|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 When should I look for an exchange?[This article is posted with permision from the author.] Trading and Exchanging Pieces by poltroon “The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move” (David Bronstein) A friend of mine likes to trade or exchange pieces as soon as possible. For some reason he loves the sound of chess pieces falling back into the box or seeing them appear on the side of the screen—in fact as long as they’re anywhere but on the board he’s happy. I don’t mind as I manage to have a lot of endgame practice as a result. The unfortunate result is my friend doesn’t win many games, and in some instances when he’s been winning his ardour for exchanging has led him to a lost position. Removing pieces from the board doesn’t necessarily simplify the position, nor does being a pawn ahead justify the wholesale exchange of pieces. Endgames can be very complex and in an endgame it is far more difficult to rectify a slight error than in a middle-game. Good chess players like to exchange down to an endgame when they have a positional advantage that can be maintained whether they’re a pawn ahead or not. It is worth remembering that a single pawn advantage often isn’t enough for winning an endgame if it accompanies a positional disadvantage. If you have a pawn to the good in the middle-game do not play for exchanging down if it leads to any form of positional disadvantage. Alexander Alekhine was happy to even sacrifice a pawn advantage if it gave him a positional advantage. If you’re a piece in front, with pawns still on the board, then it is usually a good strategy to exchange down since the piece has mobility, and therefore flexibility. In a war of attrition the last man standing usually wins. Having that last piece moving backwards and forwards can force a zugswang (forced to move) position upon your opponent, who has only pawns, that destroys their best defence. Aside from being the last man standing there are other considerations to be taken into account when exchanging, especially when the opposing sides have equal forces. In a previous article (Tempo) I wrote about needing to think in chess-time, or turns. White is a tempo ahead with the first move; therefore, it is essential not to lose that tempo without some form of compensation. An exchange where both pieces are in play loses a tempo for the one who initiates the exchange if the second player recaptures with a developing move. When you’re faced with, or forced into an exchange, look for a way to either further your development, improve the placement of a piece (if you have a choice of which to recapture with), advance a pawn or somehow else to improve your position. This is the sort of thinking that should accompany any exchange; conversely think the same from your opponent’s point of view. If your game is cramped it is usually good advice to seek exchanges to alleviate your position; whereas, if you have a superior position and are cramping your opponent try to avoid exchanges. There is a dilemma when your opponent offers a sacrifice—is it a real sacrifice or is it an error? Far better to consider it as real than not as that will help in the formulation of plans and clear thinking. When you’re confronted with such a situation there are a few thoughts worth considering. • If the piece offered is able to be part of an ongoing attack take it unless you see a clear refutation. • To refuse a piece is usually more dangerous than refusing a pawn, except if the pawn is passed or advanced. • With the sacrifice of the exchange a lot depends on the mobility of the piece. To lose an active Bishop for a blocked up Rook may not be to your advantage. • When the Queen is offered for a Rook (or two), and a piece, check carefully to see if you have a better move. Remember your opponent is willing to give up the Queen—a highly mobile and dangerous piece. The most difficult to evaluate of these, in my opinion, is the sacrifice of the exchange—usually a Rook for a Bishop. The Russians during the 1960-70s developed this into an art form. They would happily exchange sacrifice material for a positional advantage. If files were difficult to open or had limited use then they’d operate on the diagonals by sacrificing a Rook for their opponent’s Bishop. You can find this form of sacrifice a common ‘motif’ in variations of the Sicilan Defence. The exchange sacrifice makes positional play paramount. Without adequate positional advantages the exchange will most probably backfire. In a material sense it is worth considering that in the opening two minor pieces (but not the two Bishops) are normally equivalent to a Rook and two pawns; however, in the endgame two minor pieces (but not the two Bishops) are usually worth a Rook and one pawn. The closer to the endgame you become the more the Rook and any remaining pawns increase in value. A general strategy for the endgame when playing with a Rook against minor pieces is if you have the Rook, with or without the extra pawn, play for an endgame. If you have the two minor pieces against a Rook, and have either equal or less pawns, avoid exchanges. What is critical when you’re thinking about exchanging is that the exchange should, somehow, give you an advantage, unlike my friend who just likes to hear the pieces falling back into the box. |
||
|
RE: When should I look for an exchange? |
||
|
surfdude99 29-Jan-10, 01:13 |
When to exchange?! Learning whether to exchange, or trade pieces off I believe is one of the hardest areas in chess to learn. General principles like knights are better in cramped positions and bishops are better in open positions, or exchange pieces when your cramped and keep pieces when you have more space are good guidelines. Two of the best players of knowing when to trade or simplify would be Smyslov and Fischer. Symslov strived for and excelled in simple positions, and these usually came off well timed trades. Fischer would always trade his pieces into positions where his remaining piece was more active or better placed than the opponents. |
