This is also one of the standard heuristics in chess. When you gain an advantage large enough, e.g. a couple of pawns, the best course of action is usually to stop trying to gain more advantages and instead trade as many pieces as you can, to avoid counterplay and reach a simple-to-win endgame.
Intermediate players may, at times, enjoy a material advantage and start exchanging pieces. However, they may become too focused on exchanging pieces, as if it were a terminal goal, and neglect their position. Once their pieces are placed sufficiently worse, their material advantage might not count as much anymore, and they might lose their advantage and the game.
I recently witnessed exactly this pattern in a game of two weak amateurs, where the weaker player had won a minor piece. In the end, he lost—not because he blundered back, but because his opponent could gradually improve his pieces to the point where he was actually better despite still being down a piece.
However, simplification (even giving back material) to reach a technically won endgame is a viable plan of action for stronger players, so I think it fits the pattern of a “win-more” problem.
Quibbling: Weak players sure, but club level players rarely mess up simplification that much. They need a larger advantage than stronger players to be sure they’ll end up better after simplification, but they don’t usually misjudge that advantage in my experience. So at club level and beyond it’s very standard and effective stategy.
You are correct—although I have also seen club players misjudge a Queen + pawns vs. Rook + Pawns endgame, thinking it was won when in fact it was only a draw.
This is also one of the standard heuristics in chess. When you gain an advantage large enough, e.g. a couple of pawns, the best course of action is usually to stop trying to gain more advantages and instead trade as many pieces as you can, to avoid counterplay and reach a simple-to-win endgame.
Does it take a really good player to take advantage of this strategy i.e. is knowing about it a trap from middling players ?
Intermediate players may, at times, enjoy a material advantage and start exchanging pieces. However, they may become too focused on exchanging pieces, as if it were a terminal goal, and neglect their position. Once their pieces are placed sufficiently worse, their material advantage might not count as much anymore, and they might lose their advantage and the game.
I recently witnessed exactly this pattern in a game of two weak amateurs, where the weaker player had won a minor piece. In the end, he lost—not because he blundered back, but because his opponent could gradually improve his pieces to the point where he was actually better despite still being down a piece.
However, simplification (even giving back material) to reach a technically won endgame is a viable plan of action for stronger players, so I think it fits the pattern of a “win-more” problem.
Quibbling: Weak players sure, but club level players rarely mess up simplification that much. They need a larger advantage than stronger players to be sure they’ll end up better after simplification, but they don’t usually misjudge that advantage in my experience. So at club level and beyond it’s very standard and effective stategy.
You are correct—although I have also seen club players misjudge a Queen + pawns vs. Rook + Pawns endgame, thinking it was won when in fact it was only a draw.