Defending the Wayward Queen Attack

Grecojin

One of the most common Opening that lower rated players will have to defend against is the Wayward Queen Attack.  When I first started playing online chess I had some difficulty against the Wayward Queen Attack, therefor I looked for a solution on line and in books.  John Emms has a recommended defense but I did not like the resulting position.  To me it seemed like White had gotten away with defining opening principles.  I then got out my board and worked out a defense.  I am sure that many others have played the same moves.  My idea was to play a gambit defense and to attack the queen as often as possible.  

In gambit play 1 pawn is worth 1 move of development, therefore Black has compensation for the pawn.  Furthermore depending on White's next move there are additional attacks against the queen it is even possible that the queen will be come trapped.

There are other forms of the Wayward Queen Attack, most of which involve placing the bishop on c4 before advancing the Queen to h5.  It may interest some to know that chess books of the late 1800 included 1. e4, e5 2. Bc4, Bc5 and then 3. Qf3, or Qg4, or Qh5 not as recommended lines but as lines to know how to defend against.   The Qh5 line is the one most seen these days by bingers the recommended line is as follows:

 

nklristic

You can, but you can just play more solid as well, without sacrificing anything. You can simply develop with 2.Nc3.


And black is at least equal, which is always great as black after a few moves. But yeah, you can play it as a pawn sacrifice, I wouldn't do it as a beginner, this is more clear cut as the material is still equal and that is easier to understand.

The second example looks like a big mess to me, black doesn't have castling rights etc. It might be ok, but I wouldn't like to have that position as black. I would probably play Nf6 after early Bc4, and there wouldn't be Qh5 business. It seems simpler to me.

daxypoo
i considered my first “jump” in chess understanding came when i successfully defended the “wayward queen attack” during my life in the sub 1000 rapid days on chess.com

the “wayward queen attacker” is like a mini boss in the sub 1000’s

you arent going to advance in the game until you get a handle on this player

wornaki

Stuff such as the Wayward Queen attack or even the bishop's opening is one of the reasons why I advocate never replying to 1.e4 with 1.e5, unless you're way past beginner stages, in which that type of "nonsense" is minimal, rare even.

NilsIngemar

Playing Nc6 was the key for me, then either playing Nf6 or g6 depending on the threat. Have that down and you are fine with black.

Grecojin

nklristic,

I agree you can play more solidly with 2Nc6.  However, I do not like Black's position in the above.  I like my king's bishop on c5 instead of g7.  Also I do not like advancing the g pawn.  

At lower levels a person who plays the Wayward Queen Attack will not play 4 Qe2 but Qf3 to keep pressure on the f7 pawn.  The player of the WQA is depending on using the double attacking ability of the queen to gain material and deliver checkmate.  

In the defense I play I believe black is better because of his lead in development and the exposed position of the white queen.  There are also pending attacks on the white queen.  Below is a actual game 

As you notice white played most of the game attacking with the Queen.  Most of his pieces ended the game where they started the game.  

I also agree that the end position of the second example is a bit of a mess.  Black has lost his right to castle, however, his pieces do have more activity which was a big thing back in the day.  

Concerning 2...Nf6.  By the 1800 2 Nf3 had replaced 2Bc4 as the most common second move, and 2...Nf6 was replacing 2...Bc5 as the best reply to 2 Bc4.  I believe part of the reason for this is just as you said, it prevents the Qh5 business.

nighteyes1234

The best post on it thus far.

Nc6 is the worst move...but back to Nf6..the thing is if you are honest then 1 move isnt worth 1 move development even for me. The better you get the more time(development) can be an asset. If you are still being honest and playing the board(engine).

But yeah, this move defines your chess career for the most part for white and black. Just that you looked into it and didnt spend a few seconds and accept a lazy  answer speaks volumes.

 

nklristic

After Qf6 you can just play Nf6. The queen is defending the knight Bg7 will come soon and f3 square is taken for the white knight so he will play Ne2 most likely next. In short, his position is probably worse. The only potential problem in black's position is that e5 blocks the bishop, but if the center opens up, it will be ok.

Yes, you can play it like a gambit but it is tougher most likely to play like that for improving players. Activity surely acts for something, I agree, but black will have to play actively to prove compensation. 


As for the game, well if he plays badly and with the queen the entire game then it is not really important what do you play there as long as you keep punishing his lack of development.  happy.png

As for 2. ...Nf6 not only that, but most of the time you will want to develop knights before bishops. It's not always the case, but in most cases that is how it is done. But in this case it does that job nicely (preventing early queen moves). 

chesschampv1

My defense to this opening is :

It's only if the opponent plays those moves which people usually play this on me on a different chess site but like its fine right?

chesschampv1

You are also ahead in development.

nklristic
chesschampv1 wrote:

My defense to this opening is :

It's only if the opponent plays those moves which people usually play this on me on a different chess site but like its fine right?

After g4, you may play Nd4 and attack the queen and improving the knight further. grin.png d5 is certainly a viable option.

g4 is actually one of those moves that looks really scary as it threatens your knight on Nf6, but in reality it is very weakening for white. You need to pause when you see someone playing weakening but threatening moves. In many cases they are pretty bad. But we can all fall victim to them. 

nighteyes1234
nklristic wrote:

Yes, you can play it like a gambit but it is tougher most likely to play like that for improving players. Activity surely acts for something, I agree, but black will have to play actively to prove compensation.

Yup, its mostly a psychological/strategic problem and the notational moves arent important.

Nf6 is simply understanding that counterattacking is an answer to look for and not just disregard it. Its often there lurking and the payoff can be boom or bust but its valid to look at.

The thing is noobs tend not to look at the implications of their opponent moves, so at an early stage this is not so good. Then the first option for 2 knights is traxler or something lol.

NilsIngemar
nighteyes1234 wrote:

The best post on it thus far.

Nc6 is the worst move...but back to Nf6..the thing is if you are honest then 1 move isnt worth 1 move development even for me. The better you get the more time(development) can be an asset. If you are still being honest and playing the board(engine).

But yeah, this move defines your chess career for the most part for white and black. Just that you looked into it and didnt spend a few seconds and accept a lazy  answer speaks volumes.

 

Why is this bad?

 

nklristic

It is not bad. It is the most common response for sure and it statistically it scores the highest for black.  2. ...Nf6 scores slightly worse for black but black still scores many more wins than white. The fact is that Qh5 is actually a bad move, queen is misplaced and if you survive the opening you will probably have superior position or at the very least good position.

I like Nc6 more simply because I don't see the reason to gambit a pawn as with Nc6 you will still have a good position, and white still needs to see what to do with the queen because the queen will not stay on h5 long term.

NilsIngemar

Nighteyes said it was the worst.

NilsIngemar

We are talking low level players, so if white retreats his queen to h3, then white loses the white bishop.

 

talliholic

this is a good response which attacks the queen and also gains tempo with fianchetto

talliholic

and if Qf3 still trying to checkmate, you can play Nf6 and you are WAY ahead in development so this opening for white is not good at all, it brings the queen early, it let's you develop and after the move Nf6 the only other way for white to attack f7 is Qb3 but the you can simply play Qe7 defending the pawn and not blocking the bishop because that bishop can go to fianchetto instead and after all that, white can no longer keep attacking f7 and he has a huge disadvantage in development. In my opinion this is the best response to the Wayward queen attack. Do you think this has any improvements?? comment what you think!

talliholic
MISTER_McCHESS escribió:

literally everyone knows that @talliholic

I know, im just giving opinions

nighteyes1234
NilsIngemar wrote:

Why is this bad?

 

Worst...again its not the moves. Black could get mated, but its easy to get past that as the strategy lesson teaches itself. Its basically the reaction to the stress...its the 'decline' answer. Yeah, its a legit answer, but its not the best answer, and people go with it without learning there is another answer. And then noobs decline decline decline and fear the other answer. Its like teaching a noob for Kings Gambit Bc5 as the only answer. While I agree its something taught, but it should be in the guise of 'we will get to exf4'. And that move has been ignored, but now SF finally has seen the light. I mean it always did just engines arent that great for openings.

So soon enough it will be funny how 'experts' will have to explain it beyond dont trust the engines.