Answers.Body: <p>Sacrificing queen depends on things
  sacrifice when-</p>
  
  <p><strong>If there is a forced mate</strong></p>
  
  <p><strong>Pieces are connected</strong> </p>
  
  <p>i.e. even after sacrificing Queen your position will not collapse.In this case you can go for pieces which will help you to grab the position. Which piece to sacrifice is completely dependent on the position.
  while sacrifice of queen completely depends on position of game i.e. is your opponent down on time or may be he may able to manage.</p>
  
  <p>if you say Handicap CHESS 2 Rooks are fine and rest depends on your Skill   </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-10-24T18:24:04.643Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-10-24T18:24:04.643Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Abhijeet Kumar Srivastava
Answers.Body: <p>I would sack everything for anything if I could see it was a forced mate. </p>
  
  <p>The 'points' you're referring to are general guidelines only, and completely dependent on the position. For example, both a Knight and a Bishop are worth 3 points. In a very closed position a Knight is FAR stronger than a Bishop, and vice-versa. All pawns are worth one point, but a center pawn is generally stronger than a side pawn, and of course they all get stronger as they advance (and if they have a neighbor for support).</p>
  
  <p>Similarly, in an open position two Rooks can be stronger than a queen and a pawn, but in a closed position all bets are off.</p>
  
  <p>Now, as far as your question, 'if one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board?', I assume you're talking about in the opening, before play has started? In that case, removing early activated pieces and central pawns will give the queen an early advantage, which would likely decide the game.</p>
  
  <p>For example, if you remove both bishops and three center pawns, the non-queen side will have the early advantage (too much for a single queen to defend). But if you remove two rooks, then the queen should have the advantage since the rooks normally don't come into play until the middle game, when lines start to open up.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-10T02:30:21.490Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-10T02:30:21.490Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rufus L
Body: <p>I recently played a game where I sacked a knight and a rook for a queen and pawn. That got me thinking, how many pieces would you sack for a queen?</p>
  
  <p>The reason I am not interested in theories is because I've seen many super GMs who sacked everything for a queen and won, I think that a queen is worth much more than 9pts, and that the player who loses his queen doesn't stand a chance in most cases, unless he has some mating attack or a strong passed pawn. So I want to consider an example about a handicapped chess match, right from the start. </p>
  
  <p>Say there's a handicapped chess where each player removes few pieces, one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board? The result should be a win for the first player. The match is  between two computers of similar strength, does it get more equal than that? I don't think so.</p>
  
  <p>I want to see the PGN behind the theory - take from one player two rooks and take from the other a queen, rook equal 5 pawns so in theory, the one who lost his queen should be better and I doubt it because he won't be able to activate the rooks fast enough. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T15:29:28.277Z
Comments.Text: I don't understand what you are asking. You don't seem to be interested in general guidelines ("theory"), yet you still want general answers without a concrete position. That can't be true; what am I missing?
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T15:37:23.680Z
Comments.Text: @JiK i edited my question and the reason I'm not interested in theory because i've seen matches where someone, sacked all his pieces for a queen and won, so lets look at the starting position, it doesn't get more equal than the starting position in a handicapped chess match
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:04:32.910Z
Comments.Text: @RauanSagit I'll try to setup a handicap match between two stockfish and test the theory of the queen being equal to 9 pawns, i personally doubt it - unless it's already been tested, in that case, I'd like to see the PGN
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:20:31.503Z
Comments.Text: How are you going to remove nine pawns from one player? :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:29:18.220Z
Comments.Text: @HenryKeiter googling that there got to be an engine which allows me to play handicapped chess :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:30:45.990Z
Comments.Text: I mean that each side only has eight pawns to begin with!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:31:30.023Z
Comments.Text: @HenryKeiter yes but i mean a rook and a few pawns, especially that the rooks are the least active in the opening - maybe two rooks
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:51:29.423Z
Comments.Text: _"we all know that a queen is worth much more than 9pts, and that the player who loses his queen doesn't stand a chance in most cases, unless he has some mating attack or a strong passed pawn"_ I don't know that. What makes you think so?
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:52:06.497Z
Comments.Text: I don't think I understand what you mean by "theory" either. Why "queen is worth 9 pawns" is theory even if queen is not worth 9 pawns, and why "queen is worth 12 pawns" is not theory even if queen turns out to be worth 12 pawns?
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:57:08.217Z
Comments.Text: @JiK i changed the verb, from we all know to I think. The thing is if you have a queen and 2 rooks down, especially in the opening, that doesn't mean it's equal, I mean you can't use the rooks until you develop everything, by then the queen would have won at least few pawns, giving an advantage to the side who has the queen
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T16:58:21.423Z
Comments.Text: @JiK I want to see the PGN behind the theory - take from one player two rooks and take from the other a queen, rook equal 5 pawns so in theory, the one who lost his queen should be better and I doubt it coz he won't be able to activate them fast enough
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-09T13:38:42.120Z
Comments.Text: @Fischer I understand the thinking behind your question but i dont think it was asked very well. I dont know how you would rephrase it but from reading the comments it seems im not the only one. Kudos for those trying to answer with the best possible solution and i wish i could help you.
Comments.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-09T13:40:16.240Z
Comments.Text: @Fischer i dont understand you previous comment either about the player who lost their queen being better off.
Comments.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-11T11:46:24.527Z
Comments.Text: A lot of analysis has established 9 pts as a reasonable value for the queen. Of course, in some positions she might be worth more and in some less, just like all other pieces. I suspect the original poster is simply still in the beginner's mindset of seeing the queen as almost infinitely powerful because they haven't yet really learned how to use the minor pieces.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BarrySW19
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-11-03T03:17:46.813Z
Comments.Text: Three minor pieces beat a queen unless the position is such that the queen can chomp some pawns before the minor pieces get themselves coordinated
Comments.UserDisplayName: M.M
Tags: <tactics><queens><sacrifice>
Title: How many pieces would you sack for a queen?
ThreadText: # How many pieces would you sack for a queen?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-08)
  
  I recently played a game where I sacked a knight and a rook for a queen and pawn. That got me thinking, how many pieces would you sack for a queen?
  
  The reason I am not interested in theories is because I've seen many super GMs who sacked everything for a queen and won, I think that a queen is worth much more than 9pts, and that the player who loses his queen doesn't stand a chance in most cases, unless he has some mating attack or a strong passed pawn. So I want to consider an example about a handicapped chess match, right from the start.
  
  Say there's a handicapped chess where each player removes few pieces, one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board? The result should be a win for the first player. The match is between two computers of similar strength, does it get more equal than that? I don't think so.
  
  I want to see the PGN behind the theory - take from one player two rooks and take from the other a queen, rook equal 5 pawns so in theory, the one who lost his queen should be better and I doubt it because he won't be able to activate the rooks fast enough.
  
  **Tags:** tactics, queens, sacrifice
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I don't understand what you are asking. You don't seem to be interested in general guidelines ("theory"), yet you still want general answers without a concrete position. That can't be true; what am I missing?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 i edited my question and the reason I'm not interested in theory because i've seen matches where someone, sacked all his pieces for a queen and won, so lets look at the starting position, it doesn't get more equal than the starting position in a handicapped chess match  
  > **username_0**: @RauanSagit I'll try to setup a handicap match between two stockfish and test the theory of the queen being equal to 9 pawns, i personally doubt it - unless it's already been tested, in that case, I'd like to see the PGN  
  > **username_2**: How are you going to remove nine pawns from one player? :-)  
  > **username_0**: @HenryKeiter googling that there got to be an engine which allows me to play handicapped chess :)  
  > **username_2**: I mean that each side only has eight pawns to begin with!  
  > **username_0**: @HenryKeiter yes but i mean a rook and a few pawns, especially that the rooks are the least active in the opening - maybe two rooks  
  > **username_1**: _"we all know that a queen is worth much more than 9pts, and that the player who loses his queen doesn't stand a chance in most cases, unless he has some mating attack or a strong passed pawn"_ I don't know that. What makes you think so?  
  > **username_1**: I don't think I understand what you mean by "theory" either. Why "queen is worth 9 pawns" is theory even if queen is not worth 9 pawns, and why "queen is worth 12 pawns" is not theory even if queen turns out to be worth 12 pawns?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 i changed the verb, from we all know to I think. The thing is if you have a queen and 2 rooks down, especially in the opening, that doesn't mean it's equal, I mean you can't use the rooks until you develop everything, by then the queen would have won at least few pawns, giving an advantage to the side who has the queen  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I want to see the PGN behind the theory - take from one player two rooks and take from the other a queen, rook equal 5 pawns so in theory, the one who lost his queen should be better and I doubt it coz he won't be able to activate them fast enough  
  > **username_3**: @Fischer I understand the thinking behind your question but i dont think it was asked very well. I dont know how you would rephrase it but from reading the comments it seems im not the only one. Kudos for those trying to answer with the best possible solution and i wish i could help you.  
  > **username_3**: @Fischer i dont understand you previous comment either about the player who lost their queen being better off.  
  > **username_4**: A lot of analysis has established 9 pts as a reasonable value for the queen. Of course, in some positions she might be worth more and in some less, just like all other pieces. I suspect the original poster is simply still in the beginner's mindset of seeing the queen as almost infinitely powerful because they haven't yet really learned how to use the minor pieces.  
  > **username_5**: Three minor pieces beat a queen unless the position is such that the queen can chomp some pawns before the minor pieces get themselves coordinated  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2015-10-24. Score: 2
  
  Sacrificing queen depends on things
  sacrifice when-
  
  **If there is a forced mate**
  
  **Pieces are connected**
  
  i.e. even after sacrificing Queen your position will not collapse.In this case you can go for pieces which will help you to grab the position. Which piece to sacrifice is completely dependent on the position.
  while sacrifice of queen completely depends on position of game i.e. is your opponent down on time or may be he may able to manage.
  
  if you say Handicap CHESS 2 Rooks are fine and rest depends on your Skill
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2015-01-10. Score: 1
  
  I would sack everything for anything if I could see it was a forced mate.
  
  The 'points' you're referring to are general guidelines only, and completely dependent on the position. For example, both a Knight and a Bishop are worth 3 points. In a very closed position a Knight is FAR stronger than a Bishop, and vice-versa. All pawns are worth one point, but a center pawn is generally stronger than a side pawn, and of course they all get stronger as they advance (and if they have a neighbor for support).
  
  Similarly, in an open position two Rooks can be stronger than a queen and a pawn, but in a closed position all bets are off.
  
  Now, as far as your question, 'if one player removes his queen, how many pieces can the other player remove from the board?', I assume you're talking about in the opening, before play has started? In that case, removing early activated pieces and central pawns will give the queen an early advantage, which would likely decide the game.
  
  For example, if you remove both bishops and three center pawns, the non-queen side will have the early advantage (too much for a single queen to defend). But if you remove two rooks, then the queen should have the advantage since the rooks normally don't come into play until the middle game, when lines start to open up.
  
  
  ---
  
  