I am in agreement that there are certain ideas for when to take the Queens off the board in the opening, such as in some Spanish lines where the d file is opened and the only recapture is with the King, thus keeping him in the center of the board (a positional consideration I think more than purely a tactical conern) or if say you are playing a Philidor with the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg5 4. dxe5 dxe5? 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8 6. Nxe5 and Black s certalized and has to come up with a square to retreat his Bishop (here this is both a postional and material consideration as white temporarily has the pawn) yet there are some lines where taking the Queens off the board diminishes tactical chances for the lesser player as well as the greater player, such as in closed games beginning with 1. d4 or even 1. Nf3. If the better side gains some imbalances or miniscule advantages through the middle game, then it will be harder for you to play to an even positon in the ending without either some blunder or by having a good endgame technique to fall back on.
One of the things I look at whem deciding whether to exchange the Queens off the board is how the opponent uses his own Queen and other pieces. Does he try to attack with the Queen early? If so, thentakingthe Queens off if possible might be good though likely anyone who is heavily reliant on his Queen is likely to try to hold on to it as longas possible, in which case going to solid development and depriving the opponent of play with the piece might work better. Does he leave the Queen behind on the 2nd or 3rd ranks in order to complete development? Here I would want to se if he holds on to as many pieces as possible, indicating some degree of either tactical play or solid defensive play. In this case, I would be more inclined to retain the Queens so as to have more opportunities on the board for attacking. Is he going to try to exchange all but the heavy pieces? this signals to me a lack of tactical or positonal playing ability where he wants to enter into endgames as fast as possible. Here imbalances such as space, pawn structures, and piece activity play a factor (Bishop versus Knight, 2B+pawns v B+N+pawns etc.). If an imbalance can be reached that one is knoweledgeable in, then there are chances for wins if the the Queens are exchanged off, typicall towards the end of the middle game when the ability to guard weakened squares and pawns is heightened.
It might seem like this a lot to consider but typically only one to two of these ideas are gong to come up in any significant play as well, or at least in the levels of play that I face regularly. Usually I try to approach each game as its own separate creature rather than go by what the position loks like, especially if I either am unfamiliar with a line or if there is a subtle difference in the game. an example of this is an idea in an Italian game where I played 3... a6 to get out of some of the Fried Liver lines and even some evans lines available for White because now if Black gets in ...d5 dxe5 Na5, white does not have the Bc6+ anymore. So the position by one small pawn move is a totally different line entirely. Where in one line it might not be good to trade the Queens, it might be good in the other.
I think the thing that many people try to get one to ask is what tactical or positional consideration is there for me if I exchange Queens? if your positin is cramped as black, trading might be goo but if you have equal or greater space, it may be better to hold on to her instead unless there is a check that forces the trade or a fork that makes it the only way to save the second piece.
You are extremely long-winded.
Yes, unfortunuately when attempting to convey multiple ideas, it is sometime to get both the key points and the thought processes behind them into simple, cohesive statements. Anything else to add that might be useful to the thread rather than simply pointing out the obvious?
I could have given one side of the opinion but that would only explain half the problem. would you rather i put one argument in one posting and the other in a separate post? Would that appear to be less loquacious and verbose? Would it satisfy the inner ADHD in you (oh look, shiny squirrel).
Seriously though, try to come up with something on topic so that this does not turn into a trolling forum, please.
I see that you are trolling what I have posted. I also see that you are short-tempered, which is a primitive aspect to you. I also see that you are defensive, which I can understand, since I am myself. The difference is, I don't convey my own thoughts when typing a forum (unlike you, I didn't get distracted by a squirrel.) I am ADHD, though, but I just cannot stop moving and am always either moving my feet or fumbling with somethings in my hands, usually a pen I am taking apart. I wasn't condescending what you were saying, I just noted that you had a lot to say.
Understood. This is one of the worst things about chat dialogs. I can convey an idea or series of ideas to a person but unfortunately, they cannot see my face to see the effect I am trying to communicate ideas and vice versa with the person who is communicating back to me as well. I have ADHD and have to play music to center enough to function (how I made it through college, i have no idea ).
Still you are correct and I understand the linitations presented. i try to be constructive as well and unfortunately for the reasons explained prior, it is impossible to convey nuances through 1s and 0s. If i offended or upset you over my previous commnts, let me apologize now to you.
Now I have to see if my opponent reconnected in TT. back in a bit.
The position in post #29 is about equal. The side that can handle the minor pieces better will win. In blitz, I've won and lost as white from very similar positions. It's a great exercise to play this sort of game against a strong opponent.
It's all right; just a misunderstanding.
No worries. my Sociology teacher said in his thesis there would days like this.
Just remember if a dog poops in your yard, he liely thinks the grass is greyer on the other side.
Let's get back on topic though. Queenless middlegames....XD
10...Qxd4?? 11.Bxc6+ and takes on d4, white wins. i have always liked black in the danish declined hehe.
missed the check, man i cant even see the obvious threads anymore what a shame.
threats lol, thanks for the help
If you're interested, try analysing the position after move 11 in the Svidler-Kramnik game that was played today in London.
I really liked Black's position, but it wasn't enough to beat a +2740 rated player who's on top of his game.
It would be enough to beat most masters (+2200 OTB).
Other than my king, ALL my pieces are up for sale. For the right price.
Indeed, usually I like to pawn my king after i have checked out the price on the opponent's king. God this is an awful joke.
I remember that Kramnik thought he had to do some work to equalize, though. Not sure if it was on move 11, but the general mood from the two players and commentators was that black was solid, but white may be a notch better.
Play whatever seems best at the time.
Sounds good to me. I never really thought about it one way or another as an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure, in this case to either play with or without Queens as often as possible) If you like endgames or want to learn them openings in which the Queens get traded off early are desirable. On the other hand few attacking players willingly trade Queens unless they have to or can obtain some advantage by doing so.
If you can't get over your "queenphobia" for now start looking for openings that get rid of the queens ASAP, such as the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense, RL Exchange Variation, the QGD Lasker's Defense and possibly Lasker's Variation of the Petroff Defense as well.
AND start studying endgames on a regular basis, and in the long run try to have as few dislikes as possible in chess - much easier said than done for most of us but being as pragmatic (or open-minded) as possible in chess strikes me as a good idea: we all have weaknesses and they're hard to improve if you always avoid positions or situations that don't suit you. This may sound counter-intuitive but maybe you should start studying basic Q+P endgames in order to try creating an "attitude adjustment" about playing with Queens. Ordinarily I wouldn't suggest this as Q+P endgames are very uncommon just the opposite of R+P endings.
Whatever you do, GOOD LUCK!
I like Queenless middlegames, but not so much as to steer for them if the position doesn't call for it.
When the Queens come off, many players mistakenly believe they are in an ending and begin playing as if they were. But if there are Rooks and a couple pair of minor pieces remaining, it's not an endgame yet. Several of my best games involve Queenless middlegames with strong attacks and sharp tactics.
But chess doesn't permit us to easily turn a game into something we enjoy, the opponent gets an equal vote and usually seeks to disrupt our ambitions. So we must always just play the position we have reached, even if it isn't our ideal.
It really depends on the position. If it's a closed one where the queen is having little impact anyway I can do without her. If it's an open one then obviously I try not to.