@tpr here is an example where Qxh2 is a mate in #5, but I did the simplification thing instead. I don't know bout you but I think going for mate is still more beautiful.
While in the endgame it doesn't matter, it can lead to a draw or loss with more pieces still there on the board.
Also it is the bird opening I played against that you like so much. White obviously didn't know how to play it correctly and who would blame him.
#20
"The hardest game to win is a won game" - Lasker
It is very true that many players get carried away when winning: they daydream how everybody will praise their magnificent play, how it will be published... and then they blunder their win away.
That is one more reason to prefer a safe, simple win over a complex, spectacular one. That has nothing to do with cowardice, but with efficiency.
Many losses in winning positions result from trying to win in a beautiful way.
Of course, if you can calculate Rxc7 to the end, then after checking twice, go for it, otherwise the simpler safer win is preferable.
@tpr I am not sure if I agree with you, but maybe. Of course you would calculate it to the end. My games were lost bcs of waste of tempos and passive play after gaining the exchange (but I saved both of them to a draw bcs the opponents were not strong enough to mate me luckily). It is true people get carried away, but I don't think it's bcs of active play, but rather passive one and such moves you say. While in the endgame you are right, in the middlegame the opposite is the case.
In my first OTB I had a risky mate in #6 where I would have had to sacrifice both knights at move 14. I mated in a safer way on move 30. To this day I am sad I missed the mate as I saw the idea, but was to scared to try.
Often the opportunity to win is ephemeral and to seize it you must play a bold, daring move. This occurs in the middle game as well as in the endgame.
If you have a choice between either winning with sacrifices even if you cannot calculate these to the end or drawing or losing, then you must sacrifice. But if the choice is between either a simple clear win, or a complex win with risk of missing something, then I would take the safe win.
I have missed many faster checkmates, but I am not sad I settled for a slower win. I am sad however, of those instances where I blundered won games away.
@tpr It's also risky to try to oversimplify or force exchanges when up material.
Sadly for me I have done that multiple times.
You have to find the balance between keeping complexity for the sake of winning and simplifying for the sake of not allowing counterplay.
But of course if one is certain of a 12 move mate, then nothing speaks against it.
17. Nxd6 is perfectly fine, it's not necessary to delve into the complications of 17. Rxc7 (only in classical chess it would be worth trying to calculate it). I would be more critical of 23. f3 if anything, as it's a lazy move when White has several direct wins, the most brutal being maybe 23. R6d7.
#25
You need no complexity for the sake of winning.
Simplification is less risky.
When up material each trade of pieces enhances your relative advantage.
@Nerwal you are right. I played f3, because I didn't find the mate and it was rapid not classical with 5 minutes left, I wanted him to think and maybe make mistakes, so I played positionally. I played f3, because it restricts my opponent and because I had a lot of backrank mates in blitz games. It's a blitz habit. But yes you are right that's the more important part maybe. Also I missed Bd5 instead of Be6, allowing a fork, winning two pawns in the process... man I've got much to learn.
@tpr that is simply not true.
you can't win most minor piece endgames without pawns, for example KNNP vs KN. The knight will simply be sacced for the pawn and you can't win despite having two extra pieces. On the other hand KNNP vs KNP could be a win.
And the theme of piece activity still aplies. If you are up a piece you can get a worse position by trading of your good pieces.
You can't blindly trade and you can't thoughtlessly attack with your extra material to allow complication and counterplay. That's the reason why people loose in better positions.
@jesgluckner very well said.