Suppose you find yourself in a situation where you are about to lose a minor piece. There's nothing you can do about it; you'll be down a whole piece for nothing. Then you see that, rather than just losing a piece, you can collect two minor pieces in exchange for your queen. It's still the material equivalent of being down a minor piece, but you'd have more pieces than your opponent at least. So, given those two choices, which would you most likely do? Would it depend on which minor pieces you had and which ones you were taking from your opponenet?
In isolation, give the queen for two minors without any hesitation. This creates an imbalance that you may be able to exploit in your favor. Two minors are supposed to be no match for a queen, but your opponent must display some technique to achive the win. You might be able to bunker down and defend carefully, owing to the fact that the queen cannot be exchanged for either piece. Down a piece is technically easier, usually a simple plan of mindless piece exchanges will yield the win.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI'd avoid the trade on the principle that I'd be trading down, which is poor strategy when you're down on material.
Suppose you find yourself in a situation where you are about to lose a minor piece. There's nothing you can do about it; you'll be down a whole piece for nothing. Then you see that, rather than just losing a piece, you can collect two minor pieces in exchange for your queen. It's still the material equivalent of being down a minor piece, but yo ...[text shortened]... ould it depend on which minor pieces you had and which ones you were taking from your opponenet?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut you'd be losing a piece anyway. If you do nothing you lose a whole piece and your oppoenet loses nothing. Why not shake things up and take two pieces from him in exchange for your queen? It isn't really trading down. You're unbalancing the material. Like CuriousShadow said, it is harder for your opponent to win positions where the material is unbalanced than when you're simply a piece down. But I know that there are many players who don't think they can play on with their queen if their opponenet still has one. That's why I posed the question; I'm curious about other peoples' views.
I'd avoid the trade on the principle that I'd be trading down, which is poor strategy when you're down on material.
Game 1293060 Move 24 might help you to make your choice. Of course a few mistakes were needed to make move 45 work. Not a great game unfortunately.
Originally posted by RedmikeI agree.
I don't think that there can be a yes/no answer to this.
There are so many other considerations which would come into play to determine the best way to proceed.
In one game, getting 2 minor pieces for the queen might be your best practical chance, in another game it might not.
If your queen is in a spot that is putting pressure while the opponent's queen is not in the vicinity, then I wouldn't trade the queen. Neither if the position is relatively open.
In closed positions and those where the queen is poorly placed, then trade the queen.
Originally posted by viryeahthat's a little different, it's a piece and a rook for a queen. I have a game going Game 1384007 (no comments as it is ongoing) where I sacrificed a queen for a rook and bishop because I was already ahead on material. It's lead to a very exciting game. I unfortunately didn't see his pawn move to trap my bishop.
Game 1151672
queen vs. 3 minor pieces, I think that it's interesting.
Most probably it is but it's only my opinion , not a fact otherwise we'd all be astonished to watch Karnik sacrifice his queen to Anand for his knight,bishop and bishop and Anand wouldn't we be surprised at him then .Just like he said , it depends on the situation , so I would never sacrifice a queen for even 2 rooks and 2 bishops if it were to deliver mate in the next move .