Any two minor pieces and two pawns.
How many pieces would you trade for a queen
Sort:
Mar 14, 2009
0
#3
If i trade opponent's queen, i should give away 2 rooks or 2 knights/bishops and 1 Bishop/knight.
I use the point system:
Pawn - 1 pt.
Knight - 3 pts.
Bishop - 3 pts.
Rook - 5 pts.
Queen - 9 pts.
King - Unlimited pts.
A lot of it really has to do with position.
If your King is well defended, the three pieces can overpower the Queen, as she can't trade with any of them.
However, if your King isn't defended, the Queen can really cause a lot of problems. If she gets 1 of the pieces, you're at a serious disadvantage.
I don't mind giving up 2 Rooks if I get a Queen and pawn back. I would definitely give up Rook and minor piece for Queen.
rich wrote:
preetpatel wrote:
maybe 2 rooks
But then you're losing out my 1 point.
Material gain is just an illusion, if you have to waste a point or 2 to get a good position, then go ahead and do it because it can do very good in the long-term process of a game.
It's mainly on position. You could lose anything for a queen
In general, two rooks or three minor pieces. Of course, such imbalancing trades should not be made lightly--the position must be taken into account. I'm choosing to ignore the part where you say, "in the opening position" as such an option doesn't exist in chess.
It depends on the position but 3 pieces or 2 pieces and a couple pawns or a rook a piece and a couple pawns or 2 pieces and a rook for a queen and a couple pawns.
As was said, depends on the position. Usually I won't hesitate to trade for 2 rooks, but 3 minor pieces would heavily depend on the position for me.
If I had to lose my queen, I would take 2 rooks with me, because they can be lethal with a battery. 3 minor pieces...erm...maybe...if my opponent's defence is left in tatters then yes I would.
I'd give a pawn, but that's just me ;)
While the king is of course priceless in terms of any particular game's result, some value it as equivalent in terms of its tactical potential to a minor piece, i.e. worth 3 points.
tob1a5 wrote:
I get confused when a tactic wins a queen for a rook and a minor piece which isn't necerssarily winning as the material cound is only 1 point below a Queen.
Thank goodness you got here after only 8 years to tell us so!
I played a game one time (it's in one of the forums) where it cost me a rook and a piece for my opponent's Queen, but I already had a spare pawn or so and the resulting position was just the kind of disrupted set-up where the Queen was able to rampage further. But of course it's perfectly possible to give the Queen for two minors and a couple of pawns and keep the position closed enough that the Queen's helpless.
What about a Bishop and Rook for a Queen. Is this a good idea in almost any scenario? Passed on the trade in my last game... but now it's looking like I shouldn't have?
An example.
Im playing a game where im considering giving up a bishop and a knight in exchange for my opponents rook and a pawn. Is that an ok exchange in general? Im considering this because my opponent will loose his f6 pawn in his castle. Any advise on this as a general strategy?
HCpiano wrote:
Im playing a game where im considering giving up a bishop and a knight in exchange for my opponents rook and a pawn. Is that an ok exchange in general? Im considering this because my opponent will loose his f6 pawn in his castle. Any advise on this as a general strategy?
No, do NOT do this -especially at such an early stage in a game. Any decent player will trade the pieces down and you will end up with a rook versus probably a knight and bishop. Those two pieces will usually be able to beat the rook or eat up the pawns more quickly.
I would like to say how many pieces would you trade for a queen regardless of material points in the opening position. ex. 2 bishops and a knight or a couple of rooks, I'm free for comments.