People keep falling for the wayward

Exactly. The Wayward Queen Attack is not good.

Come on, someone back me up.

I've been saying the same stuff over and over but this guy won't listen.

I literally gave an example a couple of minutes ago. 

You don't think I've repeated myself?

Bruh ffs, the waywards is a fine opening for BEGINNERS. Can you read?

Smh I'm starting to wonder if you even know what the definition of these words even are 

Thanks @Chess_Goose, this is king of what I was looking for (but not too actively). I kind of keep falling for it, as I'm so focused on my moves that I don't see the Queen coming until my rook is lost, then it's kind of game over. (Tbh, I just resign when it happens, out of frustration.)

Glad i could help

If you want to improve I agree playing the Wayward Queen is kinda pointless since you don't really have an attack. You either get the cheapo or you just try to grind out a positional advantage. If a beginner enjoys attacking they would be much better off playing the Kings Gambit. At least for all it's dubious nature it actually has the attacking potential to blow someone off the board and has thematic tactical sacks on f7.

That's not to say the Wayward Queen is terrible. I think we're better off saying =/+. A small advantage to Black. It's actually quite a boring opening and I think noobies only play it because they don't know anything about the beautiful attacking Chess available to them. They think the Wayward Queen is an aggressive attacking opening but it really isn't.

I think it's a perfectly fine opening for beginners. Just like shepherd's mate. I was trying learn and use 'acceptable' openings, but tbh, it's totally pointless to try to memorise them at the level 500-700. Even if I do the book moves, there is a very high chance that my opponent has no idea about book moves, and he/she is just trying to make a legal move without losing a piece.

I actually didn't try to do shepherd's mate until I saw a topic on this forum, asking beginners not to do that. I was like: 'wow, are there people actually falling for it?' so I tested it. People actually fall for it, and my ratings are getting better and better.

Maybe I'll reach a rating one day where I'll have to think up something more effective to win. Maybe I'll never reach that level because I have no ambition to become a GM, and likely, many people around 500-700 (maybe even higher, I wasn't there yet) feels the same.

The fact that some super GM played it doesn't mean a beginner should (if he wants to improve). Hikaru Nakamura played Bongcloud, it doesn't mean it is an opening that will give you good basics.

Wayward Queen attack is an opening that promotes bringing out your queen first, one move threats and hope chess at its finest. Yes, Carlsen might have played it, but that guy knows his basics, of that I am sure, people who mainly plays this opening do not. That is a key difference.

Playing it doesn't mean that you will not improve, but it will encourage you to break basic principles even though you still do not know when it's ok to do so and when it isn't. And you will make  a habit of playing hope chess, which is generally not a good idea.

But of course, everyone has the right to play it, it is completely within the rules of the game, and you have the right to play any opening you want.

It's not something that should played often. Or if you do play it you need to know how to follow it up if your opponent defends well against it. Magnus Carlsen can play it because players at that level can carry on if it doesn't play out. Beginners will tend to fall apart if it fails (at least in my experience so far).

Chess Goose needs to learn opening principals in order to progress.