The "Rule" About Exchanges...

For some reason I'm having trouble remembering the rule regarding exchanges.

It was something like, "If you have more pieces than pawns, then exchange your pieces and if you have more pawns than pieces, then exchange pawns".

Or it could have been the opposite.

How does it go?

I was reading some material from two different sources that seemed to suggest the opposite of the other one and I was like, "Wait a minute...Isn't it the other way?"

Any help you could provide on this one would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

You are referring to Endgame Theory. The first is to force a Win. The second if you're losing is to try and force a draw.

Thank you for that.

Do I have it stated correctly in the first post?

Yes, your suppost to trade pieces not pawns when winning and trade pawns not pieces when losing.

Thanks guys.

Okay, now say you have all 8 pawns left but your opponent only has 2 left and you are down a piece, but up 3 "points" in material.

Do you still exchange pieces because you're winning, even though you're already down a piece?

I'm not sure if that example is a good one, but I'm just trying to make sense of it.

These aren't "rules," just principles. Do what is right to achieve the favourable result in your game.

Yes, of course. I know they are principles that work most of the time and are to act as a guide and not an actual rule. I put the word rule in quotes to signify more of the "rule of thumb" guiding principle meaning than an actual rule.

I'm just trying to figure out the principle of what's more important, to trade pieces when you have more pieces or to trade pieces when you are winning, even if you have less pieces but more pawns.

In order to apply the principle  of exchanges it is necessary to determine its application to a specific position.  For  example in a position where you have an advantagein space it is not  a good  idea to exchange pieces because that creates more space (more squares for  the remaining opponent's pieces to manouver around in.  Exchanging pieces and pawns when you are up material (ex. you are up  a piece) then it makes sense to exchange based on the principle that 99 vs. 100 is a difficult advantage to exploit.  But, a 2 vs. 1 is tangible an easy to exploit.

If you would like to know the common sense reasoning behind the  principles when you exchange pawns and when you exchange pieces please let me know.

It would seem to me that in the endgame ( Queens are off the board ), that pawns are to be protected and advanced. Once a passed pawn crosses into enemy territory, it takes on the properties of a piece. I say that because it will take the equivalent of an enemy piece to stop it from reaching the back rank. And of course connected passed pawns can be devastating to an opponent. So a superior number of pawns is to be desired since it will take the equivalent of an enemy piece to stop it. I sometimes think of a passed pawn on the sixth rank as a piece. Just my $ 0.02.

Thank you Mark, Yaro and Opus. I appreciate it fellas.

I always seemed to know to simplify when up material, but had trouble with the nuances arising from imbalances. 

If you are up in pieces but down in material, you supposeduly would like to keep pieces on the board in order to have attacking chances.

Makes sense. Thank you Zig.

But, as always, you have to use your own judgement when it comes to the position at hand. No principle is all-truthful.

"Generalisations are always false."

In answer to your question and as a general rule -

If I have 8 pawns and a minor piece and opponent had 2 pawns and two minor  pieces, I definately think trading pawns would help him and trading off my minor piece for one of his would help me.

I think that agrees with Zigwurst.

Thank you. Okay. That makes sense. Trading off your last piece for one of his two, means he can't use two pieces in coordination to attack you and you can press your pawn advantage. And, if you start trading your pawns, your pawn advantage might not be so easy to convert against an opponent with more pieces. Is that right?

The 8-pawn question is never really going to happen, so it's hard to judge.

The trade rule (rule of thumb rather) has two reasons. First of all, trading pawns increases the drawishness of the endgame as a general rule. Second, trading pieces decreases the counterplay potential, again as a general rule.

A similar rule is that in endgame, liquidating one of the sides tends to make the position more drawish, because with pawns on two sides the king's slow motion is felt more.

There is absolutely no way to "know" those rules are "true" until you play a lot of 3 vs. 2 pawns with various piece setups.

One of the reasons behind the idea is that if you are a pawn up and you can simplify down to just a king and pawn ending there is a high chance that you will win.

So if you are a pawn up you like to exchange pieces aiming to get to the king and pawn ending whereas if you are a pawn down you avoid exchanging pieces but you like to exchange pawns (without conceding pawn weaknesses) because fewer pawns generally means reduced winning chances plus the reason already given, you may be able to reach a king and minor piece against king drawn ending.

All that is about being one pawn up. Change the imbalance and one or another of those various points will be lost.

Thank you all for the helpful contributions.

I am not sure you meant it, but your posts reads like "simplying as much as you can to try to reach K+p vs. K".

This is wrong. K+p vs. K is rarely a win if you cannot have your king in front of the pawn. On the other hand, K+2p vs. K+p is more often a win, and K+4p vs K+3p even more so, at about 95%, etc. whereas a pawn up with pieces on the board and no immediate passer is a win in something like 50-60% of the cases.

Hence the rule to simplify the pieces when trying to win.