Is simplification considered a 'bad' technique?

Its not about anyone caring, its about attention.

Well, if they're ahead and play well, they will generally win...

What I'm talking about is when someone gets a piece up and then all they concentrate on is trying to trade down. That's when they can miss things.

Simplification is not a bad technique. Simplification without concentrating on the rest is.

When I play bullet (1 minute game), I like the simplification :

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1323981240

Actually, most chessplayers, including GM's(!), play smooshy & drawish. Now, if you can relate to that ?....then you must be as soft as the Pillsbury dough boy who giggles and desires a push-button draw. 

I actually don't think you wanna be baked in the oven of chess as a plain & bland biscuit....do you ? Don't you wanna add some cinnamon drizzle and butter to your game ? Or are you gleefully satisfied with your noncreative, uninspiring play ?...."OMG what if I lose ?"

Here's a suggestion: Quit playing like a nerf ball ! 

My OTB play is as boring, and drawish as it comes.

It is when you when you start trading down hoping to make active (1) extra pawn & that lump king of yours who earlier shivered like a hairless chihuahua behind (3) pawns and a castle.

Thank the game of chess for a king who can move backwards & retreat. Passed kings must be pulled !

A neat example of terrible misuse of simplification:

You're all a bundle of energy. Play this game w/ some passion & start tapping n2 your imagination. It's 3" behind your right eye and it awaits to be unbridled.

Okay, do this. Drive your staid drawn out chess game out to the countryside tonite (like one you would see in The Sound of Music). Open the door and say "Your Free....Run....GO....RUN !" Let it run wildly over the deep green grassy hills under that canopy of sapphire stars. And tell it to find it's own way home. You'll thank me when the moon decides to go to bed.

Now, if you don't understand what I'm talking about ?....then you'll never be thee player. Of course this takes risk/gamble, and most of you are absent such a helix....I can tell by the way you vehemently defend your emasculated "trade down" strategy. 

Depending the position , sometimes a simplification ( clarification according to Kasparov ) it's not such an easy technique but most of the times can be the critical point were you opt an advantage. There are many positions were requires a lot of creativity and calculation to realize a favorable simplification.

Once I can get a pawn ahead and make trades in such a way that the pawn becomes dangerous for my opponent, then I call that a pretty good game for me:)

And the 4th of July Bing Bang Boom you're looking to add to your chess game ?....well, it won't light 'cuz your fuse is wet.

Put another way, those who sow ice reap a breeze that will blow out the fuse of your chess acumen. Plant creativity and you're gonna harvest fulfillment.

There's even a whole book about the fine art of exchanging.

It not simplifying in itself, it's the giving in to the mindset of its temptation. The whole concept is just fundamentally wrong. Lemme show you a game I play yesterday....I gotta go find it. Hold on.

Ok, now you are at least being reasonable instead of making a blanket statement that it's "wimpy".  I said it earlier in this thread, simplification is "another tool in the toolbox" and you use it when "it's the right tool for the job".

Another tool in the toolbox is the central attack to counter a flank attack.  I got to use that one recently.  Was that wimpy, or should I have just let my opponent mate me with his flank attack? 

Ok so now we have a couple of examples where those who posted them believe simplification was mis-used.  Does that make all simplification bad, or is that just "anecdotal evidence" to the contrary?

I like Nesis' books "Tactics in the ..." (fill in the blank, opening)

To dissipate by using simplification is totally wimpy !....go find a better move !

So, what this game (#62) has to do with the subject? I only see other things:

- White repeatedly refuses to push e4-e5, which gives him a winning game (e.g. in move eight, or even more emphatically at move eleven to fourteen).

- Does blundering a piece (22.Qe4??) count as an "exchanging strategy"?

She just wanted to shove her win in our faces. You know, she's got this ego problem from that Fischer thread...