Is Queen overrated at low-medium ratings ?

Well... I'm not sure how related this is, but when I'm playing against Computer1-EASY or Comp2-MEDIUM, I like to exchange queens if I can't win the computer's queen. While the computer does like to trade its queen for another piece worth much less, otherwise it's better at using its queen than I am at using mine. It does all sorts of forks and combos with other pieces using the queen that I couldn't possibly find under the same time controls. So in a way, I think yes, it can be hard for lower rated players to use the queen to its full potential.

Per John Watson, the value of the queen varies with the phase of the game, and the most modern play shows awareness of flexibility of the queen's value and flexibility of other previously held beliefs...

----------

(p. 201)

The Relative Value of the

Queen

Before that, I should note that in my and many

others' opinion the relative value assigned to

the queen has been overstated in a number of

situations. That value has changed over the

years, always in a negative direction. On the fa-

miliar point count scale where pawns are worth

1 point, knights and bishops 3, and rooks 5,

queens tend to be assigned 9 points. When I

was growing up, a number of elementary books

gave their value as 10, and I remember being re-

sistant to modifying my belief in this number

for some time. Some books used the number

9 1/2. But I think it's fair to say that for the

last 30 years or so, the accepted number has

been 9. Now we know that in every situation,

the values of the pieces and pawns vary consid-

erably, so one might justifiably consider these

numbers to be meaningless. I am inclined to

agree that they provide at best shaky grounds

when playing a real game. But the scale none-

theless reflects a general belief among players

about some sort of average value of the piece in

quiestion. So let's pursue that. Where does the

number 9 come from? I would say that like so

many other assessments and evaluations,

it has to do with the endgame. In the case of two

rooks versus a queen and pawn in the ending,

for example, we can easily imagine a situation

where two rooks (say, on the seventh rank)

combine to capture a pawn that is defended by a 

queen and king. After these pieces are exchanged

off, we are in a pawn ending with equal pawns

on both sides. So 5+5 = 9+1. I would also say

that in an ending with a queen on one side and

three pieces on the other (with pawns, perhaps

on both sides of the board), the queen will tend

to hold her own, and probably in more cases

than not be able to scarf up a pawn before the

minor pieces coordinate and defend each other.

It would be interesting to research that case.

   But what about the middlegame? Here I

would suggest that the traditional valuation is

no longer respsected. Very often we see situa-

ations in which three pieces are superior to a

queen, this superiority coming right out of the

opening and stretching well into the middle-

game. Queen 'sacrifices' for three pieces are in-

creasingly commonplace, and I think that most

strong players prefer the pieces over the queen

in a considerable majority of such situations.

Several other commentators have made this

point. It is unclear whether they would evaluate

the pieces as worth, e.g., 9 1/2 on the average in

that case, or keep them at 9 but devalue the

queen to 8 1/2; and of course numerous other

possible combinations exist, such as separate

evaluations depending upon whether there are

two bishops or two knights (this is very likely

necessary, assigning a higher point value for the

two bishops). Al of that is beyond my precise

expertise, but as I see it a relative shift in per-

ceived relative value has indeed taken place.

   Then there are more extreme cases. The

queen is often sacrificed for material with lesser

face value. A queen for two bishops and two

pawns (again, in the opening or middlegame,

not in the endgame) is a very common ex-

change today and I would suggest that the bish-

ops hold their own (or perhaps better) as often

as not. Interestingly, if you count the queen as

8 1/2 just for this case, that corresponds with

(p. 202)

Fischer's evaluation of the bishop as 3 1/4, i.e.,

8 1/2 = 2 x 3 1/4 + 2. Of course in such a case there

are tremendously important issues such as

whether the pawns are centre or flank pawns,

how early in the game the trade takes place,

and more. Remarkably, even the exchange of a

queen for two bishops and a pawn is being

made more often than one would ever guess.

Here the queen is better in the great majority of

cases, of course, but a few other factors can in-

tervene to change the assessment. Of course the

bishop-pair need other advantages to achieve a

balance with the queen: e.g., better activity, supe-

rior pawn-structure and/or development, king-

side threats and the like. But since sacrificing

an exchange to get two bishops is fairly com-

mon today, this view of the material imbalance

isn't outrageous. Furthermore, the bishops are

often so effective in the middlegame that they

can force the win of the exchange, thus return-

ing us to material 'parity' at R+B+P = 9 versus

Q = 9. As one might suspect from what I've

said thus far, several top players have also noted

that the possession of R+B+P is indeed more

desirable than having a queen in many cases

(again excluding the endgame, and depending

upon which pawn it is, what other pieces are

out, etc.). A qualification to all this is that such

judgements [sic] may stem less from the abstract

theoretical truth than from the types of posi-

tions actually being played today. Regardless, I

believe (and this is only opinion based upon ob-

servation) that as time has gone on, players

have found the queen less valuable in the mid-

dlegame than it has been traditionally assumed.