Answers.Body: <p>If you can't calculate a clear win after sacrificing your queen, do not do it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-18T16:18:55.737Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-18T16:18:55.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.Body: <p>There are (basically) two ways to justify a sacrifice: checkmate, or win the material back.</p>
  
  <p>When you sac a queen you are probably not winning the material back unless it's part of a little combination, like setting up a knight fork (although it is possible, especially if you have a far-advanced pawn), so generally you won't do it unless you can mate your opponent as a result.</p>
  
  <p>(I assume that you are talking about "real" queen sacrifices and not something like trading your queen for two rooks.)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-18T16:20:42.097Z
Answers.Text: a nitpick - if you can get similar material back, then it isn't a sacrifice - it's just an exchange.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-18T16:48:33.427Z
Answers.Text: @TonyEnnis Yeah, I think we are agreeing - that's what I was getting at in my last sentence. In my first sentence, I was referring to the opponent having to return the material further down the road in order to defend. "My attack will be so strong that I'll either mate him or eventually win back even more material" is a valid reason to embark on a speculative sacrifice, and I still call that a sacrifice.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-18T14:59:42.477Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-18T14:59:42.477Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.Body: <p>It's the queen, the best piece on the board. Sacrificing it is almost always bad!</p>
  
  <p>I think most people never play a correct queen sacrifice in their lives, apart from those cases where it checkmates immediately or the threats are so large that it wins the material back immediately.</p>
  
  <p>There <em>are</em> cases where a pure positional queen sacrifice seems to work, for instance there are some lines in the King's Indian where Black sacrifices the queen for two pieces and two pawns, which is not usually considered equivalent to a queen. This is known as Bronstein's queen sacrifice line:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  
  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Qd2 Qh4+
  9.g3 Nxg3 10.Qf2 Nxf1 11.Qxh4 Nxe3
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Black will also win the pawn on c4. I don't know what current theory thinks of this line, but I don't think it's refuted.</p>
  
  <p>But, again, there's a reason this line is famous -- positional queen sacrifices almost never work.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-20T08:04:46.960Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-20T08:04:46.960Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>Obviously if you get checkmate from it it's fine, but at what point does it become unacceptable?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-10-19T16:40:59.097Z
Comments.Text: While the question is good, it is very broad. Could you please specify more?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pablo S. Ocal
Tags: <queens><sacrifice>
Title: At what point is sacrificing a queen a bad move?
ThreadText: # At what point is sacrificing a queen a bad move?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-18)
  
  Obviously if you get checkmate from it it's fine, but at what point does it become unacceptable?
  
  **Tags:** queens, sacrifice
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: While the question is good, it is very broad. Could you please specify more?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-18. Score: 8
  
  If you can't calculate a clear win after sacrificing your queen, do not do it.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-18. Score: 7
  
  There are (basically) two ways to justify a sacrifice: checkmate, or win the material back.
  
  When you sac a queen you are probably not winning the material back unless it's part of a little combination, like setting up a knight fork (although it is possible, especially if you have a far-advanced pawn), so generally you won't do it unless you can mate your opponent as a result.
  
  (I assume that you are talking about "real" queen sacrifices and not something like trading your queen for two rooks.)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: a nitpick - if you can get similar material back, then it isn't a sacrifice - it's just an exchange.  
  > **username_3**: @TonyEnnis Yeah, I think we are agreeing - that's what I was getting at in my last sentence. In my first sentence, I was referring to the opponent having to return the material further down the road in order to defend. "My attack will be so strong that I'll either mate him or eventually win back even more material" is a valid reason to embark on a speculative sacrifice, and I still call that a sacrifice.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-10-20. Score: 1
  
  It's the queen, the best piece on the board. Sacrificing it is almost always bad!
  I think most people never play a correct queen sacrifice in their lives, apart from those cases where it checkmates immediately or the threats are so large that it wins the material back immediately.
  There are cases where a pure positional queen sacrifice seems to work, for instance there are some lines in the King's Indian where Black sacrifices the queen for two pieces and two pawns, which is not usually considered equivalent to a queen. This is known as Bronstein's queen sacrifice line:
  [FEN ""]
  
  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Qd2 Qh4+
  9.g3 Nxg3 10.Qf2 Nxf1 11.Qxh4 Nxe3
  
  Black will also win the pawn on c4. I don't know what current theory thinks of this line, but I don't think it's refuted.
  But, again, there's a reason this line is famous -- positional queen sacrifices almost never work.
  
  
  ---
  
  