Sometimes in some siutations it can be seen that you are running away from the fight. Depends on the situation really.
Lets say you play poorly, no centre control, no proper piece development, no castling...then you realise you are in a bit of a mess, and if the game progressess you will be in a deeper hole, so you quickly exchange queens and play (sloppily) all the way to end it in a draw....
That is just bad play....you don't learn anything...just protecting yourself from the pain of loss...
I don't know why people think exchanging queens takes the fun out ot chess. Those are not real chess players! There are so many possibilities and resources in chess. It's still a lot of fun without queens.
I should add - he seemed a nice guy - just didn't know the rules.
Thanks everybody for your comments
I don't know why people think exchanging queens takes the fun out ot chess. Those are not real chess players! There are so many possibilities and resources in chess. It's still a lot of fun without queens.
In fact it's probably more fun and more pressure and infinitly good for our gameplay
Depending on position of course, swapping queens usually favors the stronger player. If I'm playing someone who I feel is weaker or is using their queen to great tactical advantage, I usually try to exchange. This forces them to depend more on their minor pieces. This can really change the game if some of them are not fully developed. It is simply strategy.
Is sacing a queen for a queen bad ma-... I give up. -GN
Trading queens is considered offensive by feminists.
Only weaker players have an issue with trading Queens or anything else. Notice the ratings of those who do the complaining. You never hear stronger players crying & whining & sniveling.
You're fine. In fact, if you're playing against a superior opponent, such a thing might actually be a wise thing to do. The game becomes simpler with the queens off the board.
Is this a real thread????
Is this a real thread????
No. Real thread looks like this:
If someone is butthurt because he doesn't know how to win without his Queen even if, all else considered, he still has the advantage, then you've just played a perfectly sound chess tactic. If you think that a Queen swap is going to make it harder for you to win then you need to avoid having your Queen swapped, not snivel after the fact.
I used to play against a guy in the pub who used to moan "Man for man, I just don't understand it" when he was a piece and a couple of pawns down and I was trading down to a winning ending. Hint: if you keep losing games the same way, then you need to play differently.
When I play chess with a friend in the gym, every point taken means running a lap around the track, so exchanging queens means 9 laps for each of us
so yeah, exchanging Queens is bad manners in that circumstance
(Because you would have to play an illegal move for this to happen. :D )
Taking the queens off the board is believed to increase the likelihood of draws and decrease the chance one side will win. That is probably what your opponent is getting at.
Fixed.
Trading queens is by no means poor manners, except maybe (as for any other move) if it occurs in a position when it obviously comes from some malignous intent to torture the opponent longer (which was not the case here). Like for instance you have a very obvious mate in one but decide to go on with a crushing position because you like that.
Whether it was a good idea chesswise-speaking is of course an entirely different subject.
On the basis that an advantage of, eg. four against three is not as favourable as three against two, when one is ahead on material a Queen swap is simple common sense, if there are no factors making it unadvisable. It is not bad manners and not illegal.
It all depends on the position and your style. Generally, trading queens to get into a quick endgame ends in a draw and is generally not very exciting.
Drawish? Not at all. Depends on the elements of the resulting endgame. Elements such as respective pawn structures, piece activity, king safety etc.
I don't think its illegal at all
I guess some players just don't think its a strategic move because you are sacrificing a powerful piece. I have done it many times, and even to test my other opponent... will they sacrifice their queen to take mine, or vice versa.
I believe in order to win chess, it not only is based on how you start the game, but how you also intend to finish it...
When I was a kid, I always got checkmated when the queens were on the board because I was little and not very good at calculating......and then I learned that most kids can't checkmate without their queen, and I took the queens off really aggressively because I could always out-maneuver the boys in second grade math class with my bishops. Trading queens - in whatever way you manage to do so - is a strategic idea....it says "I think my pieces are better than yours," and it often proves to be true!
At the top level, the Berlin defense ('Berlin wall' it's often called) serves as the most popular example of grandmasters trading queens while still on book (so it's still technically a theory position - not yet a unique chess game), and this is far from the only example.
All is fair in love and war..........I leave it to you as to whether chess is 'love' or 'war'.