Trade-offs

[Flying Pig]

Do you guys ever take trade-offs, like queen-for-queen, or knight-for-knight? If so, when would yuo consder doing so?

 

[Yeekim]

Obviously we do
Whether to trade or not is very much a tactical consideration, but on "strategic" level I try to trade when I am ahead in material, or likewise try avoid trading when I am behind.
I also try to avoid trades if I am blitzing and am ahead on time - the more there is on table the more my opponent needs to consider.
Finally, I'll try to trade when playing a strong opponent, drawing against whom I'd consider sufficiently rewarding.

 

[WhiteEagle22]

If the option for a trade comes up, I look at how it would fit in strategy-wise. If it's a good move, I'll probably do it. Otherwise, I will just plain ignore it.

 

[Pacifist46]

You should also generally seek to trade off pieces if you have a cramped position.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Right, it all depends on the situation: trading Queen for Queen might be the thing to do if your King has lost the right to castle (may improve K safety), trading Knight for Knight may be the thing to do if you're eliminating a well-posted Knight or stopping a potential attack.

Sometimes I'd trade for purely psychological reasons: I'm running low on time and trading Q for Q may help me avoid nasty surprise moves - I'll do this esp. when the enemy has a knight too. Even if it leaves the net strategic position unchanged, I may trade because I'm more confident in the endgame.

It depends on the situation.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I trade when I get an advantage out of it, simply as that.And I play the board rather than the opponent.
The obvious one is when I have a material advantage, but there are a lot of others, one example being exchanging a knight for a bishop in an open position, another one exchanging my bad bishop for my opponents good one as is usual in the French. Somebody (can't remember who) said swapping is the soul of chess. Some wisdom there.

Finally, I'll try to trade when playing a strong opponent, drawing against whom I'd consider sufficiently rewarding.

If you by strong mean somebody considerably stronger than yourself, I question the wisdom in this.
Usually the stronger player will be a better strategist and most certainly possess a better endgame technique than you. For instance, I myself have almost a clean score with Ulf Andersson's pet line 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.dxc3! Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 against players from about 2000 and downwards. Very nice line, can't go wrong relly, just plain sailing. The supposed weaker player's best opportunity lies in tactical complications where both can go wrong.Why not dig up some half-forgotten gambit line, for instance, and go out for the big king hunt?
EDIT: My apologies for presenting the wrong variation. It is hereby corrected. I was on rather strong medication that day.

 

[Sashie VII]

Do you guys ever take trade-offs, like queen-for-queen, or knight-for-knight? If so, when would yuo consder doing so?

Of course. When I just started playing I loved to trade queens early since most people I played then (beginners) were uncomfortable without the superstrong piece. As with everything it depends on the position. Trading to free up space, take off a good enemy piece or your own bad piece, etc.

 

[col]

Easy rule -

if you have more space avoid trades and cramp your opponent.

If they have more space, exchange pieces.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Easy rule -

if you have more space avoid trades and cramp your opponent.

If they have more space, exchange pieces.

That is true most of the times, but there are exceptions.
If you can eliminate a key defender for instance, like the removal of black's king bishop in certain variation of the King's Indian.