Hi all,

In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take home a win from it.

This move's got me thinking: under what general circumstances would you willingly sac a queen if there was no guarantee that you'd get your oppenent's queen out of the deal? Needless to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.

Originally posted by hphovercraft
Hi all,

In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take ...[text shortened]... to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.

Well he can write it but we can't comment even in general terms until the game is done. Let us know when it's over and post the game!

I think that beginners find it very difficult to play without their queen, even if they have enough other material to compensate for it. There are a couple of opening lines in which one side "sacrifices" their queen for three pieces. I've always found these fascinating.

Of course exchanging ones queen for two rooks is fairly common, and in the right sort of position the fact that the two rooks can attack a square / piece twice can mean that they overwhelm the queen. Here is a game in which my opponent gained a decisive advantage by swapping his queen for my two rooks (although I was in quite a lot of trouble before then): Game 3583709. Notice how he cleverly stopped my queen from infiltrating his position - if I had managed to get my queen behind his pawns I might have had chances of a draw.

Bobby Fischer was very good at playing with 2 rooks against a queen, but of course 2 rooks are considered a bit stronger than a queen so that's not really a sacrifice. Nevertheless, he was excellent at playing the other side of the board in such circumstances too. It all comes down to the position. If you get control of more space and have active pieces with the initiative, trading off your queen for 3 minor pieces is probably worth it, but it's the circumstances that decide this question. And you need good technique too because you can't afford to be inaccurate after such a trade.

Here is a high level game, which I was reminded of when reading this topic.

Game 4079571

Dont be deceived by cludis relatively low rating - he was near enough a 2300 at the time of this tournament.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I think that beginners find it very difficult to play without their queen, even if they have enough other material to compensate for it. There are a couple of opening lines in which one side "sacrifices" their queen for three pieces. I've always found these fascinating.

Of course exchanging ones queen for two rooks is fairly common, and in the right sort ...[text shortened]... ition - if I had managed to get my queen behind his pawns I might have had chances of a draw.

Originally posted by hphovercraft
Hi all,

In one of my games (and never mind which, it's still ongoing) I've recently chosen to take what is for me a major gamble and sacrifice my queen while my opponent's queen was still on the board. The move seems despite all chess logic to have gained me a material advantage that I didn't have beforehand, and I'm feeling confident that I'll take ...[text shortened]... to say, I ask that you do not comment on any ongoing games, whether mine or otherwise.

One of the best queen sacrifices I have ever seen, from the best attacking player of all time!

Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov

Originally posted by Fat Lady
One of the best queen sacrifices I have ever seen, from the best attacking player of all time!

Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov

[pgn][Event "Sochi 28th RSFSR ch"]
[Site "Sochi 28th RSFSR ch"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Lev Polugaevsky"]
[Black "Nezhmetdinov"]
[ECO "A54"]
[WhiteElo ...[text shortened]... evsky in a serious tournament, not a couple of amateurs in an opera box.

Originally posted by Badwater
Well he can write it but we can't comment even in general terms until the game is done. Let us know when it's over and post the game!

Trading a queen for a rook and bishop is usually not too good. It usually ensures a draw and is not often a win depending on the position. Trading a queen for two rooks is also usually a draw, but often too hard to win the game unless you are already up in matieral. I will trade a queen for 3 pieces however. You have to analyze it probably 5-6 moves ahead if you are to sacrafice.

depends on the position but 3 pcs are almost always better than a queen. The problem is you have to be good enough to co-ordinate all 3 pcs. Weaker players usually find the queen easier because it's just 1 piece to worry about.

For those who were interested, the game in question is now complete. I made the sacrifice and was very happy with the result of 2 rooks against a queen, except for the colossal blunder which came about a few moves later. Clearly, I am not Bobby Fischer. Here's the game:

Game 5130650