Yeah, it's weak you should trade the queen for Knights and Bishops often and start a revolution. Let me know how it goes.
Regarding the queen, it really needs a buff.
Sort:
Jan 19, 2021
0
#3
“Bad attacker”
this take is worse than my chess skill and that’s saying something
B1ZMARK wrote:
“Bad attacker”
this take is worse than my chess skill and that’s saying something
At 2000+ rapid you should know that generally queen is best used as a support piece unless the opponent makes a huge blunder and just allows your queen in. Queen is not desirable as the leader of an attack and works best as a support piece most of the times. That's because queen is the "worst" piece when confronted
nTzT wrote:
Yeah, it's weak you should trade the queen for Knights and Bishops often and start a revolution. Let me know how it goes.
The reason she is weak is because she is the most valuable so losing a queen means losing the game... but she is not strong enough to form an attack on her own so she is in this weird position where she is both strong and weak. She is weak as in she has to run away when confronted but not strong enough to attack on her own. Queen is probably the weakest piece. As kasparov said that "u can argue queen is the weakest piece since if attacked she has to run away, losing momentum"
Jan 19, 2021
0
#6
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
nTzT wrote:
Yeah, it's weak you should trade the queen for Knights and Bishops often and start a revolution. Let me know how it goes.
The reason she is weak is because she is the most valuable so losing a queen means losing the game... but she is not strong enough to form an attack on her own so she is in this weird position where she is both strong and weak. She is weak as in she has to run away when confronted but not strong enough to attack on her own. Queen is probably the weakest piece. As kasparov said that "u can argue queen is the weakest piece since if attacked she has to run away, losing momentum"
the queen is valuable because she is so strong, she runs away to preserve her strength for the long game. You'd hardly see beautiful combinations in attacking chess without the power of the queen.
Jan 19, 2021
0
#7
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
“Bad attacker”
this take is worse than my chess skill and that’s saying something
At 2000+ rapid you should know that generally queen is best used as a support piece unless the opponent makes a huge blunder and just allows your queen in. Queen is not desirable as the leader of an attack and works best as a support piece most of the times. That's because queen is the "worst" piece when confronted
the only thing the queen supports besides child protective services is helping the g-pawn push forward in the closed sicilian
B1ZMARK wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
“Bad attacker”
this take is worse than my chess skill and that’s saying something
At 2000+ rapid you should know that generally queen is best used as a support piece unless the opponent makes a huge blunder and just allows your queen in. Queen is not desirable as the leader of an attack and works best as a support piece most of the times. That's because queen is the "worst" piece when confronted
the only thing the queen supports besides child protective services is helping the g-pawn push forward in the closed sicilian
I am comparing this with other strategy games. In any other game u won't have a character which is so valuable that losing that character practically ends your chances completely and yet not strong enough to hold a 1v1 against any other piece. Usually when a character in a game is broken it means it takes a combined effort to take that character out or to drive him away but in chess literally every character can stop the attack of the queen, it's very odd.
For people who have played other strategy games it's clear that this is a big imbalance and queen gets the brunt of it.
Jan 19, 2021
0
#11
Also what kind of Improvement would it see?
Moving like a knight?
en passant ability?
ShiroN0 wrote:
Also what kind of Improvement would it see?
Moving like a knight?
en passant ability?
hmm some kind of a buff, i am not sure what buff though. Would have to think about that. Either that or we have to accept that queen is just a support piece, an OP support character which supports the main attackers (bishops are the best attackers imo)
LOL
Actually I think that it should buff less because the queen has to run away when a pawn attacks is because the queen is one of the most important pieces of your attack or defense
Simply watch some of the GMs play game in 3/0. When the queen (quickly) shifts her location from one area of the board to another, then (sometimes) the entire position of her opponent will rapidly unravel or collapse before your eyes. As long as the Queen is on the board, a middlegame checkmate (or resignation) can emerge (seemingly) out of nowhere, like a bolt of lightning. Ha!
Get her off the board (somehow, if only by exchanging queens) and a more pleasant (and quiet) endgame awaits you. Whew, that's a relief. Then winning through pawn promotion is a lot simpler, faster, and straightforward too. "No queens on the board" typically saves time on your clock, as well.
Her "Buffed Arms," notwithstanding. She remains the most powerful piece, and then some. 
Damn I wonder what those 9 points mean if the queen is that weak
In a way you are right about the queen being weak. The queen is weak to a co-ordinated attack from minor pieces, especially in the early-mid game. However this is because you are not utilising the queen correctly and are pushing them into a position where they are getting outgunned.
Yes the queen is supposed to be the strongest but that doesn't mean she can barge into the enemy lines alone and do damage. She is only one piece and you need to co-ordinate her with your other pieces to do damage.
This topic ties into the whole "Strong minor pieces vs weak rook" idea. It all depends on how your piece is being utilised and how effectively it is doing its job in comparison to it's material worth.
A brilliant example of co-ordination being superior to stronger pieces is Bobby Fischer vs Byrne in their match of the century.
Pls sub to Tuckers Tricks on youtube
Soniasthetics wrote:
In a way you are right about the queen being weak. The queen is weak to a co-ordinated attack from minor pieces, especially in the early-mid game. However this is because you are not utilising the queen correctly and are pushing them into a position where they are getting outgunned.
Yes the queen is supposed to be the strongest but that doesn't mean she can barge into the enemy lines alone and do damage. She is only one piece and you need to co-ordinate her with your other pieces to do damage.
This topic ties into the whole "Strong minor pieces vs weak rook" idea. It all depends on how your piece is being utilised and how effectively it is doing its job in comparison to it's material worth.
A brilliant example of co-ordination being superior to stronger pieces is Bobby Fischer vs Byrne in their match of the century.
You make it sound like it's a war xD (Well it kinda is)
Queen is one of the weakest characters in this game, she cannot take any confrontation single handedly, she is very bad as the leader of an attack, can easily be chased away by every single character, losing the queen means basically losing the game etc etc
Seriously, people think queen is the best piece when in reality it is probably the weakest piece in chess after pawns. She is a bad attacker but losing the queen means u basically lose the game.