Answers.Body: <p>No, because such a player could never become a significant chess player :)</p>
  
  <p>If you refuse to exchange in every type of position, you won't make it very far in chess (no matter how good you are).  There were definitely players that loved to attack and do tactics (such as Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Tal), but even these players exchanged pieces when it was the best option.</p>
  
  <p>No champion can be only good at attacking - you have to be well rounded to a certain degree.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-09-08T02:00:35.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-09-08T02:00:35.783Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Body: <p>Rather, has there ever been a significant chess player that avoided sacrifice or even equal exchanges at all costs?</p>
  
  <p>Rather, has there been a significant player that was solely bent on maximum pawn and overall piece advantage, having only gains and no loss of pieces against his opponent?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-09-08T01:57:58.890Z
Comments.Text: This question is funny. I appreciate its irony. It's like chess buzzwords. The question seems to say something sober and chesslike, but I have read it three times and still don't know what it's talking about.
Comments.UserDisplayName: thb
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-09-08T18:02:46.503Z
Comments.Text: I think the question is clear. I don't think it makes much sense to ask this, but it is clear: is there a player that does not like to exchange pieces?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pablo S. Ocal
Tags: <positional-play><style>
Title: Has there ever been a successful FIDE or significant historical chess player, that refused to lose any and all pieces in his competitive gameplay?
ThreadText: # Has there ever been a successful FIDE or significant historical chess player, that refused to lose any and all pieces in his competitive gameplay?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-09-07)
  
  Rather, has there ever been a significant chess player that avoided sacrifice or even equal exchanges at all costs?
  
  Rather, has there been a significant player that was solely bent on maximum pawn and overall piece advantage, having only gains and no loss of pieces against his opponent?
  
  **Tags:** positional-play, style
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This question is funny. I appreciate its irony. It's like chess buzzwords. The question seems to say something sober and chesslike, but I have read it three times and still don't know what it's talking about.  
  > **username_2**: I think the question is clear. I don't think it makes much sense to ask this, but it is clear: is there a player that does not like to exchange pieces?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-09-08. Score: 8
  
  No, because such a player could never become a significant chess player :)
  
  If you refuse to exchange in every type of position, you won't make it very far in chess (no matter how good you are). There were definitely players that loved to attack and do tactics (such as Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Tal), but even these players exchanged pieces when it was the best option.
  
  No champion can be only good at attacking - you have to be well rounded to a certain degree.
  
  
  ---
  
  