Even exchanges early to equalize stronger player

That's a good way to say it, the psychological part. It feels safe, and the game lasts a long time, so you might feel like you did a good job.

These people are talking about endgames, but honestly if you trade just to trade you'll be lucky to reach an endgame (at least one where it's not already time to resign).

So you might make the game 60 moves, but you'll have been lost from move 20.

Here's a typical example, where the game is, in a practical sense, over on move 22.

The problem with the idea of early exchanges is that almost NEVER are those exchanges even.

Just because a Bishop is worth 3 and a Knight is worth 3 does not make a B for B trade, N for N trade, or B for N trade even at all.

If my Bishop is bad and yours is good, the trade probably favors me.  If my Knight is stuck on the edge of the board and your Bishop is in a great spot, your trading it for my Knight is likely good for me.

A Knight and Bishop are worth 3 when placed on a board by itself with nothing else disturbing it.  Throw a bunch of pieces on the board, and suddenly, a Bishop might be worth 5!  Or 1!  Same with a Knight!  The Knight could be a 6-point Monster!  It can also be a half-point piece of turd!

So what you are calling "even trades" are probably NOT "even trades" at all!

ok. hey we get it.

you dont' want to be squashed just out of the opening. BUT

in your eagerness to trade you might be.... there's ALOT of brilliancies where one side offers an exchange and the other takes checkmate.

so

the point is that there really IS no substitute for tactical skill. if you don't constantly watch for tactics your NOT going to last long against an expert (or higher)  unless they absolutely insist upon an endgame win

(which they might)

so

this all reminds me of my kid.  who got very excited to get to move 30 against an engine.

he was losing the whole time. but Hey! if staying in the game makes you happy (losing & without a chance in a zillion).... go for it

It depends on how you define "even". Usually, better players use exchanges (whether you initiate them or they do) to improve their position.

The insights, loaded games samples, advices pretty much are unanimous that it is rather a bad idea to evenly exchange pieces with an even position early on the game just for the sake of simplification. Majority of commenters have respectable ratings and or knowledgeable on various approaches of how the game is played. Your suggestions may just change my strategy on how to play a much stronger player let alone "rating intimidation". No, it's not my intention to just hang around or not crushed at the very get go. My goal is still to win with the that particular strategy (early exchanges). I get "lucky" ( some say there is no such thing in chess)

once In a great while. OTB is daunting and seem impossible to win over these guys.

no one is invicible OTB... but At first , yes. it might seem that way.

when I first played an expert I was timid; and lost quickly.  I still lose, but I am not as cautious as I was.  Why squirm over the chess board?  and what is the Worst he can do to me?? pretty much what happens EVERY time we play.  so I figure, I have a slight pychological advantage and I might as well let the tension build, in case he is inaccurate.

... so maybe this is no news to you.  the point is to not allow yourself to be rating intimidated.  but that is Easier to say than to do.

so frankly. in getting over it all;  the best thing is go to whatever OTB chess you can and play, play and play; everyone that will play with you. and be curious and getting as much instruction as possible.   you see the human sides of them, and then, the feeling is lifted.

GL

The great thing about being the lower rated opponent.  You have nothing to lose.  

Do what the position calls for. The best thing to do is to obey the board.

Ironically, the first big mistake made by an opponent who made every attempt to exchange is NOT taking... I guess the lesson here is that you gotta commit.  

The funny thing is, when I was in mid school, I was the star player (all beginners of course) and one of two girls in the club of about 20+. I used to intimidate just about everyone of how good I am and seemed to have worked...until I learned about Ratings and what it is. Long story short, I somehow developed some type of intimidation factor that is etched on my brain early on till now. And somehow in between, I developed this thoughts of strategy early on. If I go back to my past games, I could see what everyone is saying. Though my strategy would somehow worked among my equals, not the same against a player who understand deep lines and end games. Thus the feeling of impossibility. I do better if I can avoid knowing anything about my opponent online or OTB...I just play my heart out without anything else my mind. Can Chess.com not reveal ratings till conclusion of game???? Lol 😆 just a thought.

Agreed, that was an impressive game. It looked to me at first that White was winning for several reasons (Black's uncoordinated rooks, Black's poorly advanced d-pawn and f-pawn, etc.) but Black kept finding the weaknesses like the open h-file, and gradually more obviously gained the upper hand.

The idea of "equal exchanges" to try and equalize against a stronger player is a really bad idea. In your play you should always just try and play the best move for the position [and that is rarely an equal or near equal exchange]

SmithyQ, I have to disagree - playing players at different levels differently is necessary, because THEY play differently.  I'm not as good as you are, mind you, but I can usually tell straight off when I'm outmatched, and as an Expert once knew taught me - unclear is better than lost.  Lower-rank players won't respond the same way, and thus different approaches (less speculative, more sound) are required.

That Expert taught me to look for unbalanced positions, to be comfortable with tension, and to be comfortable with giving up material for attacking chances.  I was never able to beat him without doing so - even though I couldn't usually see the finish, it was a lot more effective than just waiting for him to pick my position apart.

Lower ranked players, on the other hand, will look to resolve positional tension immediately, and will generally avoid technical openings (such as 2. d4 against the Nimzowitsch).  It's a completely different game, and it requires a different approach.

In terms of "even exchanges", no player should initiate an exchange sequence without gaining specific advantage.  This could be material, positional, or time.  Even if you're just playing for a draw, there should be a specific endgame you're looking for (such as bishops of opposite color).  No exchange should be "even", it should make you "better" in a way the aids your game plan.

@dsmith42, It depends on what your goal is.  Do you want to do well in one particular game, or do you want to get better in general?

If your goal is to win or draw one particular game against a higher-rated player, perhaps for tournament or prize-money considerations, then playing differently may be called for.  Maybe.  Changing your game based on the (perceived?) strength of your opponent, though, much like cramming for a test, will have little effect for long-term improvement. If you instead play normally, you are indeed more likely to lose, but you are much more likely to actually learn something.  You will see how a strong player takes advantage of your normal moves, and you can then learn from that, improve your play and try not to let that happen again in the future.  And if you manage to hold a draw or even win, then you will have that much more confidence in your standard gameplay.

If your main goal is chess improvement, then you never lose:  You either win or you learn something.  Really, the only way you lose is if you don’t learn from that loss, and it is much harder to learn if you are approaching chess in a markedly different way than normal.

Does anyone employ this tactic and are successful?

It is a really bad idea to try to equalize against a higher rated player by making "equal trades". One reason is that trades are almost NEVER "equal". Just because you trade a knight for a bishop or a bishop for a knight--that does not mean the trade is equal.

If you wish to make a draw--your best option is just to play the best moves you can make--play for a win.

If you allow the position to be complicated--you have a much better chance against a higher rated player than you do by making trades.

In one tournament against a 2300+ rated player and a 2400+ rated player and a GM i played the Smith Morra Gambit against the 2300+ and 2400+ and played the Goring Gambit Two pawn Sac line against the GM--all  complicated.  I was not playing for a draw but for a win and scored 2 draws and a win [against the GM] vs those somewhat higher rated players.

 Believe me, they don't want a "fight" they want to ground you down while  you make so called "equal exchanges"!!

@ponz111, wow! That was amazing on your part. How I wish I can calculate that deep. I have to admit that at my current stage of learning, I still have much to learn about the game. I'm reading books, YouTube videos and advices from strong players. I'm also learning not to be intimidated by their ratings or accomplishments but focusing on the board instead. This used to be my biggest downfall on OTB games. Thanks for your post.