Should I trade off my opponent's active pieces early or build my own attack first?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
Trade a specific piece only when it is genuinely dangerous, not as a general habit. If your opponent has developed a piece that is actively threatening something or dominating a key square, removing it can be worth the tempo. Otherwise, spend your moves on your own development and attacking plan rather than trading for its own sake.
When trading the active piece is right
A well-placed enemy horse controlling central squares, or a cannon aimed straight at your position with a screen already in place, are the kinds of pieces worth spending a move to remove even if it costs you some development. Leaving a genuinely strong piece in place while you build your own attack elsewhere often lets your opponent's plan mature faster than yours.
Why trading indiscriminately is usually worse
Every trade simplifies the position and can hand initiative to whichever side is more ready for a simpler game, which is not automatically you. Trading away your opponent's undeveloped pieces achieves little, and trading your own active pieces to remove theirs can leave you with less to attack with than you started.
Related questions
How do I tell if a piece is genuinely dangerous versus just developed?
Ask what it actually threatens right now or over the next couple of moves; development alone is not the same as a concrete threat.
Does this change once the middlegame starts?
The same principle applies throughout: trade what is dangerous, keep what is useful, rather than trading on a fixed schedule.
.