I like how half of the people don't bother to answer the question.
Do you find it more pleasant to play without queens or not? Do you find it easier to play chess without queens?
thank you smyslovcat thing for that story, i really liked reading that.
Heh, maybe they don't care. I've never noticed a preference myself. You might as well ask me if I play better with 1 knight or 2... I've never noticed.
Interestingly, I have the opposite view: I think it's actually harder without the queens on board, in general.
I guess for me, the queen is nice to lazy players: instead of using all your minor pieces and working together, the queen just attacks anything she wants 
. I think the reason for the difficulty most however is because ironically with less pieces, there are new things to watch out for -- pawn tricks are something one needs to be more wary of in endgames because, well, less pieces on the board means less pieces that can stop them once a passer gets loose.
So the fact that there are less pieces means less squares are controlled, which means you may have to be more precise in what you do with your pieces. In a middlegame, when there is an open file, usually a bishop or queen can cover the penetration square, leaving you free to do what you want on the other side of the board. In an endgame, it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to control one side of the board without leaving the other very vulnerable for counterplay because you simply can't control all the areas you want with the limited number of pieces. So for me no queens means more loose squares you have to keep track of as well.
Ironically, I tend to like simpler, subtler positions. Although the queen may create complications, as I have explained, getting rid of the queen can create complications of its own albeit for different reasons. I feel like it's easier to defend things when I have my trusty queen.
I can of course see why others would feel the opposite though. King safety is more of a concern for sure.
try trading queens
What about a queenless middlegame such as this one? I know theory says black is =, but for preference sake, I wouldn't mind playing white at all.
There are also tons of queenless middlegames in the ruy lopez complexes with the doubled c pawns structures.
I wouldn't consider that an endgame.
I wouldn't consider that an endgame.
my bad lol, i meant queenless middlegame, let me edit that!
Hmm, I guess a very early queenless middlegame type position is a bit annoying to me... I think because I don't have much experience playing them.
I certainly wouldn't mind being white. But I think these are a bit harder for black (?) so not sure I'd want to be black. Or is it that after the knight comes to f3 it's totally = or something like that, I forgot :p
Hmm, I guess a very early queenless middlegame type position is a bit annoying to me... I think because I don't have much experience playing them.
I certainly wouldn't mind being white. But I think these are a bit harder for black (?) so not sure I'd want to be black. Or is it that after the knight comes to f3 it's totally = or something like that, I forgot :p
If i remember correctly, black is supposed to play f6-e5 to play against the f3 knight, and usually white re-routes the knight ----f3 to d2 to c4/b3. Black gets a decent position after some series of moves, idk what the lines are really, but most of the moves are natural.
My highschool teacher always plays the funkiest line against me in blitz, with an early bg4, im not sure he understands that white has a very easy position to play. He is no scrub, hes probably 1950 uscf.
I usually get this type of position vs him, and he always tries to lecture me during the games.
Among positions without queens, that one seems to have less of the problems of looseness I have described in that the beautiful bishops on e3 and e2 cover lots of penetration squares. Although that is probably because there are still a fair amount of pieces on the board, even though the queens are off.
Black looks solid, but seems to be playing without a plan. Chopping off the knight then running to b6 just looks lazy honestly. At a glance I don't like it either (although black looks solid of course).
Hard to find a plan perhaps, but in my opinion, this is fully compensated by the fact that black has one of the most beautiful pawn structures I have ever seen. White has to find a plan too -- does he try to grab space with his pawns, and risk creating weaknesses? But if he refrains from that he will have to find some other way to put pressure on black.
Actually, it kind of looks like both sides have a really nice position . Perhaps I am just blinded by black's lack of weaknesses -- white does have chances to claim space here and there.
Hard to find a plan perhaps, but in my opinion, this is fully compensated by the fact that black has one of the most beautiful pawn structures I have ever seen. White has to find a plan too -- does he try to grab space with his pawns, and risk creating weaknesses? But if he refrains from that he will have to find some other way to put pressure on black. Perhaps I am just blinded by black's lack of weaknesses -- white does have chances to claim space here and there.
Actually, it kind of looks like both sides have a really nice position
I am a big pawn structure fanatic and making it tidy clean, but I still like white, its not even his bishop pair. It is his clear space advantage in the center, and potential to expand on both flanks, but like elubas said, white must be careful not to overextend on either flank!
I have to admit though, I may have severely underestimated the potential of b3 followed by a4-a5. Imagine if rooks were traded, white played b3, threatening a4. How does black meet the pawn advance? His a pawn can't move because that would lose the knight! Well, perhaps a knight retreat to c8 would save him.
See, with queens on the board, black would have a queen on c7 protecting that knight, removing all issues! 
Anyways, this is getting a bit far off the topic. My points is, even if black opts for the recommended setup with f6 and e5 with pieces going where you think they go, I would rather play this way, than the complicated grunfeld middlegame lines with the queens staying on, say with 4.Qa4+ or 5.Qa4+:
I feel more comfy here.
It's really hard to get my king safe in this variation (I play white). This is a queenless middlegame.
This is the common position. Be3 here is obvious, I'm not sure about the plan for either side though.
Shouldn't be too hard. White can play 13. Rd1 followed by Be3, then Kf1.
why not take on d4? i mean your opponent
Trading queens is always a temptation when playing higher rated players, because it feels like safety, however I suspect that it's probably not advisable since it is likely that the endgame is where a higher rated player will be most likely to outplay you. K+P endgames are probably the most cutthroat positions in chess, despite the limited material, one mistake and it's over, no defensive resources, no tactical swindles, nothing. So while a simplified position 'feels' safer and less confusing, it's important to remember that you may be playing into your opponents hands by entering one.
Too true. I had a situation like this only a month or two ago.
When going over the game I realised that, had I not wasted 1 king move, I'd have won. The player was rated around 300 points higher so it would have been a nice little win for me.
1 move! Just micalculated. I suppose that's the difference between good players and me though.
Been there, done that!
Was a HS tournament, against a player I had never beaten before. With an easily won endgame, I made one wasted King move too quickly, then stared at the board for the next 25 minutes, refusing to believe I no longer had a win!
Our coaches were even in the other room, playing it out, convinced I could still win it.
They were wrong.
Was 25 years ago. I could still set up that position today.