"First exchange a pair of rooks"

All, Reading descriptions of endgame technique in complex endgames, I was struck by the high number of times step 1 or step 2 is "exchange a pair of rooks" (leaving only 1 pair on the board). Can someone with more experience comment on this? Is it a meta-rule? Is it's purpose mainly to reduce risk from possible counterplay? Or, .... Is it really true that 4 rook endgames are more likely drawn than 2 rook endgames?

Or is there a deeper reason or a reason more position specific?

Thanks for 'schoolin' me on this point!  -Bill

I hope someone who has a good answer replies here because I'm not totally sure.

But yeah, like you guessed, trading heavy pieces (like rooks) tends to highlight static advantages like pawn structure. Static meaning they're permanent features of the position. Material is another example. In contrast a dynamic advantage would be initiative.

Also in general there are sort of two principals working against each other... at least this is how I see it. The first one is pretty well known, and that's the idea of two weaknesses. You alternate creating threats which pulls the defender out of formation and lets you cash in on one of them. For this you want to keep pieces on the board.

The second is probably not as well known among amateurs, and that's zugzwang is ubiquitous in endgames. When the opponent gives up on counterplay and attempts a fortress, you almost always need zugzwang to break it down. This principal wants pieces to be traded off. Not only does that reduce their active play, but it's almost impossible to create zugzwang when your opponent has lots of pieces.

I'll say that in my experience (take it for what it's worth) there's usually a sweet spot. For example, in a given pawn structure maybe R vs R is a draw, and maybe B vs N is a draw, but R+B vs R+N is a win.

In other words you usually want to trade... but not too much... unless it's good to trade, in which case do that

But yeah, I'd say one of the biggest differences between, lets say 1500 and 2500 is that the 1500 almost always stays too long in the late middlegame, and / or rushes straight to single piece endgames. All the time you'll see strong players keeping 2 or 3 pieces, and fighting on and on in that phase, while lower rated players skip right over it.

Well, I've rambled enough. Hopefully I'm getting close to answering. Like I said at the beginning, I'd like to hear other's ideas on this too because I'm not completely sure.

Thank you! That may not be a direct answer but I learned a new way of thinking of endgames from your comment.  I think a possible answer may be that with fewer rooks it is harder to defend everything so easier to create a second weakness?!

Not long ago I saw Giri draw an endgame with 2 rook pairs while he was a few pawns down. When both sides attack with their rook pairs there is likely to be a perpetual check before there is a checkmate. If the side with the plus pawns defends then the activity of the attacking rooks will often neutralize the plus pawns. That's why you better exchange one pair when you are up in pawns. Actually it's even better to exchange all the rooks if you have a winning pawn ending, but your opponent won't help you. Pawn endings are easier than rook endings.

Everything you learn in chess is meta-knowledge except what you learn by pure calculation. Since you can't calculate a billion variations you seek for more manageable meta advice.

There are several possible motivations for exchanging one pair of Rooks and retaining the other pair. Some of the possible motives, you've already guessed.

I can give a fairly clear-cut example from one of my own games.

I was White in an interesting KIA (King's Indian Attack) maneuvering game. We reached a position in which I felt I had a winning advantage, because my opponent was going to be stuck with both an isolated e-Pawn and a weak color complex on the dark squares... you may have heard the old saying that it typically takes two advantages to win. Given that my opponent had weak Pawns, I wanted to retain at least one pair of Rooks. But there was only one completely open file, and for me to contest the file would lead to mass exchanges (all four Rooks would come off the board) while to concede the file to my opponent would allow him to double Rooks on it.

... so I first traded off one pair of Rooks, and THEN I conceded the file to my opponent. He can't double Rooks if we only have one Rook each!

Thank you [& nice game by the way!] - Maybe it is as simple a rule of thumb as "IF static advantage THEN exchange 1 pair or rooks ELSE keep both pairs".  followed by "Use rook - Create second weakness" ...... Only remotely related, the endgame in the recent game Dominguez - Aronian was really excellently played by Aronian. Aronian had isolated QP that was lost but doing so W lost his king bishop so black could plant a knight on Q5 forever. He kept both pairs of rooks and by making threats hither and yon pushed back white and won in a mating attack in the endgame. ..... Having to formulate a question and discuss it it words helps me think so I appreciate the discussion!

no, first you shower, brush teeth, eat wet waffle, then blunder queen for pawn, then exchange rooks in losing position

mmmmmm, pecan waffles at the waffle house..... nice!

No, you wake up; brush your teeth; shower; eat drywaffle,  pecan waffles, and wet waffle; open the computer/mobile device; log in; go to live; click/tap on a match; play half a game; THEN blunder queen for pawn; and exchange rooks in losing position; then play the rest of the game; then get checkmated.

To revive an old question... working thru 'Endgame Strategy' in Flor-Spielmann there was a clear example. Black had weak color complexes and entry points for the W king. Flor then exchanged a pair or rooks so it would be safe for the white king to come forward invade. He then won by a zugzwang.

The Lucena position is the most well known winning position in rook endgames. So could it be as simple as.....in order to reach the Lucena position it is necessary to trade one pair of rooks?