Am I the only one who would avoid queen trade even if it cost me a piece? • page 1/4 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

https://lichess.org/study/VWAny3H1/9xb9PJkq#18

Queen trades
D4
Fianchetto-Castle
Piece Trades
Pawn Ending

Those are all things that I hate the most since they're almost always lead to a boring game.

BTW that @SNS48 is 100% not me, so @Lichess don't ban any innocent people please.

https://lichess.org/study/VWAny3H1/9xb9PJkq#18 - Queen trades - D4 - Fianchetto-Castle - Piece Trades - Pawn Ending Those are all things that I hate the most since they're almost always lead to a boring game. BTW that @SNS48 is 100% not me, so @Lichess don't ban any innocent people please.

HighlyCruciferous

#2

In bullet you can mostly do whatever you want as long as you are fast, so sure, why not, give your opponent piece odds, it's likely to gain you a couple of seconds on the clock
That list will certainly prevent you from enjoying all the richness that chess has to offer but I'm guessing you're not interested in chess at all, so just keep doing you

In bullet you can mostly do whatever you want as long as you are fast, so sure, why not, give your opponent piece odds, it's likely to gain you a couple of seconds on the clock That list will certainly prevent you from enjoying all the richness that chess has to offer but I'm guessing you're not interested in chess at all, so just keep doing you

SimonBirch

#3

I can't believe you're asking this question and you're a 2,4 I'm guess @SNS48 is you just think how good you would be if you learnt to queen exchange when needed, and that's coming from a 1650 rating ah ha xxx Happy chessing but I do agree I love my queen a little too much xxx

TheMagnusAura

#4

You guys did not notice that he mis-premoved the bishop. He forgot to capture it and premoved.

mkubecek

edited

#5

I would probably look at it the other way around: my opponent just blundered a piece for no apparent compensation. If he/she also wants to trade queens while being a piece down, it's exactly what I need: it makes my advantage stronger and reduces his/her chances for a counterplay. Why should I worry about it?

I would consider it if there were an imminent checkmate attack that would be worth more than a piece and the queen were crucial for it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would probably look at it the other way around: my opponent just blundered a piece for no apparent compensation. If he/she also wants to trade queens while being a piece down, it's exactly what I need: it makes my advantage stronger and reduces his/her chances for a counterplay. Why should I worry about it? I would consider it if there were an imminent checkmate attack that would be worth more than a piece and the queen were crucial for it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Geelse_zot edited

#6

I play the Philidor and at my level , 9 in 10 people go for the queenless middlegame when they are given the option to trade.

LiterallyPanda

#7

I get annoyed in puzzles or when I have to not take a queen to get a checkmate. It's totally wrong - everyone knows winning a queen is better than wining a game.

kindaspongey edited

#8

@mkubecek said in #5:

I would probably look at it the other way around: my opponent just blundered a piece for no apparent compensation. If he/she also wants to trade queens while being a piece down, it's exactly what I need: it makes my advantage stronger and reduces his/her chances for a counterplay. Why should I worry about it?
I would consider it if there were an imminent checkmate attack that would be worth more than a piece and the queen were crucial for it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
In the
https://lichess.org/z7H6Tgi1

1+0 game (~9 hours ago), after 1 e4 d5 2 Nc3 dxe4 3 Nxe4 e6 4 Ng3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Be7 6 a4 O-O 7 d3 b6 8 N1e2 Ba6 9 O-O, I see no reason to classify 9...Bxc4 as a blunder of a piece.
If it was the in-advance determination of SNS48 to not reply to 9...Bxc4 with 10 dxc4, then it seems to me that the blunder was, in effect, 9 O-O (instead of 9 b3 or 9 Bxa6). Of course, by normal standards, 10 f4 was the blunder.

@mkubecek said in #5: > I would probably look at it the other way around: my opponent just blundered a piece for no apparent compensation. If he/she also wants to trade queens while being a piece down, it's exactly what I need: it makes my advantage stronger and reduces his/her chances for a counterplay. Why should I worry about it? > I would consider it if there were an imminent checkmate attack that would be worth more than a piece and the queen were crucial for it. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. In the https://lichess.org/z7H6Tgi1 1+0 game (~9 hours ago), after 1 e4 d5 2 Nc3 dxe4 3 Nxe4 e6 4 Ng3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Be7 6 a4 O-O 7 d3 b6 8 N1e2 Ba6 9 O-O, I see no reason to classify 9...Bxc4 as a blunder of a piece. If it was the in-advance determination of SNS48 to not reply to 9...Bxc4 with 10 dxc4, then it seems to me that the blunder was, in effect, 9 O-O (instead of 9 b3 or 9 Bxa6). Of course, by normal standards, 10 f4 was the blunder.

mkubecek

edited

#9

Oops, my bad, I was only looking at the position and did not check what the last move actually looked like.

SnekNOTSnake47

#10

@TheMagnusAura said in #4:

You guys did not notice that he mis-premoved the bishop. He forgot to capture it and premoved.

No, @SNS48 spent 1 second in that move and decided that that bishop did not worth the fun and proceeded to push pawn instead. The same thing also happened in move 18 but with a knight, and still, that knight also was not worth the fun in exchange to a Queen-less endgame.

@TheMagnusAura said in #4: > You guys did not notice that he mis-premoved the bishop. He forgot to capture it and premoved. No, @SNS48 spent 1 second in that move and decided that that bishop did not worth the fun and proceeded to push pawn instead. The same thing also happened in move 18 but with a knight, and still, that knight also was not worth the fun in exchange to a Queen-less endgame.