No queen vs no pawns...

ARGH...I said that wrong.

I meant to say I lost the game where white had the queen.

I'm running a new one right now.

Here it is. But I think I am setting the thing up wrong because everytime, the game ends before it seems it should and it never castles which seems very strange.

Very Interesting.Nice idea.

The computer does not play like I was expecting to see. It is almost like he doesn't know about pawn structures. I've heard many times that engines are no good with openings. Perhaps this is the problem.

So, who won this game?!

I do not understand???

Like I said: queen > pawns.

GG for the queen side. Pawns can't do **** although it may seem one could exchange them against higher rated pieces the opponent seemingly ain't that dumb to do that, instead the pawns fall as easy pray.

Didn't you say the opposite before benzo?

Extremely convenient excuse. Look, every player on this earth, human or not, will make mistakes. That doesn't make it at all easy for us to find the few mistakes that the best players make. We figure even Carlsen will make some inaccuricies sometimes, but if we're just looking at the game casually, who knows where. Most of the time where we think they've made a mistake, it's just because we don't see their idea.

It should be a very easy win for the queen, it's the dream position of a gambiteer. Way ahead in development, all pieces are ready to attack, many weaknesses in opponent's camp...

I would pick the side with 8 pawns...white will slowly and methodically take all the space lol

What I find interesting is, b4 the game starts, they say a Queen is worth 9'ish points. A pawn is worth 1....give or take 1/10. They're pretty close really.

What's the Queenless side's strategy ? I think a good start would be to tuck away your king quickly and strive to promote by getting a pawn roller going. So, your minor pieces/rooks support your pawns from behind while also helping defend the king. 

This is what I originally thought too. But I suppose those numbers, like openings are going to be more useful in a traditional set-up rather than this bizarre set-up.

Yeah, you're probably right.

This is a similar strategy to what I had in mind. That is why it seemed very strange that the computer never castled in these games.

Tuck it away right on front of an enemy rook, and away from it's defenders... good idea? 

This was a very interesting question. Before I ran the position, I was sure the queenless side would be better because it would be able to have a better defense. I was shocked when I saw the pawnless side with a 4-5 "point" advantage. I think it would be interesting to see two very strong players play this position.

I'd be willing to take the queen side against a very strong player.

I chose the queen side because I like to attack, even though I will lose

That's why I was thinking of fronting the pawns (after castling) w/ minor pieces. The problem is that that could create a trading frenzy. As pieces trade off the queen strengthens. She can maneuver w/ alotta flexibility picking off pawns/pieces with double attacks.