Is simplification considered a 'bad' technique?

When someone is winning by material, does it feel like he's 'weak' or some other better defining word if he starts simplificating the game? (also aka trading all the remaining pieces).

I'm asking cause if you see GM's games they keep pushing to the win without the needs to trade pieces

Masters do simplify material when they have an advantage. It is a winning strategy and shouldn't be considered ''weak'' by serious players.

Capablanca says hi.  

Depends on the position. Depends on if one side is playing for checkmate. If your opponent needs to launch an attack, then trading may be the right thing to do, and if you don't, you may lose!

it's not bad technique however you may risk trading away your attack potential. only trade your queen if you are sure that it is a good thing.

a person that has an attack against him always likes to trade away queens.

Masters usually try and play on of the strongest continuations. If that means simplifying, that's what they do. It it means continuing to build up pressure, then that is what they do.

Simplifying is a nice way to win quietly, but it takes longer than a straight-out attack - if you have one. If you don't have a straight-out attack plan, then it's a wise choice to simplify, since it will make it easier to find the way to a comfortable victory.

I agree, masters know what they're doing and why.

As for us more...average players I think simplification is the right thing to do if you're up in material and the simplification can be done as an equal exchange of pieces. Meaning do it if you do not have to accept a worsening of your pawn structure or give your opponent more activity or counterplay to achieve the simplification.

I even believe we should do this more than masters, because simplifying the game means less chances of a blunder, something masters are far less prone to than players of my rating range.

As long as the simplification is still winning, whynot? Many endgames rely on simplifying from vaguely winning positions into known winning positions.

To simplify or not to simplify?

Knowing when to simplify to a won endgame is one the tools of a good player -- no shame in it at all, especially if it's the fastest way to win.

http://www.amazon.com/Liquidation-Chess-Board-Mastering-Transition/dp/9056915533/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445280616&sr=1-1&keywords=benjamin+liquidation

If you're asking how something feels then you're asking for the emotional reaction and it's a matter of temperment. Some people really like double-edged tactical brawls while others enjoy using technique to nurse a small edge into a full-blown victory. Such a pity when our opponent doesn't play the way we want them to!

At the beginning of Renaud & Kahn's "The Art of the Checkmate" they use the example of a club player who missed a two-move Boden's mate. The opponent saw the danger and gave back the exchange to blunt the attack. As if that weren't bad enough, he then forced a queen exchange and won through a two-pawn material edge. Now which of the two players do you suppose slept better that night?

While it's natural to want to win through an exciting attack on the enemy king, there's also satisfaction in thwarting your opponent's tactical efforts and then beating them through superior endgame technique. Below the master level endgame technique can be pretty bad. Whether you treat that as an annoyance or an opportunity is up to you.

In the following game I could move my rook, but instead take his knight and two queenside pawns.  It's supposedly an equal trade but it leaves me with a winning queenside passed pawn.

Of course simplification is not a bad technique -- it's "another tool in the toolbox", and you use it when "it's the right tool for the job".

Fines Rule:

When ahead in material/postion trade pieces not pawns.

When behind in material/position trade pawns, not pieces.

When i play lower rated people i generally will trade down because i want to get to a middlegame/endgame quicker.

When i play a higer rated player, i generally want to leave the pieces on the board as long as possible.

I don't understand why trading pawns should benefit you, Maybe I can understand when you're aminor piece down but I fail too see how it works when you've got a worst position or less pawns.

The position I posted in #10 is an example, Black is worse and should aim to keep the rooks on the board and try to trade pawns, where it's far easier to draw.  White on the other hand would prefer to trade the rooks and win the resulting pawn endgame.

It is considered brutal and cruel by some players. And I can understand the psychology behind it.

Basically, when an opponent drops a couple of pawns - the game is not over for them. However, when you start simplifying the game - they are being gradually obliterated for those couple of silly mistakes. They feel like you are denying them a 'fair chance'. And they may even feel that you are cowardly.

But it is a valid and logical strategy.

Trading pawns can be a benefit to a player who is already down a pawn, because a lot of the endings are drawn if it comes down to the same piece, plus one pawn, versus just a piece.  For instance, in a minor piece ending, the side with the B or N but no pawn can usually just draw by giving up his piece for the opponent's pawn, who then has insufficient mating material.

It's not a hard and fast rule though.  Sometimes you're still lost even if you get to R vs. R+P.  Activity of pieces and king position still need to be accounted for.

When you are losing, every pawn you can trade off is one less chance for your opponent to promote.

Kasparov has often argued quite the opposite.

If you have 4 pieces attacking, and 3 defenders, an exchange will lead to a 3/2 ratio, which is better than the original 4/3.

ty