Do you have a problem playing without queens? If not I guess you don't need to practice it very much.
A couple of youngesters in my club play very frequently with the Queen and another peice (and do it quite well) but are completely lost when they forced to exchange Queens.. we sometimes have them play matches without the queen, but not regularly.
I will try this and see how it goes
Hi all
A colleague (and OTB "sparring partner") of mine and I were discussing how beneficial it would be to play "training" matches without your Queen. Apparently it is something that was done in some schools? I never played any serious chess at school, so I would not know. But I would like to hear the opinion of fellow Chess.com members, and possibly some trainers.
My personal opinion is that it does not hold any advantage at all. I believe that even though most argue that you should NOT bring the Queen out early, she is an essential piece in one's army, and one should learn from the word "go" how to effectively coordinate her with the rest of the troops.
But then again, I might be surprised by some of the replies
I'm sure there's some benefit to be had from playing almost any variation of chess. I think it would be interesting playing some games where you have to develop around the endgame.
Seems like I've come across a lot of players on here down at my skill level who are afraid to exchange queens, and once that happens it's like they get lost and don't know what to do. So in those situations, it may be a good idea to practice without queens in order to stop relying on them so heavily.
Most Excalibur chess computers have a feature that involves positions with reduced material eg., king, pawns + N or B or R or Q. I have found training this way useful.
I regularly practice w/o my queen so I can better coordinate my minors, so that when I do have my queen I dont have to move her much, in most games I play w/ my queen, in 30 -40 moves I make max of 5 queen moves now when it was 12 or13 before, also, my king often moves half of that (includes castling) and most of my moves consist of Knight Bishop moves coordinated with pawn advances
If you want to practice with out the queen,I suggest that you study queenless middle games. In particular,study how to gain the advantage in postions where you exchanged queens and the opponent was forced to recapture with king,losing the right to castle. This is way more useful than merely playing a game from the get go with out queens. She is a piece and is just as good as the others,playing with out her is stupid.
That's a very interesting point RoseQueen, thank you.
Hi all
A colleague (and OTB "sparring partner") of mine and I were discussing how beneficial it would be to play "training" matches without your Queen. Apparently it is something that was done in some schools? I never played any serious chess at school, so I would not know. But I would like to hear the opinion of fellow Chess.com members, and possibly some trainers.
My personal opinion is that it does not hold any advantage at all. I believe that even though most argue that you should NOT bring the Queen out early, she is an essential piece in one's army, and one should learn from the word "go" how to effectively coordinate her with the rest of the troops.
But then again, I might be surprised by some of the replies