Would you give up your queen for 3 minor pieces in the middlegame?

Of course not.

Yes.

Mmm depends. 

But if it is a case where there are no pawns involved then I absolutely prefer the queen. Even if if he pins my queen or something then he would need to mate me with knight and bishop, good luck with that. 

3 active pieces are obviously worth more than a queen.

But in practical play you're usually not so lucky, and there are other considerations like king safety and loose pieces making it not so clear.

But everything else being equal, sure, the 3 pieces are worth more. At the very worst you'll have a fortress.

Haha...it's not exactly a poll, but thanks for answering. A little explanation of why would be helpful. I'm trying to understand some underlying principles or ideas why it is advised to exchange. Thanks for all replies !

Yes under any circumstances or yes with some other sort of positional feature/s being present?

As for pawnless endgames:

Here's a fortress with just two minor pieces

And most two knight vs queen positions similar to (below) are also a draw

I'm thinking that the less pawns on the board, then maybe easier for the minor pieces to stay coordinated and escort a pawn up the board, but with pawns on both side of the board, it may be a little hard not leaving any loose pieces doing 2 jobs. Escorting and stopping /exchanging for enemy pawns. Mmm....that last may be a problem.

Sorry...that last question was @ Urk.

Pashak mentioned pawnless positions. I was continuing with that idea.

Also there's no way I read your comment, and replied with two positions in only 3 minutes

it depends on the situation and apparently goes 50:50 on average.  Larry Kaufman did a famous, highly praised study of 80,000,000 positions in 1999 and determined, on average, a Q is worth 9 3/4 pawns, a R 5, a N or B 3 1/4, a P 1.

So a Q is worth the same as 3 minor pieces.  But, if you're in an endgame with pawns spread across both sides, I think I want the 3 minor pieces.  If each side also has a R, I might want the Q if the K's are not well protected.

I posted a game that was pretty drawish until my opponent, fairly early, decided to attack f2 after I castled and trade his N & B for my R & P.   Afterward he had trouble covering all his weak spots in a semi-closed position where I had 2 N's and he had none, and that gave me the game.

I would think a Q, who is usually easily chased back in the beginning of the game, would face the same trouble against 3 minor pieces maneuvering early in the game.

It's highly unbalanced, so I would carefully evaluate the position in front of me for sure.

But I think it's useful to mention to newer players the idea that, for example, 3 pieces have 3 times the attack and defensive power. The queen in only worth more than a pawn because of its mobility.

I recently delved a bit deeper into queen forks and with other pieces available it is very possible to engineer / force a queen fork. Ultra exact play comes to mind for the defender.

Depends on the position. If I have a favorable endgame resulting from it and any subsequent trades or a strong attack, then yes. Just for the sake of it, no.

Thanks all for the quick replies. I'm gonna have a look at some positions OTB and if I find some where the queen side has the advantage I'm going to post my thoughts later on here. Just don't stop replying if you have some thoughts yourself. Hakuna Matata

Here's a not so boring Catalan line featuring a queen for 3 pieces (black didn't have to draw, I guess Adams didn't need a win)

  In my experience trading your Q for three minor pieces usually gives you a crushing advantage if there are many pawns still left on the board and few or no files are missing pawns.    I've seen games with all the pawns on the board where one side's Q was exchanged for 3 minor pieces and the side with the Q resigned in hopelessness after just a few more moves!   If the minor pieces can reach posts protected by pawns, the opponent's rooks and Q then typically become so limited in their possible moves that they become useless.   I love giving away my Q for three minor pieces when many pawns are left on the board.  I've found that their is often an additional psychological advantage, as the side with the Q becomes disoriented by how their "powerful" Q is being threatened and restricted by the "less valuable" minor pieces.