove complications. The exception to that is if you are on the attack.
If you are down in material then avoid exchanging. The exception to that is if get an extra pawn out of the exchange.
First off, please excuse me if this question has been asked before, or if you lose a few braincells answering this silly question
I was thinking if it would be to a player's benefit to exchange minor pieces at every oppourtunity during a game versus a superior opponent. Wouldn't this kind of dumb the game down abit, granting you less chance to blunder, and less chance for him to mount a winning combination??
On that topic, what is wrong with exchanging often versus an opponent with equal footing? Disregarding things like momentum, but considering things like position, why shouldn't a person exchange at every juncture in a game??