Some people feel more comfortable in simple positions than in complex ones. In these cases even exchanges may appeal to them.
As MelvinDoucet suggests, if you find yourself in many endgame positions... work on your endgame!
A few minor suggestions: instead of making a move to avoid an exchange use the move to develope another piece (gain a tempo). You may also be able to arrange your pieces so the exchange is to your advantage (for example, when you recapture you also develop a piece).
Thanks! I guess you are right. I have to focus more on my endgame techniques and how to exploit mindless trades.
But I also think many players just exchange pieces as a way of making a lot of moves without spending too much time...
There most likely are chances to win the game before you get to endgame if your opponents are just trading pieces so I'd suggest you to study tactics.
Ill preface this by saying Im very underrated on here in blitz (i played a few games, but I like being able to pysically touch the pieces when playing a blitz game..so i play otb).
With that being said I like focing endgames because I love the simpicity. I feel liike when the game is at its simplest level (and material and position is equal) is when some true skill comes in (other than trying to set up that perfect position)...its that tim when you know wat needs to be done, but you haveto balance it with trying to figure out how your opponnent wants to do it, while under time pressure...I just love the simplicity of the endgame when it gets complicated by time haha
Pushing for an equal endgame doesn't seem like a winning strategy. I mean you can do it but I doubt that you got the most out of the position when you did so. Unless you are super-GM playing berlin defence but that in most cases isn't the case.
Yes, that's what I mean. It's not fun and and I get a slight suspicion that my opponent has a lack of will to win, or at least enjoys endgames more than I do. I guess I have to learn more about exploiting this style of play and work on my endgame techniques.
Often I find myself trading pieces when I think that the trade benefits me in a small way, but later find out that the positional advantage I thought it gave me doesn't actually amount to very much :(
But you can't avoid beneficial trades just because you don't like endgames! That seems like a sure way to lose games :P
EDIT: Also, the more you study endgames the more you'll realise how interesting/fun they can be :)
Yes you are right, I know pieces are traded for even small advantages. And that's totally fine, I do it too sometimes. But I was talking about trades without any gain and forced endgame situations skipping the middle game with trading everything as fast as possible and how i find it annoying and hard to deal with.
Yes you are right, I know pieces are traded for even small advantages. And that's totally fine, I do it too sometimes. But I was talking about trades without any gain and forced endgame situations skipping the middle game with trading everything as fast as possible and how i find it annoying and hard to deal with.
Yeah I understand. But (I know it's hard in blitz) when you play your moves you need to consider all your opponents options. For example, what if you were playing someone in a Tournament who was rated 600 points lower than you? They would probably be trying desperately to draw right from the start, and their aim is to trade down to a theoretically drawn endgame. So, if you're playing for a win, you need to avoid giving your opponent the option of just trading into drawn positions.
Also, as you know, most of the time tension is maintained is because trading is often bad positionally for the opponent initiating the trade. As a French defence player I sometimes see people trading off their light squared bishop for my light squared bishop, which is almost always a mistake as I lose my worst piece and they lose one of their better ones. So it just takes a bit of patience but it's normally possible to punish mindless trades.
Though I agree, sometimes it's just not possible, and you frustratingly end up with a completely drawn endgame. In that situation it's quite tempting to play something unbalancing/aggressive out of frustration, and you can end up losing which makes it even worse!
True words I guess! At least I'm trying to go for a win or complex positions which is probably more helpful for the learning progess, even if I end up losing.
Yeah definitely, especially in online chess where the results/ratings really don't mean anything, it's more important to use the games to learn
Just played this game in live-chess and thought it's a good example to show you what I mean. Luckily, bazuka110 was so distracted looking for exchanges that he made a mistake...
But a bit frustrating that he has even got a better rating than me :/
Just played this game in live-chess and thought it's a good example to show you what I mean. Luckily, bazuka110 was so distracted looking for exchanges that he made a mistake...
But a bit frustrating that he has even got a better rating than me :/
After 4...Nf6 maybe you should have played Bg5, especially if you don't want him trading on e4! I do think that after Bd3, Nxe4 is Black's best move, whether or not you wanted to trade pieces
Had a very quick check with the computer about his Qxd1+ move - It is in fact the move the computer suggests, probably because otherwise Black has to allow White to get a very strong hold on the d-file
And then Bb4?? was just silly :P But I think his idea was Bxb4 Nxb4 with the idea of winning a pawn. But that doesn't work either after c3! (Nxa2? and the knight is trapped). And if you didn't take on b4 you're left with a pretty nasty pawn structure
In the game against Bazuka, almost every exchange brought an advantage to YOU!
Every exchange he played placed a piece of yours in an active place, in a central place, etc.
You should become very comfortable with getting a broad field of action for your remaining pieces, where his pieces just aren't there to contest yours.
Think of it that way: the 'tension' means that you both have active units, facing one another.
Your opponent's "letting go of the tension" means that he's taking your active unit with his - so that his active piece disappears from the balance, but you are allowed to bring ANOTHER active piece to take the place of the one he captured.
People will do that, because they don't pay attention. That's why their rating isn't high.
Learn to enjoy when that happens, and play with confidence. Your opponent is afraid of your pieces, so wants to take them. You aren't afraid of theirs.
Bazuka was rated higher than you by twenty points. Maybe he doesn't play ALL of his games like that, and maybe you have OTHER types of bad habits which cost you rating points. Of course I didn't study your games and Bazuka's to be able to comment...
This game is probably not worth it to get analyzed... But thanks for doing it! Its interesting and helpful.
After 4.Nf6 Bg5 I thought he would play h3 and I had to take his knight anyway. Moving the knight again didn't seem promising, because of a lost move. 9.Qxd1+ was possibly the best for him in this position, but all his previous moves targeted to open the d-file (presumably) to trade queens. I don't know what I could have done against it, without losing the pawn on d4. Maybe c3, but I didnt really wanted to get an isolated pawn. Also I already wished the match to be over soon, because his style of play annoyed me.
And yes, I thought that I was slightly better before he blundered. But not decisive and it could have ended drawing easily.
It just makes me angry sometimes, to play such games. Call me a fanatic, but my short-term chess goal right now is to be able to exploit any trade as much as possible. :)
After ...h3 you would simply take on f6 and he's forced to recapture with his g-pawn (assuming he doesn't want to lose his queen), which is a bit weakening to his pawn structure.
The Queen trade was inevitable after you played 7. Be3. I don't think it's bad for White but maybe you could have considered 7. Nf3 or 7. Ne2 instead?
Yeah you definitely don't want to be the one with an isolated queen's pawn if the pieces are coming off the board, because then it becomes quite a big weakness, so you were right avoiding 9. c3.
Haha I would rephrase your last sentence a bit to: "Exploit any bad moves (e.g. bad trades) as much as possible", because trading isn't always the wrong decision! I'm not really good enough to give advice, but maybe if your opponent plays a trade that you think is inaccurate you should commit some time to thinking "Why is that a bad move?" and "How can I punish it?" (That kind of thing would also be particularly useful in post-game analysis)
The Queen trade was inevitable after you played 7. Be3. I don't think it's bad for White but maybe you could have considered 7. Nf3 or 7. Ne2 instead?
I didnt play 7.Nf3 (or Ne2), because I thought after capturing my d-pawn and recapturing with my knight, he will play e5 and when the knight moved queens are traded and I have to recapture with my king. So i thought Be3 gives me a better development, if he is really going to force the queen trade.
Haha I would rephrase your last sentence a bit to: "Exploit any bad moves (e.g. bad trades) as much as possible"
Yeah... sorry if that was a bit.. misunderstandable :P
What I meant was something like: "I only want to allow trades that, if accepted, give me at least a slight advantage, unless the avoidance is disadvantageous or I am under pressure by either time or positionally". (No idea if this sentence is correct or makes sense, but as a german I would say it is. We always build long sentences. :P)
Its maybe not the most important thing in chess, but for me quite helpful since I really like to play Blitz and mindless trades are very common there, at least around my rating and I learn about some tactics and to increase advantages while trying.
ps.: I think you are right Bg5 was better for doubling pawns on the f-file in case of h3.
Good point, so you would have had to go for 7...cxd4 8. Qxd4 Qxd4 9. Nxd4 to avoid having to recapture on d1 with your King (which would be bad). So turns out the Queen trade was completely unavoidable! But I think White's still a bit better here. But yeah 7. Bd3 was completely fine :)
Yeah that makes sense. Regarding the bit about "being under pressure", I guess one example would be if you a few extra pawns and you both had a rook, you might consider trading rooks just to make your life easier, even if it's not the most 'accurate'/'computer' decision. Especially in short time controls like Blitz!
(Edited my example because my first one wasnt very good)
Recently I am playing lots of 10 minutes blitz games (rated around 1400 atm.) and I noticed many players seem like they are only looking for opportunities to exchange pieces without any positional or materialistic gain, forcing endgame positions and/or releasing any tension immediatly. Mostly, I can't see any tactical explanation for that. The time and probably my skill is too low to calculate endgame situations, so these games seem like pure gambling to me. Personally i find it more interesting, the more pieces are still on the board and get quite annoyed for example being forced to exchange queens if I can't see any advantage for my opponent by doing it (If he/she is under pressure I do of course).
So I am trying to keep figures on the board and work on my play to get slight advantages or tempos IF my opponent decides to exchange and also trying to take as less pieces as necessary, but letting them take in the hope of pushing my learning curve a bit.
Any ideas on that? Whats the best way do deal with it?
// p.s. Im not an english native, sorry in advance for any mistakes..