lichess.org
Donate

why dont trade down if you control the center ?

najdorfplayer48

why shouldn't the side with more center control trade their minor pieces ? , wouldn't the advantage stay after the trade downs , and simplify the position ?

why shouldn't the side with more center control trade their minor pieces ? , wouldn't the advantage stay after the trade downs , and simplify the position ?
najdorfplayer48

i heard that in a hanging pawns video

i heard that in a hanging pawns video
Gravija

Depends on position

Depends on position
MyMace

I mean then center could fall off without the support of minor pieces. Having a center is good for a attack but mild if you want to bring a end game.

I mean then center could fall off without the support of minor pieces. Having a center is good for a attack but mild if you want to bring a end game.
najdorfplayer48

@MyMace said ^

but mild if you want to bring a end game.

isn't it also good in an endgame because its easier to promote pawns ?

@MyMace said [^](/forum/redirect/post/juRsg60o) > but mild if you want to bring a end game. isn't it also good in an endgame because its easier to promote pawns ?
AlexasndersSchachID

If you can calculate a line of trades where you end up with an advanced and/or protected passed pawn (and your opponent doesn't), then go for it. Otherwise, the conventional strategy of using your center control for improving your pieces and preparing winning attacks (while your opponent desperately struggles to do something useful at the rims of the board) is worth a try ...

If you can calculate a line of trades where you end up with an advanced and/or protected passed pawn (and your opponent doesn't), then go for it. Otherwise, the conventional strategy of using your center control for improving your pieces and preparing winning attacks (while your opponent desperately struggles to do something useful at the rims of the board) is worth a try ...
lizani

Controlling the centre gives you more freedom and space than your opponent. You should use the initiative to attack, whether it's their king or some structural weakness.
Trading pieces only helps the more cramped side and is not advisable. You should simplify only if it results in a concrete improvement in your position.

Controlling the centre gives you more freedom and space than your opponent. You should use the initiative to attack, whether it's their king or some structural weakness. Trading pieces only helps the more cramped side and is not advisable. You should simplify only if it results in a concrete improvement in your position.
tpr

Here is an example
https://lichess.org/@/Lizard1/blog/the-time-mikhail-tal-got-destroyed/hnfTEzqm
White controls the center, but black has a queen's side pawn majority.
That means if white trades pieces, an endgame winning for black results: queen's side pawn majority -> outside passed pawn.
Thus white uses his center to attack.

Here is an example https://lichess.org/@/Lizard1/blog/the-time-mikhail-tal-got-destroyed/hnfTEzqm White controls the center, but black has a queen's side pawn majority. That means if white trades pieces, an endgame winning for black results: queen's side pawn majority -> outside passed pawn. Thus white uses his center to attack.
verylate

@lizani and @tpr, as usual, give pretty good aanswers. For most part, one thinks of central control as being a middle game ad vantage. Also, if greater central control and/or space makes your pieces better, why trade better, more active pieces for cramped, less active pieces?

@lizani and @tpr, as usual, give pretty good aanswers. For most part, one thinks of central control as being a middle game ad vantage. Also, if greater central control and/or space makes your pieces better, why trade better, more active pieces for cramped, less active pieces?
tpr

Here is another famous example: white controls the center, but black has a queen's side pawn majority.
Black wins if he can trade to an endgame, so white must use his center to attack.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044698

Here is another famous example: white controls the center, but black has a queen's side pawn majority. Black wins if he can trade to an endgame, so white must use his center to attack. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044698