Go back
A material question- unbalancing the material

A material question- unbalancing the material

Only Chess

NS
blunderer of pawns

Rhode (not an)Island

Joined
17 Apr 04
Moves
24785
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

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?

C

Joined
06 Aug 05
Moves
909
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26757
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Natural Science
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?
I'd avoid the trade on the principle that I'd be trading down, which is poor strategy when you're down on material.

NS
blunderer of pawns

Rhode (not an)Island

Joined
17 Apr 04
Moves
24785
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd avoid the trade on the principle that I'd be trading down, which is poor strategy when you're down on material.
But 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.

v

Joined
21 May 04
Moves
2920
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Game 1151672

queen vs. 3 minor pieces, I think that it's interesting.

L

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
7902
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I would not give up my queen, because when your down you want to generate counterplay and the queen is the best piece to do this with.

R
Godless Commie

Glasgow

Joined
06 Jan 04
Moves
171019
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.

p

Joined
30 Jan 05
Moves
2777
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.

R

Joined
17 May 05
Moves
6676
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
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.
I agree.
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.

f
Dad

Joined
17 Nov 01
Moves
31316
Clock
23 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by viryeah
Game 1151672

queen vs. 3 minor pieces, I think that it's interesting.
that'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.

SS

Joined
15 Aug 05
Moves
96595
Clock
24 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

f
Dad

Joined
17 Nov 01
Moves
31316
Clock
24 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I remember reading somewhere that trading 3 minor pieces for a queen is almost always a good idea

SS

Joined
15 Aug 05
Moves
96595
Clock
24 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

S

London

Joined
30 Aug 05
Moves
1250
Clock
24 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

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 .

SS

Joined
15 Aug 05
Moves
96595
Clock
24 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.