What's the point?

I seriously can't stand these kind of games. The futile trade-offs that have zero logic involved. Bishop for bishop, knight for knight, rook for rook, queen for queen. Before you know it, the end game is nothing but a skirmish between the kings and the remainder of the pawns. Come on, you know this kind of game.

You can tell when you're playing a decent opponent because they're looking for the logical sacrifice and not some nilly willy business. The decent opponent would leave certain pieces to their own devices because you know there wouldn't be nothing logical about the variation exchange and so do they. But when the nilly willy player is involved, I'll start moving pieces so I can keep hold of them just because I know they'll take them without no real reason in doing so and before you know it the game's just one of those games that you couldn't really give two shakes of a lamb's tail about. Winner, loser, draw whatever, you just say to yourself, "What a shit game." 

Brush up on your king-and-pawn endgames.

I'm glad you mentioned that to be honest. From this experience, I'm thinking of playing a game with all pieces removed apart from the king and pawns and observe what happens. 

The better you are at endgames, the less you'll mind the kind of player that trades at every opportunity.

In the opening / midgame too though, it can help you active pieces more quickly.

yep, mark knows what he is on about here, he is a strong mid game chess player.  

A famous chess player once said "look after the pieces and the match will look after it's self"

I hate nilly willies.

Yeah, this is the point I'm trying to convey. I don't even take the risk anymore. If a piece of mine looks intimidating and they counter it (with the objective of an exchange variation) then I'll retreat to keep hold of that piece with the idea it could save me somewhere else in the game. 

Yep, the withdrawal method is fail safe!

Other than losing two tempo... sure.

'There is no shame in stratigic retreat if it lets you remin strong enough to go after the enemy later'

Botvinnik

The "if" part being what separates patzers from players like Botvinnik.

Well 'if' Botvinnik says the withdrawal method is best, then best it is

What can I say?  You really know a lot about it.

No, it's best to go into a game with a game plan, and then stick with it no matter the specific position in front of you.

I don't understand how a logical retreat results in a loss of tempo? The game I experience in post #1, for me, loses all of its tempo and momentum and makes the outcome of the game not very satisfying.

Everytime I log in, I observe high rating games that are on show for everybody and they seem to be keeping hold of as many pieces as possible. I've witnessed games that have timed out and they've got nearly all of their pieces left on the board. 

'I don't have a game plan, i have no idea what i'll be doing next'

Botvinnik

Botvinnk knows best

Sure, but it's not "foolproof" in that when you're wrong, you lose two tempo.

Some positions losing tempo makes no difference.  Some positions it means you lose the game.  Most positions are somewhere in between.

Edmar Mednis says this about Karpov, "Karpov prefers a superior endgame to a superior middlegame. He is interested in best overall results. He feels that his winning chances ...are equivalent..whereas the losing chances are virtually nonexistant." Your opponents may feel that they are driving toward a position where you must outplay them in the endgame for you to win. Clearly that is not your goal so it would appear to be a sound strategy against you. To overcome this, you must embrace the postion and be a strong endgame player. 

Botvinnik knows best

'There is no shame in stratigic retreat if it lets you remin strong enough to go after the enemy later'

Botvinnik

“There is no shame in strategic retreat if it lets you remain strong enough to go after the enemy later.”
― Jane Lindskold, The Buried Pyramid