Simplification is never bad. In fact, in maths, often, it is required.
Keep it simple, silly!
Is simplification considered a 'bad' technique?
Sort:
Oct 23, 2015
0
#63
incantevoleutopia wrote:
She just wanted to shove her win in our faces. You know, she's got this ego problem from that Fischer thread...
The_Grossest_Trolla just plays for the excitement and beauty of chess rather than a result. That's fine of course, but in posts #43 and #51 she doesn't respect those who have a different way of playing chess. For example those with some ambition.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#64
incantevoleutopia wrote:
She just wanted to shove her win in our faces. You know, she's got this ego problem from that Fischer thread...
You jurc !....I'm happy to show you any of my 1000's of losses and my 67% loss rate !
I'm a lousy player & proud of it....
....
....and you don't offered a Queen trade. The best capture in this position is with the Queen for a number of reasons that has nothing to do with a Queen offer exchange.
If you insist ok! but if we played this game together against and after the end we analyzed you said to me : You know bishop , I took with the Queen so after yours Qxc4 to capture the b pawn and have the ability to mobilize my rook while my bishop on g7 can protect my bank rank from checks....I would believe you!
Oct 23, 2015
0
#68
There are also some (myself included) who strive to simplify for the sake of simplicity. I often offer queen trades straight out the opening (such as in the Berlin, Maroczy and Rat defences) simply because I find endgames more interesting and often more beautiful.
Still more importantly, my endgame technique seems to be stronger than my middlegame. So, if even zero-advantage simplification can get me a win or at least a fairly safe draw, why should I not use it?
Oct 23, 2015
0
#69
'Cuz playing chess is about beauty first and winning second. Of course, if you can get both ?....then that's great. But don't worry about it if you don't have a "budding" career in chess. Just play to create. And almost all of you (if not all) have no career in chess....whether you can concede to that reality or not.
Have you ever seen a masterpiece in chess in a series of wimpy trade-downs ? It's almost always (2) players going back & forth at each other.
"Hey Jill ?"...."Yes, Jack ?" "Why don't we trade down so we get that warm fuzzy cockley feeling that we're firmly in control ?"
"No way Jack....you wimp !"
Oct 23, 2015
0
#70
Apparently my opponent in a game against me just minutes ago resigned here because I could simplify down into a won pawn-up queen-less middlegame. All idiots who don't think I should have, raise their hands.
It's not about careers Lola. Chess is the art of logical thinking. Chess players always try to find moves that makes more sense, they don't play impulsive. If someone sees a way to win he/she has the right to play for that. There are many masterpiece games were the beauty lies behind the idea to win a position/material by forcing a series of trades.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#72
Well, I've obviously touched a very sensitive 'guy thing' nerve. Some of you can go back & forth for awhile & throw nerfy balls at each other....and you know who you are.
I'm outta here.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#74
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Well, I've obviously touched a very sensitive 'guy thing' nerve. Some of you can go back & forth for awhile & throw nerfy balls at each other....and you know who you are.
I'm outta here.
It's a "guy thing" coming from a guy pretending to be a chick -- that's rich.
Something wrong can't be beautiful.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#76
Next game same tournament guess I shouldn't have simplified down into a two-piece-up position, or at least my opponent didn't think so because he disconnected
Oct 23, 2015
0
#77
"Playing chess is about beauty"
Yes. It's also about competition. But, as David Bronstein said, there's just as much beauty in a mountain stream as in a giant waterfall. Chess offers us many different types of beauty.
This is what Robert Byrne had to say about one of my heroes:
Many years ago, having finished my game early in a tournament in Moscow, I watched the great Vasily Smyslov ponder an endgame. Two other players joined me on the sidelines. They were amused at the amount of time Smyslov gave to his moves. The position had to be a winning one for Smyslov, but he was taking it seriously and unhurriedly.
My co-spectators had no idea why. But I was familiar with his approach, routine endgame or not. I wanted to see how he would do it.
He didn't disappoint me. The moves may have looked easy, but on closer inspection, he was playing the perfect continuations that would not allow his opponent the slightest counterplay. He made his adversary look not just lost, but hopeless. But don't misunderstand: Smyslov's motive was not to ridicule, but to play beautifully. He was performing as if he were writing a chapter in one of his excellent endgame books.
Many players have learned from him. There is a practical point also. By concentrating right to the end, you avoid the mistakes that may lead to a draw in a winning position.
In the game between Boris Gelfand and Mikhail Gurevich at the FIDE World Cup, Gelfand showed from his 41st move on that he was a believer in Smyslov's endgame style.
Until 5 ... Be7, Gurevich still had the choice of 5 ... g6 and 6 ... Bg7, for a King's Indian Defense, but he now opted for the Old Indian Defense, with its more solid yet less aggressive development of his king bishop.
It's not clear what Gurevich wanted to achieve with 8 ... Ng4; after 9 Bd2 f5?!, the black kingside would have been loosened without getting any attacking chances. Perhaps it just had nuisance value.
With 17 ... Bd2 18 Qd2, Gurevich exchanged off the more powerful of the white bishops, but he could not have guessed how useful the other one was destined to be.
After 26 Nc4, Gurevich found himself in a cramped position and tried to free himself with 26 ... f5, but 27 ef gf 28 Qh6 Nf6 29 N4e5! de 30 Rc5 left him a pawn down.
Quite soon Gelfand won a second pawn with 35 Qb4 Qb4 36 Nb4.
After 40 ... Ng4, Gelfand gave up the exchange with 41 Bh3 Nf2 42 Kg1 Nd1 43 Kf1 Ra8 44 Bf5 Ne3 45 Kf2 Nf5 46 ef Rf5 47 d6 Ra2 48 d7 Rb2 49 Kf1 Rd5 50 d8/Q Rd8 51 Nd8, and it's a wonder that Gurevich did not throw in the towel right here.
After 64 Rf5, Gurevich gave in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/crosswords/chess/08chess.html?_r=0
And here's one of Smyslov's many beautiful examples:
If a GM is avoiding exchanges when ahead, then the endgames they're avoiding are probably technically difficult or drawn.
Sometimes the winning recipe is in between. Too many pieces means counter play for the opponent, and too few pieces goes into a position that can be drawn. R+R+B vs R+R+N may be a good example. Sometimes two pairs of rooks offer counter chances, and RvR and BvN are drawn with best play. That's when you see players trade one pair, but not both, rooks to get a winning R+minor piece vs R+minor piece.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
I say play to try to create a masterpiece every single game & go as far as u can from the edge of the box.
That would be the center of the box 
SmyslovFan wrote:
"Playing chess is about beauty"
Yes. It's also about competition. But, as David Bronstein said, there's just as much beauty in a mountain stream as in a giant waterfall. Chess offers us many different types of beauty.
Yes, I have the opposite bias. I consider endgames from players like Smyslov beautiful, and sac sac mate the childish way to play.
This bias has led me to misevaluate dynamic positions in general. To try to help this I'm currently going over games from Alekhine's self annotated collection. A very good book so far by the way.
Going back to endgames though, here is another one of the all time greats:
No, simplification is correct if used, well, correctly. Simplification failed in the example I posted as it ended any chance of breaching my fortress, by trading off active pieces and leaving the sole material bonus of an entirely useless bishop. For example, simplication is correct (and often the only way forward) when it facilates pawn promotion in a winning endgame.