Yes, but if you're the one capturing too often, then they will be way ahead in development and have a much better position.
So you can go for even exchanges, but generally speaking, you shouldn't do this during the first 10 moves.
No matter how good your opponent is, if your pieces are very good, then they will want to make exchanges, so first focus on having well placed pieces (generally this means centralized, not getting in each other's way, and not easy for the opponent to chase them away).
Yes, I was thinking early exchanges on an equal position and within the first 10 - 12 moves. I somehow think that I would be able to work my midgame with less clutter on the board against a stronger opponent.
is it advisable to have even exchanges early on the game to a stronger player and simplify the board for less complicated game? Would this lessen the tactical advantage of the stronger player and the other a better chance?
Trading down into an endgame against a stronger player is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, I was thinking early exchanges on an equal position and within the first 10 - 12 moves.
Yeah, that doesn't work, make a bunch of "equal" exchanges and you'll be objectively lost before move 20.
Of course this is true all game long, but it's especially true during the opening.
This has been known for 100s of years, but here's a GM youtube video about it.
During the Sinquefield cup commentary, the GM commentators joked about the three Fs of capturing. It's either forced, fantastic, or foolish they said.
Exchanged material usually involves one side getting a slight positional advantage in some way, so normally you shouldn't exchange unless you're the one getting that tiny advantage. However, the case of exchanged queens is a significant exception since queens are so powerful than when they're off the board you usually don't even need to castle since the position has become much safer, which usually negates the importance of smaller advantages. Therefore with a stronger player I'd recommend exchanging queens, and whenever you don't get too much of a positional disadvantage, also exchanging any other units. As mentioned by other people above, just make sure your endgame skills are solid, especially in king and pawn endings, with or without rooks.
This has been known for 100s of years, but here's a GM youtube video about it.
Wow, as much as I respect Smirnov, that is a very oversimplified video, in my opinion. He doesn't distinguish between taking pawns (the exchanges of which are more likely to create weaknesses) vs taking pieces, he doesn't take into consideration how many times the exchanged pieces have already moved, or if a new piece is developed during the exchange vs being replaced by a piece that has already moved, or whether the recapture is done by pawn vs piece, and so on. Keeping the tension is a common principle but there is a lot more involved than that.
It is very counter-productive. Not only do stronger players have a superior endgame technique (in general), but also trading pieces randomly for the sake of oversimplification is bound to give your opponent much stronger bishops/knights than yours, reducing your chances even further.
On the contrary, complicating the position as much as possible increases the chance the stronger player will miss something. Of course, it is a double-edged sword, because you can miss something as well, and with a greater probability (since your opponent is stronger) - however, it gives you, at least, some chance. While playing simple positional game against a stronger opponent maybe gives you some drawing chances, but it is very unlikely you will win there.
One should not think of just trying to exchange pieces against a stronger player [or any player] --one should just try to find the best moves.
This has been known for 100s of years, but here's a GM youtube video about it.
Wow, as much as I respect Smirnov, that is a very oversimplified video,
It's simple, but I think it's for lower rated players who honestly do tend to exchange pieces whenever possible.
I heard some titled players joking that the longest any player below master had ever held the tension was less than 3 moves.
Of course it's impossible to play a game of chess without capturing at some point, and many captures early in the game are book.
My point is and in my opinion, stronger player can calculate deeper and analyze complex position with all or most of the pieces still on the board. Now, my personal experiences, perhaps more phsycological than logical. I feel that I have "more chances" to hang on for dear life over a simplified board longer thus giving me the chance towards a draw, a rare win or the least a dignified ending.
As suggested, "one should try and find the best move". I toatally agree. But with 36 pieces, there are way too many hidden agendas unforeseen by lower rated players. I.e., 1600 and below.
most of the strong players I know get so much stronger in the End game
think that what often makes a strong player strong is the ability to understand how to plan and general principles; particularly of the pawns
in short, Isa; you sound very convinced. but you are generally fooling yourself. "to take is a mistake"
against even the strongest player you should try to find complications so think, that in the words of tal; 2+2 = 5
then its a matter of LUCK (sort of) which is way more favorable to you- than his ability to find a clean win in a simplified position
I would suggest the exact opposite strategy. In a simple position the stronger will outplay out and grind out a win, almost guaranteed. But if you create maximum complexity and chaos on the board, you may have a chance in the ensuing imperfect play from both sides.
I would suggest the exact opposite strategy. In a simple position the stronger will outplay out and grind out a win, almost guaranteed. But if you create maximum complexity and chaos on the board, you may have a chance in the ensuing imperfect play from both sides.
+1
There are GMs who virtually make a living out of playing weekend congresses against 2000-2100, swapping everything off into equal endings and scoring 5/5.
First, playing differently against stronger or weaker players will hinder your development. How can you expect to become a strong player if you spend your time cowering in front of them? Play normally, and if you lose (most likely), figure out where you went wrong and try to fix it.
Second, a strong player is stronger than you at all aspects of the game, most likely. Weaker players are generally fine in the opening and many middlegames, but generally they are worse at endgames. Trading into an endgame seems to be an invitation to suffer.
Finally, as someone rated over 2000, I am far more worried if someone sub-2000 plays a gambit or a very sharp line. If I make one mistake I lose, and that puts pressure on me, not to lose to the lower rated opponent. This has lead to poor decisions. By contrast, if the same person plays a calm, easy position, I'm at home, because I have almost no losing chances and I can press away to my heart's content. That's how I win most of my games against lower rated opposition.
This is what happens.
Nice endgame play. 31.f4 was silly of course, but after that you worked on all the weaknesses well. The move g4 in that structure with a rook on an open file already and a king ready to go to f5 is vaguely familiar to me. Not with these minor pieces, but it's like something you might see in a book on how to play practical endgames.
is it advisable to have even exchanges early on the game to a stronger player and simplify the board for less complicated game? Would this lessen the tactical advantage of the stronger player and the other a better chance?