HELP!: Getting Crushed by Quick Queen + Knight/Bishop Attacks

Am I the only one who experiences this?  When I'm playing BLACK, I"ll often be subjected to some crazy Queen attack early on.  The opponent breaks "opening principles" by bringing his/her queen out early and then attacking me (sometimes alone and sometimes with another piece like a knight or bishop).  ...

Specifically, two types of attacks are happening: 

i.)  attempted mates
ii.)  finding "holes" in my defense and attacking/gobbling up pieces relentlessy. 

After such early attacks, I'm either mated or down major pieces...not to mention my structure is often destroyed without a chance to castle anymore. 

Anyone wish to help?

Can you post an actual game?

Yeah, something to give us an idea of what's happening?

It happens a lot to beginners (and we've all been one). It becomes less of a problem once you learn to develop your pawns and pieces into structures that defend each other and control squares - then the Queen starts to run out of room. But all this takes practice.

The reason that a queen attack breaks opening principles is because, if reasonably defended, the attacking player would lag in development.

Every time you attack his queen or otherwise make your opponent move his queen, you should be developing a piece in some way. You will enter the middlegame with the majority of your pieces ready to attack, while your opponent has only developed one minor piece and a few pawns along with his queen.

The things that hurt players when attacked early by a queen are; a reluctance to leave their planned opening, or pursuing the attacking queen too agressively. You must play reactively

In this game, I played horribly for the first 11 moves (didn't pay enough attention and blundered repeatedly). Due to the lack of development by white (and subsequent mistakes), I was able to equalize the game and mate on move 25. The Houdini engline scores the game evenly on some moves, despite the large material differential, because of the positional advantage.

Qh5, Bc4 attack is - first stupid, second easily defended. Nh6, Qf6 will usually cause a retreat. This opening is used by a weak player, who assumes the opponent is even weaker. It is a big gambit. White either gains a major piece advantage early, or forfeits their major pieces if they fail in their objective.

It's more important to look for the ideas behind the move rather than just labeling it "good" or "bad." If you don't meet it well then it might become dangerous.

get castled early is my tip

And they did win fair and square. If you can't find a defence to bad opening moves, what are your chances with the good ones?

thanks for posting the game. Congratulations on the win! White may have had a better move with 21. Qf5+,... I didn't go through all the analysis but he may have put up more resistance.

You now have a solution to your problem.  Study the solution and use it in your future games.  Then, instead or worrying someone will play an early Qh5--you will hope they DO play this move.

This is how you learn from chess.  If you have a worry and someone shows you how to tackle that problem--then you no longer have that worry, if, of course, you pay attention. 

By the way, a player rated a few hundred points higher than you would have been a good resource to solve your problem.

@Kalvinescobar:

It was not white's early queen opening which led to his downfall. It was his blundering move 21. As suggested by chessterd5, 21.Qf5+ would have been far better. I would wager that 21.Rae8 would also have been a saver. Perhaps 21.Ne2 would have helped him too. White did lose the game, but it was his blunder in the middlegame, not the opening.

I went some 15-20 years ago. I was kid (now 28) i can!t remember who showed us 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 some irrelevant move 3.Qh5 (or Qf3) some other irelevant move 4.Qxf7# (called shephard's mate in my language) After the knowledge is unleashed following 2 years it remained a frequent try. Sometimes people went imaginative and tried sometings like Bb3 Qc4 and other stuff like that. Actually it is a tactical theme called weakness of f2(f7). Well you cant avoid these things in online or OTB unless you went to higher classes. I gave up trying this line only after 4th or 5th time it is defended adequately (i seen i gain little by trying although not punished for it) some kids tired this months and months. Well results are diverse, some of them quited chess when they can no longer win any game by this moves (everybody seen this motif hundreds of their games and noone was anymore tricked by it) but some of them went to even more devious tricks and become better players (tactic oriented)

Something isnt principled or even not objectively ok doesnt necessarily bad. If everybody could win games by doing these i am sure everyone would (i am sure lots of people will claim otherwise but i dont believe them). And this is why your chess wont improve unless you play better players. But more important is you have to beat your level first. Every level of chess teaches players different things. If you jump to 1700 directly from 1400 without playing in 1500 or 1600 level some time then you definetely miss something which will hinder you at your 1700 level. But that doesnt mean you should stay 2 years at 1400 2 years 1500 etc. It might be some months (even weeks) for you to learn the points and you can move on.

Quotation marks isn't something you can just randomly put on any term you don't like. Unless you're quoting someone or you're disputing a word's accuracy, you can't use them.

Failure to follow opening priciples is likely why yo become vulnerable to these attacks. With good central control and fast development it should be hard to launch an effective attack Against you.

I never said that the early queen led to his downfall, and I also said that he lost because of his "subsequent mistakes". On top of that, I made ALL of the blunders in the opening.

So, you're correct, but you completely missed the point that I was making.

There was nothing wrong with him bringing out the queen, my sloppy opening and subsequent blunders gave him a legitimate reason to attack with it and, (most importantly,) continue to attack. His issue (and the point I made) was that as he continued to attack, his other pieces were undeveloped and useless.

Until he develops his rook on a1, it doesn't even matter that I lost my rook on a8. Until he develops his "f, g, and h" pawns, it' doesnt matter that I lost mine. My lost pawns also gave me a mobility advantage. He has no way to threaten mate with only his queen, so hindering his devlopment is key. When he develops his knight and bishop late, I gain tempo. I can develop pieces while attacking his queen or (threatening his king) and maintain my tempo advantage.

Those are the drawbacks of bringing the queen out early. That is why I posted that game, it's a prime example of those drawbacks existing even in a completely justified early queen attack.

I had my full attention on the game after move 13. I tried to determine my optimal move and his optimal response based on the principles that I described in the previous paragraphs. While his blunders should be obvious, (and why the game ended so quickly,) he made other seemingly solid, but suboptimal moves that let me equalize the game before he blundered.

Without him blundering, the best I could have hoped for, and what I was acctually playing for,) was a draw. Not to mention, all he had to do was trade queens or develop his rook to take the game.

If you're getting killed by queen and minor piece attacks in the opening, you're not playing the opening correctly.

The only solution to this sort of question is to play the opening with a rigirous mentality. If your opponent insists upon breaking the laws of chess in the name of the cheapo, they must be punished for it. Most every early attack of this sort of nature can be defeated with piece developed via tempo or pawn development via tempo, just keep an eye out for whatever cheapo your opponent is going for and you should be fine, if not usually better. 

Agreed. +1

People that play Qa5/Qh5 opening must really hate chess. because they really don't want to play the game they just want a fast win.

Very well said, that's always what I tell people who try that nonsense. If you want to smash things around, you can put the board away and go watch American football so far as I'm concerned.