Chess etiquette question
Sort:
Sep 14, 2007
0
#2
There is no etiquette to avoid or make queen trades. It is part of chess. Almost all strong players want to go into the endgame where they are strongest and less to memorize and more scope for the strategic player. It's why over 70% of players over 2600 play 1.d4 and get into endgames. You just have to play openings to avoid queen exchanges, or play the queen exchanges for the experience and a way to get better.
Thanks Bill, I guess alls fair in Chess then.
That's part of the game. If your opponent is making a legal move, why should etiquette be a factor at all?
As for getting into the endgame, I don't think strong players are necessarily trying to get into an endgame. I think it just boils down to the fact that these players are so good that they don't make silly mistakes in the opening and (usually) play well in the middlegame, thus leading to the inevitable endgame. But there are plenty of examples of strong players making errors in the middlegame and paying the price for it.
If you think all games with an early queen trade are boring, then you don't play the right gambits. 
I play some fun, tactical gambits, and occasionally there are scenarios where the queens come off early, yet I still sometimes manage to put pressure on their position and get a breakthrough attack. If a few pieces are traded off along with the queens, then maybe things get boring, but there are usually tactical tries in any game.
--Fromper
Some people play better without their queens, so they are eager to trade queens with their opponent!
Sep 14, 2007
0
#7
Personally i find the weaker players like to keep their queens on the board. It's like a good artist could paint with mud and twigs rather than a state of the art paint set. Or a good footballer can play with say a tennis ball rather than a £30 top of the range ball. Weaker players always get that queen out early as well, rather than develop their other pieces. Basically they're lost what to do without it.
Yeah as others have said there is no such etiquette. However, if you stand to gain something down the road, it's better to keep the queens on the board and let the tension build up.
I love to trade queens, because I find that some players are lost without their queens. I think it makes the game more challenging and interesting. Some players that I have played with face to face are shocked that I so quickly trade queens. I rather enjoy the game I think it takes some of the pressure off protecting her royal highness. It is part of the game. There is no etiquette about trading queens. If you don't want to lose your queen don't expose it to danger. Duh
Are you consistently getting into situations where the Queens could come of within five moves? That shouldn't be hard to avoid at all. If you think you have an advantage, you will probably want the Queens off the board anyway.
Fischer, that was Bill's point, that at that level, mistakes don't really happen in the middle game that much so they try to play to an endgame that they like.
I'm definately a queen trader. Like Jona004 said, many of the less experienced players are lost without the queen. I think it take great skill to use some of the less powerful peices to win the game... Another reason for trading queens or other peices is it really opens up the board to more possibilities, including having pawns become major players. That's when it really gets interesting...
jona004 wrote:Personally i find the weaker players like to keep their queens on the board. It's like a good artist could paint with mud and twigs rather than a state of the art paint set. Or a good footballer can play with say a tennis ball rather than a £30 top of the range ball. Weaker players always get that queen out early as well, rather than develop their other pieces. Basically they're lost what to do without it.
I totally agree. I, too, have found that weaker players tend to get discouraged when there's an early queen trade. These people need to learn to play without their queens if they want to improve.
I spend countless hours on my endgame, so I'll definitely accept an early queen trade unless my pieces are better developed. But in my last 113 games, only in 1 were the queens swapped within five moves.
tonightonly7 wrote:
Fischer, that was Bill's point, that at that level, mistakes don't really happen in the middle game that much so they try to play to an endgame that they like.
Not necessarily. I think there's a subtle difference in what you and I are saying. If you're saying that strong players are trying to get into an endgame that they like from the start, I disagree. For example, in football Joe Montana was absolutely brilliant in do-or-die 4th quarter situations (he liked them as well), but (and he has even stated this himself) he never deliberately tried to get into these situations at all. Things just worked out that way.
It's the same way with chess. Strong players don't try to get into endgames. It just works out that way.
Anyway, enough with the nitpicking... 
I guess I am a bit of a romantic as I see the Queen as the centerpiece or the commander of the army. The pawns don't have the queen to sacrifice themselves for, and without the queen there's no double checking every position to make sure your queen isn't about to get forked! It just seems a little anticlimactic for the big guns to take eachother out at the beginning of a battle, and a morale killer for the smaller pieces. And there's nothing that I don't enjoy more than tearing through ranks of pieces unable to defend themselves with the most powerful piece on the field!
General_Anders, if you want to keep the queens on-board, then you're going to have to take steps to ensure that happens. I was playing through one of your recent games... probably the one you're complaining about. :)
Simba vs General_Sanders: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 d6 3.dxc5 dxc5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8. What I want you to note is, by trading queens he took away your ability to castle. So it wasn't just that your opponent was queen-trade happy! If you wanted to avoid the possibility of a queen trade, 2...cxd4 was a better choice. Heck, 2...cxd4 is probably more principled unless you want the queens off since I thought the whole point of 1...c5 was to control the center and prevent d4... but I've never studied the Sicilian.
Sep 14, 2007
0
#17
Whatever the game dictates. If having a Queen seems to your advantage, don't allow a trade. If your opponent's Queen poses some irreconcilable threat, then trade willingly. But always try to trade, or not trade on your own terms. You must, if at all possible, impose your will onto your opponent. Other than that, it really makes no difference.
Sep 14, 2007
0
#18
batgirl wrote: Whatever the game dictates. If having a Queen seems to your advantage, don't allow a trade.
my wife has made it a rule that i am NEVER allowed to sacrifice my queen in order to then queen a new pawn. she is afraid it will carry over into real life.
I was actually talking about this one, where I was forced to trade queens or lose a knight:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=70268
In the game you referenced yes, he stopped me from castling, but I still hoped he wouldn't trade me. I'll have to avoid that opening.
I find the early queen trade very annoying. It seems to promote long, drawn out games which are just not fun to play. I know there are instances where one of the kings has to capture the queen and thus cannot castle anymore, which may be worthy of a queen trade. So, is there an etiquette to avoid pointless early queen trades? When both our queens are gone by move 5 I just want to quit that game.