https://www.chess.com/live/game/2095843950
Trading queens worked but was it right
Sort:
May 11, 2017
0
#3
Since you're two pawns up, 1 of them is about to queen, and white has no development, you can pretty much play whatever you want.
But generally no, you shouldn't trade queens in positions like that, because their king is vulnerable and you can keep attacking.
10 4
May 11, 2017
0
#5
I only glanced at the position before the queen trade but if I was black I probably would've put pressure on the f1 rook
May 11, 2017
0
#6
I didn't say it was wrong in that position. A big point in favor of trading queens in that position is it's white's only active piece. It also simplifies the position when black's already up material. You could argue that it's good technique to trade queens there, and I agree.
But I got the feeling that the OP was asking in general. So I said in general it's the wrong decision. Often in attacking positions like this, you've given up material or made other concessions to weaken the enemy king and gain initiative. In those cases whether or not you trade can be a matter of which side has the advantage i.e. trading queens = losing the advantage.
May 11, 2017
0
#8
that depends on whether or not you want to win...
what do you gain by beating this opponent? the changing of pixels on your screen?
is that your goal? why devote yourself to lowly ambitions... be more profound! sacrifice your queen, award your opponent the win, and play him 30 times again, losing every match; he will think to himself, "ha, how easily I have defeated this fellow 800, and 30 times in succession... why not, then, by my calculations, can i beat a 2400 player a measly 10 times in succession! what brilliance!" and so, he will strut around the local club, and bet his entire savings of 300 shillings that he can destroy any player in the room. a man approaches him, and they begin to play... as the game progresses, he realizes that perhaps the overconfident sacrifice of both his rooks may not have been the best approach... his confidence wanes... eventually, he loses. he runs out of the building, crying loudly, thinking, "a fluke! how could i have lost this 6000 bulls eye and tree-nut sweet worth so easily... no! I must have won!" and in his denial, he happens to not see the oncoming train, which in turn happens to not see him, and his fate is sealed, alleviating him of his misery... would this not be a more crushing defeat than what the trade of queens could accomplish?!
The benefit of time helps. I often lose a few moves before mate because of time.
I think trading is completely fine. From a practical standpoint its not about finding the fanciest mate but about depriving your opponent of any hope. Youre already 2 pawns up and hes dropping the rook. The position after Qxe5, dxe5 and Bg2! is just resignable. Computers dont make blunders so they dont understand that you wanna simplify and create a situation in which youre just winning without any potential to make a mistake.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2095843950
I got lucky with the mate with 1 sec left but was trading queens right or did he blunder.