Suicidal opponents

On the assumtion, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not trolling I will offer an opinion. (What can I say, first day back at work after the holidays and I am bored I guess)

Forgetting all other points about sacrificing for position, doubling pawns, active piece for inactive piece, knight for bishop in an open game, bishop for knight in a closed game etc etc etc - You have made it very clear you understand all of those points and that is not what you are talking about. I get that. Fine.

The thing is, and you have said it yourself in another post, some people are more comfortable with less pieces on the board.

If someone is happier and more comfortable with less pieces on the board then it is not 'suicidal', it is simply showing an understanding that they know they play better with less material and may strategically choose to trade off a few things, for no real positional advantage, to give them a more comfortable long term game that they can be happy with.

Whether you agree or disagree with someone doing such a thing really doesn't matter. It is not 'suicide' just because there is no obvious material or positional advantage. People play how they play. You may see it as a sign of a weak player, fine, in that case beat them and move on.

Others may be a very strong endgame player but realise they are tactically weak in the middle game thus want to rush to an endgame scenario where they can be happier.

People play the game they are happy with. If that means trading off material then that's what they'll do. Just because you see no advantage doesn't mean it is not giving them one. It also doesn't mean they are merely trying to beat you on time or pretending there is some tactic involved. It is simply about comfort level.

I hear you. To comment on what you said. If this is the case which is obviously very posible people play how they wanna play.

Lets say my opponent isnt playing for time.

Lets say my opponent is only attempting to simplify the board.

And lets say he belive he played better end game after doing so.

I look at it this way. Me vs You for example in fight to death with 5 knives each. heh just go with it. You do something to destroy one of your knives and one of mine. Then you do it again. and again and again untill we are both down to 1 each.

This is the kinda situation im thinking when people are saying end game.

I dont see the point tbh. I did when somone mentioend earlier their friend had some sort of mental thing. And he always traded queens as soon as he could to simplify the game to feel mroe comfortable like you said. I dont relate to that i dont feel the need to simply chess. If im forced to do so by my opponent to avoid something of greater loss then thats a different thing but i dont see why i would chose to simplify the game. It doesnt seem that complex to me ya know. 

( belive me im not trying to insult anyone).

Someone may be an expert at using one knife well though and know that you are likely to be better with 5. Perhaps they have really good hand eye coordination but have small hands.

I hear you and the assumption than some people share that belife (im not saying you do) is why i chose the words cowardly.

Because most the people i play dont know me, they dont know my play style and they have no refference to conclude im strong with knights or bishops in oppose to rooks and pawns.

So that is why i chose the word cowardly with no refference to draw such a conclusion to suicide like that appears to be an act of fear and self dought.

Again this assumption only applys if said person is not playing simply for time as i said in the other post.

Endgame is a really hard matter, if you are left with the same number of pieces and pawns but one has doubled pawns, passed pawn or advantage on the side where king isn't etc. game may be still very complicated.

A lot of books were written just about endgames, so don't take it so lightly.

I see it as much confidence in their endgame ability as cowardice if someone is willing to trade down to a roughly equal position.

If not for all these high ranked games it makes you watch when u log on always ending on time, 30 seconds equally pointed equally positoned ( from what ive seen) i belive i would look at it as you do.

Yeah, they are 1 minute bullet games that they only play for fun though, nothing serious.

And anyway, if you watch the death match competitions chess.com holds, even a 1 minute game ending on time in an equal position isn't very common.

To go with the knife fight example, however strange, lol -

Maybe I know I cannot coordinate 5 knives at one time. I just don't know what to do with them.

It is also possible that you might be quite good with 5 knives at once, I don't know.

Now I am in a situation where I know I have a weakness. I know I can't use 5 knives at once but, on the other hand I also know that you might be good with them. It is an unknown and one that makes me uncomfortable.

Now, although your skill with 1 knife is unknown to me, I do know for a fact that I am very good with only 1 knife. It requires less coordination and I can formulate a more direct plan. Regardless of how strong you end up being with that knife I have given myself the best possible chance of winning by trading off knife for knife until I am as comfortable as I am going to be in the fight.

You might still win but the point is, I am happier because there are less unknowns and less potential problems for me.

(I wouldn't sonsider myself that sort of chess player to be honest, this is just a hypothetical)

Seems scott beat you to it while you were typing. I think i understand what you saying please read the 2 posts above yours. Let me know.

BTW GM Igor Smirnov made a video on youtube called 'To take is a mistake'. You might like it.

Not all of them end on time, just enter live games now and see that it's not true.

Also bullet chess =/= normal chess

Endgame is really hard, I actually would rather end the game before this phase because I have little confidence in my endgame skills. So, for example, really simplified position, tell me what would be your first move? It's endgame for about 1300 rating people:

Agreed. It is not about cowardice, or even the other players ability.

You may never have played someone before so don't know their strengths or weaknesses but you still know your own strengths and weaknesses. In that scenario you have to play the game that takes advantage of your abilities. If that is in the endgame then trading pieces is in no way cowardly or suicidal.

I'd resign black wins. I dont think i would have enjoyed that game if thats how it ended up.

See? It's complicated. Kf4 draws.

Search came up empty.

Found his channel not in there.

*eye rolls* yes i see the advantages of sacrificing pieces.

However i wouldnt be satisfied with a game like that. 

Its like this youve got a test. 100 questions you only know 3 answers.

So you throw away the parts of your test paper with the 97 questions you dont know.

Wow 100%

i win you lose. that kinda thing, like big deal ya know.

Thats just how i look at it winning isnt everything.

Exchanging pieces is not bad. Please do not use wrong analogies.

In chess you play an opponent , you can do anything within the rules including "suicide" and  your motive is to win . 

but sacrificing isn't trading... they're fundamentally different

Not once have i said this is bad that is good.