why trade?

i have been running into too many games where players are more than happy to trade pieces. queen for queen, bishop for bishop, knight for knight, etc. what is the point in playing a game like that? i do it myself on occasion. however it is a single play move, and not often. what i'm talking about is the entire game being a swap meet. except nobody comes out on top. just wondering if this is becoming an epidemic; if i am the only one having this problem.

Trading pieces forces you to play an endgame.  If your opponents are doing that to you, you had better be ready to play an endgame.  It is often said that the way for a stronger player to demonstrate their strength and beat a weaker player is to take them to an endgame.

i guess that would expose the fact that i am not a strong player.

I think trading can win or cost tempo, and cause the positions to change. Besides that, trading increases the chances of a draw.
One reason of trading is trading a for example "good" Bishop for a "bad" one.
A second reason is weakening pawn structures.
A third one is because a piece can stand in the way for a certain plan.

But it isn't a good thing to just trade. I bet there would be many better moves

When you decide whether to trade pieces, you want to take several things into account.

1. Are you winning in material? If so, trade, because an extra pawn or two will win in the endgame but not do much for you with so many pieces on the board. (Imagine the difference between 39 vs. 38 and 2 vs. 1.) If you're down in material, don't trade: try to win the material back first.

2. Is the piece you are trading away a "good" piece or a "bad" piece? If it's good (well placed--for a knight, in an "outpost" and for a bishop with good diagonals), then do not trade it off. If you're trading a bad piece (bishop blocked by its own pawns or a knight that can't go anywhere) for your opponent's good piece, then do it.

3. Are your opponent's pieces that you're trading off attacking you? If they're deep in your territory, and launching an attack, then you should trade them off, because once you neutralize their attack you face much better chances.

Maybe these are some of the reasons your opponents are trading so much! And maybe they don't know what they're doing, in which case don't worry about it--don't resign. If people didn't trade, chess games would go on forever!

i'm talking about trading from the very beginning. no tactics involved. like two boxers exchanging blows without any defense.

Can you give examples of games?

Then that shows they're impatient.

And you'll get into an interesting endgame quicker. No big deal.

They probably aren't the most comfortable playing with their entire army skillfully. So like it was said earlier, they are probably just rushing to the endgame.

go into my recent games and look at the last two.

Well, in the most recent game, your opponent appeared to be trading to mess with your Pawn structure.  Possibly a little enthusiastic, but clearly the trades benifitted him, or you wouldn't have resigned.

In the game before, pretty much every trade he made won him a piece.  Do you really not see the use in the trades in that game?

i resigned because there seemed to be no strategy. the last game i purposefully put my queen in the opponents queens way to see if there would be a trade on that and there was. there seemed to be no purpose of development. it seemed to be take shot for shot. there was no gain on either of our parts in the last game. the one before had none until the last move my opponent made. at that point i resigned. 

Remember early trades are allways better for black than for white; since the second one looses more from getting into a drawing position. As white you should avoid early trades unless you see an advantage from it (be it space, a tempo, trading a bad piece for one with more potential.. etc).

Besides a black player looking for a draw.. I see no reason for mindless trading too early in an undeveloped game.
Of course, as some pointed out, a certain player might feel more comfortable in the endgame and want to rush there.

EDIT- to Hunterman... dude Why did you resign that game?. Your only weakness was your pawn structure, but you had more space, he had lost his Castle rights and his queenside pieces where quite locked in. I believe you had an edge in that game. And at the very least it was equal but no reason whatsoever to resign.

that is my whole point. why isn't there a sense to develope pieces? there has to be something more to a chess game then trading.

Please tell me you understand why your opponent made so many 'trades' in your second-last game, at least.

i can see it opened up my backfield and took out my pawns. especially when i was stacking them. this isn't the first time i have run into a problem with this though.

Exactly.  Over half of the 'trades' he made weren't trades at all, they won him anything from a Pawn to a Knight.  That is exactly why he 'traded' so much right off the bat.

i don't really understand how taking a knight with a knight is winning anything unless it is a defensive move or the knight is pinned.

I have noticed your complaint, especially among lower-ranked player.  A lot of times players don't know what to do when their pieces are threatened; in their minds retreat is not an option, and they think that if it is an even trade, well at least their position has not worsened.  You can exploit that tendency by offering trades that appear on their face to be even but in fact give you a  advantage. 

I'm including some quick analysis of your second game that should help show why your opponent was not trading, he was "winning the exchange."

Very kind and well done explanation.