People who just exchange pieces??

What is up with people playing games just to exchange pieces off the board?  I guess it is a good strategy, because it irks me.  When I play I live for the combination and the sacrifice, leading to a beautiful mate.  These types of players keep me from doing this. 

I've noticed because of my never-ending quest to find aesthetically pleasing mates, my overall game is suffering.  Does anyone else have this problem? I get impatient and force the issue rather than waiting for a real advantage or a correct time to unleash an attack.  Not always, but I'm noticing it against weaker players that I play.

trade or not to trade is the question.That is one part of this beautiful game is the combo's. some players dont understand to develop first than attack. From my experience when i first started playing chess i would trade pieces quickly because it gives a chance for me not to get destory so fast. and a fair chance to win. ( boy was i nieve) lol

i trade if i'm leading in material or i gain a positional advantage in the trade.

Maybe it's an opportunity to gain proficiency in simple positions.

I guess I just need to stop playing blitz because it really has made me impatient.

A lot of people, some very strong players even, dislike my style of play because it is exactly this.

Win a pawn, have good position, perhaps win another, perhaps not. Either way, exchange pieces, keep position simple, win.

I used to hate these sort of simplifying games too - partly because as you say it takes out the creative element, but I think also because I was very bad at the end game.  Now after playing more I've gotten better at end games and I'm quite happy to trade off if I know I have a winning end game.  To me that's also beautiful in a simple and pure way.  And actually, if you are aware of certain positions as being won in the end game, then you can threaten those positions and this adds to your tactical arsenal.

But I have to admit I really like to mix it up and see interesting positions!

But for most of us winning a game requires more then milking a 1 pawn advantage. Now if you can win a piece or trash your opponents pawn structure while exchanging the piece, this is to be desired.

     I'm a positioniol player and anything to get my desired position I'll go for. Yes, I LOVE check-mate combos, especially on a cramped board, but my strength is in end game and my strategy is usually a war of atrition*. So if you see a player grinding down to a simple position thats most likely his strength.

*you don't have to spell good to be smart.

It's a valuable skill, to be able to win, even against players who are CLEARLY playing for a draw. You can even have a better set-up... maybe it's the last game of the tournament, and a draw gets the other player first place trophy.

Some very famous games are along these lines.

200 points is nothing. You will find that higher rated players cannot help but play lower rated players. Most everybody else is lower rated. This is especially true if they play in open tournaments.

Check out the list of players by Highest Rating. Look at the top players and the difference between their rating and the Avg. Opp.

ChatChat 900 point difference.

Stefan1Zamfir 600 point difference

Gonnosuke 800 point difference

Sarthe 800 point difference

Pelger 800 point difference

Around the 1900 rating level with immortalgamer there are these players

TobyBond 500 point difference

che-moi 300 point difference

Wolfpawn 100 point difference

_Henry_ 400 point difference

JimP999 300 point difference

In Blitz I play whoever wants to play.  In correspondence I try to keep it over 1700, because honestly 1700's still give me trouble and good games.

Thanks for the advice...Here is my point. 

Perhaps 3 or 4 games out of ten I will have a pleasing mating attack or tactical game, and those other 6 are grinders.  I just don't like the grinders, and I think as I play better and better people the games seems to become more of a grind than romantic.  I guess my question is really for those who are better than me (no offense crackerjack).  How do I stay true to my style as opponents get better.  Don't know if this makes sense.

its a tatic, why the fuss.

some people probably like the haardcore endgame calculations opposed to the "unlimited" number of possiblities in the early/middle game positions.  Certainly if you have a talent of being to play "perfectly" in relatively "simple" endgame positions, you should aim for them.  Try to set up what positions you preferms best at relative to others.

I used to be more tempted to trade pieces -- it was easier for me to calculate with fewer pieces on the board.  I also found that when I tried some blitz games I tended to go for more trades since it was a quick way progress the game (the clock still makes me a little nervous).

Recently I've been studying tactics, different openings, positions and strategies and am learning that it's much better to trade if it helps you get to a better position in the end, or breaks up an opponent's position.

i try to get the most out of my peices, but if i feel uncomfortable in a position ill trade away. and also if it leads to an advantagous position. and, of course, if im forced to trade.

these things happen,  what do you expect, brilliant queen sacrifices?

Yes...is that to much to ask for :)

I used to also trade because the less pieces, the less chance to mess up. I dont really trade just to trade anymore. It was a learning thing for me.

My coach has a list of the problems in the decisions I routinely make, which I would consider elements of my "style". You may have to adjust your style as you play tougher opponents. If you only want to play tactical games where you have an advantage, well I don't think it's reasonable to expect to only play opponents who play the way you want them to.