Winning without a queen...

Best ways to win without a queen?

Good Question! I teach chess for a living and many of my students are afraid of losing their Queens. I try to trade off Queens to release some of game's tension. You have a couple of options. However, the landscape of the board changes so much during a game that it's hard to say exactly what combination to use. Are you talking about having lost your Queen while your opponent has maintained their Queen? Are we talking endgame, where you're down to a few pieces?

If you lose your Queen while opponent maintains their Queen, go for paired attacks, such as a Bishop and Knight or Rook and Bishop. Can you clarify your question a little more?

Well, I sometimes trade queens when playing, but then i am a little confused as to what to do afterward. I know there is no way for you to outright tell me exactly what to do... because chess is so complicated :D

I sometimes try to trap someones king after I have lost my king to get the upper hand, but I can't always exicute the final mate. Thanks for any help you can offer! I'm all ears!

Here's the thing with Queen trades: You want to trade Queens to reduce the pressure on your position. If your opponent has a better positioned Queen and exchanging Queens will reduce the pressure against your position, then make the exchange. Never trade Queens when you're attacking. Another time to trade Queens is if doing so destroys your opponent's chance of castling his or her King to safety.

As far as trapping the King as a tactical play, another thought is to first cut off the enemy King's flight squares and then go in for the attack. You're better off building up your attack rather than using hit and run checks that can easily be gotten out of.

I've found that I play well-integrated positional games when I focus on piece development and not on what initiative to take with the queen.  Usually, when I take this approach, I find that I don't move her until mid- or late- middle games, and when I do, it's like a hammer to the anvil that makes the opponent want to exchange, thus giving me the initiative simply because my queen had less influence on my position as opposed to my opponent's reliance on their queen for sustaining their position.

Something else about winning games without the queen is knowing when to sacrifice her for a lesser piece; this is usually done to arrive to a far superior position or when a definite checkmate is foreseen.  For instance, a couple of times I've given up my queen to create my opponent having their queen away from the action, trapped behind their pawns/pieces away from their king, where to get her back into the action is having the opponent always one tempo behind my onslaught-attack... essentially, the opponent's queen is obsolete though she stands imminently on the board.

I would say that if you didn't suck so much chicken then you would totally be able to do it.

 Edited moderator stumpyblitzer