War of Attrition
.
Many Denizens here are more literate in the U.S. Civil War than I am. Have heard, though, that towards the end of it the North was more able to afford losses than the South, so Grant was able to employ tactics that implied even losses. This "War of Attrition" game theory applies itself in many battles, sports and otherwise. An NBA team that is up 14 in the 4th quarter can trade baskets.
In chess, if you're up two pawns, the side that is behind cannot afford to trade pieces -- and the corollary is that the winning side can move his Queen and Knights up the board, secure in the knowledge that the enemy Queen and Knights cannot oppose them in face-offs that result in trades. This advantage is prohibitive. It's almost impossible for the losing side to salvage a draw when the winning side has carte blanche to pick even 50-50 fights any place he wants to.
The position above is a more subtle example. You can see the White pieces facing-up the black pieces with impunity - here, not because White is ahead material, but because any stripped-down endgame leaves Black defending his many weak Pawn islands.
In boxing, if a 230-lb. heavyweight is boxing a 150-lb. middleweight (?) there is one of the combatants who seeks a position from which he can trade blows 1-for-1. This creates all sorts of tactical disadvantages for the smaller man -- disadvantages that themselves seem to have little do do with size.
In golf, if Moe is up on you by 4 strokes with 9 holes to play, he has strategic options open to him that will allow him to "close you out" with the greatest of ease. And so on. "Attrition" is a powerful force in Game Theory.