Why do people like to swap queens so much?

It's best not to dwell on that. Just try to figure out if the trade is good for you or not. You'll probably get a lot of good endgames like that anyway.

If the trade is occurs early when your Q is sitting on its home square, you may lose castling rights by being forced to capture with your K. That, in my opinion, is not an even trade.

Whole books have been written on when to take a swap and when not to.

The best reasons to swap queens (when there is no immediate material gain):

Opponent loses castling rights.

Opponent has to double pawns.

My queen is in the way of another piece.  By swapping I gain tempo.

If your queen is in the center, and mine is on my home row, at the end of the trade, you have one less piece developed than you started with.

My king is not as safe as yours. It's easier to attack a king if you have a queen.

Not as good reason, but still legitimate:  Lots of pieces confuse me.  I can think better when there are fewer possibilities.

Bad reason, but common, especially in blitz:  I can't think of anything good to do.  Maybe something will show up after we swap queens.

No, that's absolutely a good, legitimate reason.  If taking the queen allows you to see the board better, thereby increasing your level of play relative to what it was, then it is absolutely a good reason for you to play it.  The goal is to play better than your opponent and win, so, if that helps you play better it is a good move.  Furthermore, if you feel you have your opponent in a situation that is difficult for him to calculate or see very deep, it's probably a good idea to preserve that situation.

That's the difference between engines and human players.  There are "human" elements that can be very advantageous or disadvantageous in chess that an engine can't account for.

Because they're cowards.

@ Scottrf: I like your answer.

Maybe they feel insecure with having the queens on the board.

I used to play with a friend who was so dependent on having his queen he was completely lost without it.  I'd swap queens in a heartbeat because I knew I could outmaneuver him with my other pieces.

No. How much difference does the loss of castling privileges make, if the Queens are already off the board? In the endgame, you should be TRYING to centralize your King.

One good reason for swapping Queens is if you already have some sort of material advantage. A 4-to-3 advantage in pieces is +33%. A 7-to-6 advantage in pieces is only +17%, even though both are +1.

Another good reason would be if the opponent's Queen is more active than yours. He loses an active piece, while you lose a passive one.

I'd rather just get tempos attacking it, or pin it to their king :D

L.i.mark ... Spot on for blitz. I think most players around my ratings (1300+-) typically play a lot more predictably with the queens off. In blitz, I think most surprises come from queens and knights.

Same here in blitz. Any time someone brings their queen out by move 3-4, I get the queens off the board to see if they can play the rest of the game without their big hitter. Most of the time, they can't.

Just like some posters here said,  it is good to rid of them in blitz. But, I don't find blitz interesting, more like a fun variation.

I also like to swap if I lose castling rights

No one got an HBO real s*x idea here?

I'm one of those people and I do it because it opens up the board for more predictable, hard fought games.

Well, I do it a lot in blitz because I blunder so much. I figure that at least this way I'm making sure not to give her up for free :)

But that's just the last of my reasons. If I can think of a good reason to keep or trade the queen, then I do that. If it seems the same either way, goodbye queens.

lazy

To annoy you and I.  I even know a guy who plays as black 1.e4,d6 2.d4,e5 against me just to do this.  I only oblige because I get a free pawn out of the deal.