Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
Any sentence containing “All you can do is” and “give a checkmate” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of chess.
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
Any sentence containing “All they can do is...” and “give a checkmate” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of chess.
Will you please impart me your glorius understanding of chess..?
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
Can't tell if trolling or stupid.
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
Can't tell if trolling or stupid.
You're too clever
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
Any sentence containing “All they can do is...” and “give a checkmate” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of chess.
Will you please impart me your glorius understanding of chess..?
At the risk of giving away a grandmaster secret, it is considered at the highest levels of the game that checkmating your opponent is almost always a fairly good idea, although as with every rule, there are of course exceptions.
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.
<Crickets>
Put in sporting terms, it's easier to score a basket when you have a 2 on 1 break than when you have a 5 on 4 break. The reduced numbers makes it easier to win.
Simplifying is one of many excellent techniques for winning the won game. PFren has already stated this in chess terms. When ahead, trade pieces not pawns. When behind, trade pawns, not pieces.
Simplifying into a won ending is part of every strong chess player's technique and is certainly not bad . If you are a pawn up in a complicated middlegame its still pretty much anyone's game but if you can simplify to a pawn up K+P ending you are much more likely to win !
All simplifying seems to do is ruin an otherwise interesting game. If you can't find a creative response ?....then you're a gecko/goose liability and you've cheated both yourself & your opponent from the imaginations of chess.
....and to answer the OP's question ?....it's nearly always a technique 4a spineless sloth.
Lola ... please note the operative word " STRONG " in my previous statement . 
no. kasparov has said something like : ''one of the thing we have learned from bobby fischer is that sometimes simplification is the best strategy' if i'm not mistaken. i'm not an expert on anything
Maybe it's 'cuz GK was somewhat ashamed of trading down. Who knows ? I know I am & I do everything to avoid it.
I know BF's reputation was to shy from any meaningful complication.
But then, I'm a chess purist who plays on all the emotion I have inside me. And I don't have alotta respect for wimpy play. I say play to try to create a masterpiece every single game & go as far as u can from the edge of the box.
It's amusing to think of who Lola's chess heroes are supposed to be when considering Lola's comments here.
Sometimes it works in your favour if all your opponent is trying to do is simplify. Because then they might miss out on tactics which could lead to you getting back into the game.
This thread is nothing but troll bait anymore, with morons saying it's wimpy or whatever to trade down. GM's don't think so, and nobody cares about your idiotic opinions.
Sometimes it works in your favour if all your opponent is trying to do is simplify. Because then they might miss out on tactics which could lead to you getting back into the game.
What if your opponent tries to simplify AND prevent you from getting back into the game?
Simplification is definetly considered as a very weak strategy to win games. The stronger player will mate his opponent without having to trade pieces. People who simplify in a won positions are cowards.
All they can do is trade all their opponent's pieces and promote their pawn and give a checkmate. That's a CHEAP way to win.