Answers.Body: <p>Losing a queen early on without any compensation or counterplay means almost certain defeat against anybody except for absolute beginners. </p>
  
  <p>There is a certain "point system" which can be used to evaluate a position:</p>
  
  <p>Basically you assign points to certain aspects of the position, like <em>material</em>, <em>piece activity</em>, <em>king safety</em>, <em>space advantage</em>, etc. Adding all those points (with weights depending on the aspects), you come up with a final number, for instance -2. The sign (-) means black is better and the number 2 means that all other things being equal, black could be up by 2 pawns. Of course it could also mean that material is equal and black has much more active pieces, etc.</p>
  
  <p>Just for the material aspect the points assigned to the pieces is usually pawn: 1, knight/bishop: 3, rook: 5, queen: 9 (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value" rel="noreferrer">this</a> for details) or thereabout.</p>
  
  <p>While this point system is used by computers, for practical play it is not really relevant. I don't know any decent player who would start adding numbers to assess a position.</p>
  
  <p>Still you can use it to answer your question...</p>
  
  <p>Looking at games of top players, within an evaluation of roughly -1 to + 1, i.e. at most a pawn up (all other things being equal), the game usually ends in a draw.</p>
  
  <p>Around +-2, the game would usually be lost/won at GM/IM level, though people might still fight for a while depending on the position.</p>
  
  <p>Around +-3, good players would typically resign immediately.</p>
  
  <p>Of course there are exceptions to this rule and particularly in very tactical/wild positions with open kings and attacking potentials, there could be chances for the losing side.</p>
  
  <p>Still it could give you an idea of what losing a queen (value 9) means...</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>I would like to know more about tactics when some player lost some important pieces, but played so well that he won the game. Are there any tricks that can be used here? I</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The word you mean is "strategy" not "tactics". As outlined above, most people would resign in a situation like you describe. Still, if you think your opponent is weak enough to continue fighting there are a few things you can do to increase your chances:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>keep many pieces on the board (don't exchange pieces): this increases the potential for tactics</li>
  <li>keep the position complicated: typically this means open positions with lots of piece activity</li>
  <li>start a direct attack on the enemy king</li>
  <li>if time is limited try to force your opponent getting low on time, e.g. by moving quickly, doing unusual moves, etc.</li>
  <li>play for tricks/tactics (you really should never do this in chess because it is not how you play chess beyond a certain level...)</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:04:44.977Z
Answers.Text: " I don't know any decent player who would start adding numbers to assess a position." Not even as a starting point? If you start watching a game mid-way through, you don't even count which pieces one player has over the other? Sure you may not literally add up all pieces on the board, but wouldn't you say "up a rook [5] vs a knight and a pawn [4] means the player up a rook is sliiightly ahead on material, now let's look at the position to investigate further"?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:38:08.883Z
Answers.Text: @Grade'Eh'Bacon: I don't mean the material points,  but points given for other aspects. For instance a computer engine might assign points for "piece activity" by summing the number of possible moves.  In principle you could do exactly the same as a human and implement a computer (alpha-beta) algorithm when playing chess as a human. I don't think that is feasible as a human and that's why humans only assess the material aspect by points (or similar) and use intuition/experience for other aspects.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:40:51.803Z
Answers.Text: Ah, point taken [pun]. My mistake.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T15:05:38.150Z
Answers.Text: @Grade'Eh'Bacon Actually, I wouldn't even make the 5vs4 comparison! Also, a material advantage the size of a pawn would be a huge advantage rather than a "sliiiight" one
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T17:43:02.807Z
Answers.Text: @David If a 1 point material advantage is significant, then surely counting pieces is a valuable starting point for analyzing board position, right?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T19:22:25.403Z
Answers.Text: @Grade'Eh'Bacon But not all "1 point advantages" are the same as a pawn advantage. For example, R+8 pawns vs 2 bishops + 6pawns is better for the bishops in most situations
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T19:34:03.477Z
Answers.Text: @David I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters in board analysis. Just that it is a "valuable starting point". Novice players who trade rooks for bishops can improve their game simply by saying a rook is 5 and a bishop is 3. I never said all 1 point advantages are the same, just that a material advantage quickly becomes significant.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T20:13:42.237Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 Nice and detailed answer. But it seems that, generally, it is better to be without 8 pawns than without a queen, by that simple system of assigning points to figures, why the system is not changed to be a better system, is it really better, for example, to start a game without 8 pawns than without a queen?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grešnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T20:18:00.007Z
Answers.Text: @Grešnik That's a very extreme example - the more extreme these comparisons are, the more other factors come into play. To start the game with 0 pawns means minimal king safety, and king safety, like material, has a value. Normally these comparisons help when there are only a couple of pieces difference, not a 9-piece imbalance. This is all mentioned in the answer here.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T20:20:20.683Z
Answers.Text: @Grade'Eh'Bacon It is really a very extreme example, but, we can ask a question: "If two players, equally good, start a game, one without a queen, and the other without 8 pawns, who is, generally, in advantage?" I could ask that question here also, but I think it could be closed.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grešnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-27T08:06:40.423Z
Answers.Text: @Grešnik The problem with that is that starting without pawns does at least as much to position (both positive - you can get your pieces out there more quickly - and negative - you're in a much less defensible position) as it does to material.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jasper
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-27T15:07:01.613Z
Answers.Text: @Grešnik This discussion reminds me about people saying that Newton's gravity is wrong, because there is a better theory (General Relativity). However you can still calculate plenty of things to very decent precision with Newton's law, and the calculations tend to be easier for simple systems. Similarly in chess, no doubt that material plays a very important role in chess and IMO focusing on material for a beginner player (as a first approximation) is perfectly fine and will probably do in more than 50% of beginner level games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-27T22:13:48.140Z
Answers.Text: When analyzing a position, material imbalance is the first thing I look at. Saying "Black is up a bishop" is no different than saying, "Black is up 3 points". At that instant, I suspect black will win. Then the board can be examined to see if white has compensation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-28T07:15:29.093Z
Answers.Text: If you are going to use a "numer-of-points-advatage system", I would and that the boundary of "where a position is lost" decreases as the game progresses. A +2 advantage can be sometimes fought back in the early middlegame (think 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2) with piece activity and attack. However, unless there is an immediate tactical combination, you will lose all of your -2 piece endgames (I am talking here -2 as in "two pawns", not any of its "equivalences")
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-29T01:46:17.310Z
Answers.Text: @David "However, unless there is an immediate tactical combination, you will lose all of your -2 piece endgames" - Certainly not *all* of them. I once posted here a game with rook and 2 pawns vs rook (with one of the pawns on the 7th and my rook behind it) that was a theoretical draw. Games with opposite-colored bishops are sometimes theoretical draws in spite of one side having an extra 2 pawns. Etc.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T19:21:25.857Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-06-25T19:21:25.857Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.Body: <p>Unless there is a clear chance for counterplay, losing your queen means losing the game. You won that game because your opponent was a very bad player.</p>
  
  <p>With regards to the strength of the queen, there is no definite answer, as every position is different. However, as a general guideline:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Two rooks are slightly more powerful than a queen.</li>
  <li>A rook and a minor piece(bishop/knight) is slightly weaker than a queen.</li>
  <li>Two minor pieces vs a queen often means a lost position.</li>
  <li>Three minor pieces are also slightly stronger than a queen</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Some folks will come with a "points system", well, that's just  plain wrong.</p>
  
  <p>Finally, queens are a very bad piece at blocking enemy advancing pawns, so that may be a source of counterplay in "otherwise worse" positions.</p>
  
  <p><strong>NOTE</strong> Since my statement about the pointing system was received with controversy in the comments, let me elaborate a bit further (even though this is beyond the scope of the original question, it's still related and interesting):</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Any scoring system you can think of will always be inaccurate, because we cannot define a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order" rel="nofollow noreferrer">total order relation</a> in the "set of piece tandems" that actually models the "is more likely to be stronger than" relation. Even if we could, it wouldn't work well with addition/subtraction (R+6P - N+8P is more likely a rook-side win, but R vs N+2P is more likely to be a knight-side win)</li>
  <li>Piece strength can vary a lot from one position to another, so, even if it were possible to define such scoring system, it would overlook a lot of exceptions and, more importantly, it would give us no criterion about when those exceptions happen.</li>
  <li>Finally, a "one-point advantage" grows in importance as the game gets simplified, so we don't get a good reference either about how well/badly the game is going for us (even if we only care about material)</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>For those reasons, I think every score-system is wrong (not even entering the discussion of which one would be right, since different people have had different opinions). But all of that does not really matter that much, even if we ignore 1 and 3, the second issue would still be there, and it's quite an important one! It you learn to think in terms of a scoring system, you will eventually have to un-learn all of that and, from my own experience, I can tell you that's really hard! The main problem is therefore that the scoring system is not useful in practice! It does not provide any help in your game and it makes progress more difficult.</p>
  
  <p>@user1583209 pointed out that computers use the points system quite succesfully. Well, that's simply not the full story! Computer position evaluation has worked very differently for a long time, and even if it were the case, there is pretty much nothing to learn from computers in terms of "how to think" as a human</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T18:16:58.377Z
Answers.Text: Are you sure that there is no, when losing the queen, some extremely good strategy to win over even good average players?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grešnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T18:54:17.457Z
Answers.Text: @David: Why do you think the points system is wrong? After all that's what computers use (and very successfully...).
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T21:46:18.767Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 I don't think that's a valid argument, as most techniques used by computers are of no value to human players, why should the pointing system be any different? Also, the way computers evaluate positions is way more complicated than just the points. On the other hand, stating "knight and bishop are equal" or "two rooks equal a queen and a pawn" is meaningless outside of its context. As an example, RR+5P vs Q+7P is a very different type of material unbalance than, let's say, RN+5P vs RN+6P. Considering them somewhat equivalent is confusing and of no practical value
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T21:48:46.663Z
Answers.Text: @Grešnik If it's a full queen, with no compensation, not even the strongest supercomputer in the world would beat an average club player. There are some tips for playing those positions (mainly, attack the enemy king and don't trade pieces), but with such big on an unbalance, any decent player can get a win. It's a different story, though, if the queenless player has other material in exchange (like two bishops for instance) when the game can still get complicated
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T21:51:52.217Z
Answers.Text: Fully agree (also see my answer). I was merely objecting to the blunt statement you gave ("wrong ..").
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T08:55:26.187Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 OK, I kind of found it weird that you put that comment and then basically agreed with me in your answer. The issue may be word choice (useless rather than wrong) although, if it were right, wouldn't it also be useful after all? Anyway, who cares about that detail
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:01:50.163Z
Answers.Text: I think for inexperienced players, the framework of a points system (pawn = 1, knight / bishop = 3, rook = 5, queen = 9) is a helpful tool. For someone of the OP's indicated level of chess knowledge, asking 'how much is the queen worth' is, in my opinion, best answered with that system. This can be seen in @user1583209's answer where he indicates that even a +/- 3 points is disastrous at a reasonable player level.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:08:25.170Z
Answers.Text: @Grade'Eh'Bacon Except sometimes it isn't. And sometimes a -1 position is completely hopeless. And the bishop pair is often stronger than bishop-knighit. And three minor pices are often stronger than a queen. And a rook vs a minor piece +2 pawns can be a winning advantage in some endgames and losing in others. And queen+knight is often as strong as queen+rook. The list goes on forever. That's why I don't recommend beginners to learn the "points system", because once they learn it, it will be very difficult to eventually un-learn it (and they will at some point have to!)
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:12:14.050Z
Answers.Text: @David Don't you think there's value in having a player understand "don't give up a rook for a knight without compensation?" The starting point for that discussion is... the points the pieces start as.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:15:21.060Z
Answers.Text: "Some folks will come with a "points system", well, that's just plain wrong."  given that the points say a queen is worth 9; bishop/knight 3; rook 5;  you get:  2 rooks a little more powerful; a rook + bishop/knight a little less; 2 bishops/knights a fair bit less; 3 bishops/knights about the same.    Of course - neither comment takes into account that a rook that's pinned behind a king and pawns is worthless.   Points seem to get the same result as your comment.
Answers.UserDisplayName: UKMonkey
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:17:14.463Z
Answers.Text: @UKMonkey Three minor pieces are almost always stronger than a queen. Also, the winning chances of two rooks against a queen are way bigger than that of a queen against rook-bishop
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:21:33.377Z
Answers.Text: @David somewhat depends on the state of the game.  remove all the pawns and then see how the 3 pieces survive when the king is constantly in check; or as I said - when a single rook is trapped.  The points system is a guide; and reading it as a rule is folly
Answers.UserDisplayName: UKMonkey
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:30:32.587Z
Answers.Text: @UKMonkey But you hardly ever reach a queen vs three piees position in an empty board. The pieces give you a good chance of attacking as well as pushing passed pawns. Even on the empty board, the queen has no chance of winning. If you want a point system that somehow serves as a reference, it should contemplate this fact: the pieces are stronger. Are there exceptions? Of course! Just as sometimes a knight is better than a rook. But if any general rule about piece value is entertained, it should "contain" the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen. Some even say queen are worth 10!
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:46:34.687Z
Answers.Text: "the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen" but that's the point you're missing.  It's not a fact - even though you keep claiming it to be.  It's a situational point where they MAY be stronger - but they can easily be weaker.
Answers.UserDisplayName: UKMonkey
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:51:18.317Z
Answers.Text: @UKMonkey My logic is very simple: 1: Let's assume it is possible to assign numbers to piece strength. 2: Then that point system should be aware of the "power relationships" that often occur in chess games. 3: This power unbalance between 3 pieces and a queen is not reflected. 4: A different (or none) scoring system is needed. You argue that step 3 is flawed because there is not such unbalance, but then my question is: Why does the point system then insist that rooks are stronger than knights or bishops? Sometimes they are not! It's also situation-dependent
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T14:58:54.077Z
Answers.Text: @David - what you're doing is tearing down a strawman.  Re-read my comments and you'll answer your question.   Hint:  "reading it as a rule is folly"
Answers.UserDisplayName: UKMonkey
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T15:02:45.507Z
Answers.Text: OK. You have your thoughts. I have mine. We talk different languages. I see no point in discussing this any further. I'll let the potential reader judge himself
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-27T16:57:22.433Z
Answers.Text: @David: Pieces which are well-placed are worth more than pieces which are undeveloped but have reasonable prospects, which are in turn worth more than pieces which will be trapped for the foreseeable future.  One can assign scores to pieces whose placement is neither great nor horrible, with the caveat that such scores may not be applicable to pieces whose placement is better or worse.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-25T18:05:51.730Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-06-26T15:33:10.373Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-06-26T15:33:10.373Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.Body: <p>Play the board, not the pieces. Chess is more than just a game of material advantage--much like war. This is why piece sacrifices exist.</p>
  
  <p>Take for example the following game:</p>
  
  <pre>
  <code>
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Fabiano Caruana (2823)"]
  [Black "Hikaru Nakamura (2779)"]
  
      1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 { Caruana had not expected Nakamura to play the Najdorf. } 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 h6 8. Bh4 Qb6 9. a3 { Note b2 is a poisoned pawn and trap for black queen. } 9... Be7 (9... Qxb2 10. Na4) 10. Bf2 10... Qc7 11. Qf3 Nbd7 12. O-O-O b5 13. g4 { Notice either push of pawns is easily met with resistance from end pawns. } 13... g5 { Push of g pawn threatens f pawn with potential setup for knight on e5 (see variation). } 14. h4 (14. fxg5 Ne5) 14... gxf4 15. Be2 b4 { Interesting sacrifice of b pawn. } 16. axb4 Ne5 17. Qxf4 Nexg4 { A second sacrifice for black to that will do well for him. } 18. Bxg4 e5 { With this fork, three of white's pieces are threatened. } 19. Qxf6 Bxf6 20. Nd5 Qd8 { More precise is knight to c6 (see variation). } 21. Nf5 (21. Nc6) 21... Rb8 { Nakamura spent 35 minutes analyzing the position and decided on Rb8, preventing white's threat of Bb6. } 22. Nxf6+ Qxf6 23. Rxd6 Be6 24. Rhd1 O-O 25. h5 { White prepares for Bh4. } 25... Qg5+ { In an effort to stall/prevent Bh4. } 26. Be3 Qf6 27. Nxh6+ Kh8 { As we will see, white will play Nxf7, but could have played it now. } 28. Bf5 Qe7 29. b5 Qe8 30. Nxf7+ Rxf7 31. Rxe6 Qxb5 32. Rh6+ { 1-0 Black resigns. } { Possible continuation: } 32... Kg8 33. Rg1+ Kf8 34. Rh8+ Ke7 35. Rxb8 Qxb8 36. Bc5+ Kd8 37. Rg8+ Kc7 38. Bd6+ Kxd6 39. Rxb8 { White is now up a bishop and two pawns. } 1-0
  </code>
  </pre>
  
  <p>Caruana sac'ed his queen and gained so much space, position, and tempo versus black's side.</p>
  
  <p>Also this game:</p>
  
  <pre>
  <code>
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov"]
  [Black "Oleg L Chernikov"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [Termination "Normal"]
  [ECO "B35"]
  [Opening "Sicilian Defense: Accelerated Dragon, Modern Bc4 Variation"]
  
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qxf6 Ne2+ 13. Nxe2 exf6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nxf6 Be2 22. Nxh7+ Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28. Bxf7+ Rxf7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Nxf7+ Kh7 31. Nxd8 Rxe4 32. Nc6 Rxf4+ 33. Ke2 { 1-0 Black resigns. } 1-0
  
  </code>
  </pre>
  
  <p>Through shear inundation of threat after threat, Nezhmetdinov creates a formidable attack even apart from his queen.</p>
  
  <p>Chess cannot be simplified to just piece/material advantage. There are more elements at play.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T20:47:10.813Z
Answers.Text: Two very nice games. However I am not sure they are relevant to OP's question. As far as I understand it is about accidentally losing a queen and still fighting back. I am sure, that in both of the games you mention the white players were sacrificing/sacking their queen on purpose.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T21:56:23.257Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 Yes, then I didn´t sacrifice the queen, I just lost her and won after that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grešnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T17:21:47.393Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-06-26T17:21:47.393Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PenumbraBrah
Answers.Body: <p>I played a game recently where I lost my queen for a knight early on with no other obvious compensation or counterplay.  I almost resigned, but decided to play on for a few moves to see if I could get anything, and ended up winning.</p>
  
  <p>The approach I used was to try and keep pieces on the board, as mentioned in another answer, as any simplification is usually bad if you're down material.  Other strategies I used were - to keep attacking their queen; and generally favouring development, coordination, disruption of their position, and piece activity, over material (e.g. not capturing the dark square bishop in the game - link below).</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://lichess.org/zlVS5Nhj" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://lichess.org/zlVS5Nhj</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T17:06:09.990Z
Answers.Text: Note - starting from move 24 there were many points where my opponent could have traded their queen for my rook and simplified into a winning endgame, so it's possible that they were also allowing me to keep material partly out of curiosity or something.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Gus Hogg-Blake
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T17:01:40.703Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-06-26T18:09:10.510Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-06-26T18:09:10.510Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Gus Hogg-Blake
Body: <p>Many years ago, I was on a mountain with some people. I was very young then, between 15 and 17 years old, I think. Some older people came and one of them started to play chess with me.</p>
  
  <p>I cannot recall all the details, but at one moment in the game he captured my queen and I continued to play without it. Besides being without queen, he might have had 1 or 2 of my pawns and a bishop. I also had 1 or 2 his pawns, along with 1 or 2 of his bishops.</p>
  
  <p>Then I started to play very smartly, and, somehow, I manged to capture his queen with a trap made by using rooks and knights. I won the game after that.</p>
  
  <p>Obviously, this is not a question about the particular game I played on the mountain. It is more about, if someone loses his queen at the beginning of the game, what are the tactics to trap and capture the other player's queen?</p>
  
  <p>And also, what is the actual strength of a queen? For example, is it generally better to be without queen or without two knights and a rook but with a queen?</p>
  
  <p>I would like to know more about tactics when some player lost some important pieces, but played so well that he won the game. Are there any tricks that can be used here? I am also interested in such a game in which one player loses their queen, but the other one still has theirs.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T12:13:52.130Z
Comments.Text: You can refer to [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/24759/10983) and its comments and answers. I think they give a good winning strategy for someone who has apparently lost his queen at the beginning. And note that this is just a special case.
Comments.UserDisplayName: polfosol
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T12:32:07.190Z
Comments.Text: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1611/how-to-recover-from-a-blunder/1657#1657 If you lose your queen due to a blunder, you can try baiting your opponent into more "free" pieces in exchange for a victory.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pimgd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T15:15:54.177Z
Comments.Text: If you first lost your queen by accident and then trapped his, then neither of you were very skilled.  This mean that theory is not relevant anymore.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-06-26T19:42:53.907Z
Comments.Text: "It is more about, if someone loses his queen at the beginning of the game, what are the tactics to trap and capture the other player's queen?" Pretty much the same as if you haven't lost your queen.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Acccumulation
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-06-28T05:14:17.090Z
Comments.Text: Questions like this suggest this SE is operating against the usual paradigm of attracting experts or even just average users: beginner level 1 ask a really LQ question, but beginner levels 2-3 lap it on. It is just ridiculous when a question like this is one of the "better" ones in months. I called it first: Chess Baby Steps and Trivia.SE
Comments.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-04T13:48:26.373Z
Comments.Text: @prusswan ["Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess."](/tour) Enthusiasts can certainly have very basic questions. I don't really see the problem? It got much votes because of being a Hot Network Question - that is a network problem (if it is a problem at all), not a Chess.SE problem.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-05T04:43:26.403Z
Comments.Text: It is a problem when the votes here mean next to nothing and content that serious players would want nothing to do with gets promoted. Minus the reputation system this is just a crippled forum
Comments.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Tags: <tactics><queens>
Title: Losing the queen and then winning the game
ThreadText: # Losing the queen and then winning the game
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-25)
  
  Many years ago, I was on a mountain with some people. I was very young then, between 15 and 17 years old, I think. Some older people came and one of them started to play chess with me.
  
  I cannot recall all the details, but at one moment in the game he captured my queen and I continued to play without it. Besides being without queen, he might have had 1 or 2 of my pawns and a bishop. I also had 1 or 2 his pawns, along with 1 or 2 of his bishops.
  
  Then I started to play very smartly, and, somehow, I manged to capture his queen with a trap made by using rooks and knights. I won the game after that.
  
  Obviously, this is not a question about the particular game I played on the mountain. It is more about, if someone loses his queen at the beginning of the game, what are the tactics to trap and capture the other player's queen?
  
  And also, what is the actual strength of a queen? For example, is it generally better to be without queen or without two knights and a rook but with a queen?
  
  I would like to know more about tactics when some player lost some important pieces, but played so well that he won the game. Are there any tricks that can be used here? I am also interested in such a game in which one player loses their queen, but the other one still has theirs.
  
  **Tags:** tactics, queens
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: You can refer to [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/24759/10983) and its comments and answers. I think they give a good winning strategy for someone who has apparently lost his queen at the beginning. And note that this is just a special case.  
  > **username_2**: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1611/how-to-recover-from-a-blunder/1657#1657 If you lose your queen due to a blunder, you can try baiting your opponent into more "free" pieces in exchange for a victory.  
  > **username_3**: If you first lost your queen by accident and then trapped his, then neither of you were very skilled.  This mean that theory is not relevant anymore.  
  > **username_4**: "It is more about, if someone loses his queen at the beginning of the game, what are the tactics to trap and capture the other player's queen?" Pretty much the same as if you haven't lost your queen.  
  > **username_5**: Questions like this suggest this SE is operating against the usual paradigm of attracting experts or even just average users: beginner level 1 ask a really LQ question, but beginner levels 2-3 lap it on. It is just ridiculous when a question like this is one of the "better" ones in months. I called it first: Chess Baby Steps and Trivia.SE  
  > **username_6**: @username_5 ["Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess."](/tour) Enthusiasts can certainly have very basic questions. I don't really see the problem? It got much votes because of being a Hot Network Question - that is a network problem (if it is a problem at all), not a Chess.SE problem.  
  > **username_5**: It is a problem when the votes here mean next to nothing and content that serious players would want nothing to do with gets promoted. Minus the reputation system this is just a crippled forum  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2019-06-25. Score: 20
  
  Losing a queen early on without any compensation or counterplay means almost certain defeat against anybody except for absolute beginners.
  
  There is a certain "point system" which can be used to evaluate a position:
  
  Basically you assign points to certain aspects of the position, like *material*, *piece activity*, *king safety*, *space advantage*, etc. Adding all those points (with weights depending on the aspects), you come up with a final number, for instance -2. The sign (-) means black is better and the number 2 means that all other things being equal, black could be up by 2 pawns. Of course it could also mean that material is equal and black has much more active pieces, etc.
  
  Just for the material aspect the points assigned to the pieces is usually pawn: 1, knight/bishop: 3, rook: 5, queen: 9 (see [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value) for details) or thereabout.
  
  While this point system is used by computers, for practical play it is not really relevant. I don't know any decent player who would start adding numbers to assess a position.
  
  Still you can use it to answer your question...
  
  Looking at games of top players, within an evaluation of roughly -1 to + 1, i.e. at most a pawn up (all other things being equal), the game usually ends in a draw.
  
  Around +-2, the game would usually be lost/won at GM/IM level, though people might still fight for a while depending on the position.
  
  Around +-3, good players would typically resign immediately.
  
  Of course there are exceptions to this rule and particularly in very tactical/wild positions with open kings and attacking potentials, there could be chances for the losing side.
  
  Still it could give you an idea of what losing a queen (value 9) means...
  
  ---
  
  > I would like to know more about tactics when some player lost some important pieces, but played so well that he won the game. Are there any tricks that can be used here? I
  
  The word you mean is "strategy" not "tactics". As outlined above, most people would resign in a situation like you describe. Still, if you think your opponent is weak enough to continue fighting there are a few things you can do to increase your chances:
  
  * keep many pieces on the board (don't exchange pieces): this increases the potential for tactics
  * keep the position complicated: typically this means open positions with lots of piece activity
  * start a direct attack on the enemy king
  * if time is limited try to force your opponent getting low on time, e.g. by moving quickly, doing unusual moves, etc.
  * play for tricks/tactics (you really should never do this in chess because it is not how you play chess beyond a certain level...)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: " I don't know any decent player who would start adding numbers to assess a position." Not even as a starting point? If you start watching a game mid-way through, you don't even count which pieces one player has over the other? Sure you may not literally add up all pieces on the board, but wouldn't you say "up a rook [5] vs a knight and a pawn [4] means the player up a rook is sliiightly ahead on material, now let's look at the position to investigate further"?  
  > **username_7**: @username_8'Eh'username_8: I don't mean the material points,  but points given for other aspects. For instance a computer engine might assign points for "piece activity" by summing the number of possible moves.  In principle you could do exactly the same as a human and implement a computer (alpha-beta) algorithm when playing chess as a human. I don't think that is feasible as a human and that's why humans only assess the material aspect by points (or similar) and use intuition/experience for other aspects.  
  > **username_8**: Ah, point taken [pun]. My mistake.  
  > **username_9**: @username_8'Eh'username_8 Actually, I wouldn't even make the 5vs4 comparison! Also, a material advantage the size of a pawn would be a huge advantage rather than a "sliiiight" one  
  > **username_8**: @username_9 If a 1 point material advantage is significant, then surely counting pieces is a valuable starting point for analyzing board position, right?  
  > **username_9**: @username_8'Eh'username_8 But not all "1 point advantages" are the same as a pawn advantage. For example, R+8 pawns vs 2 bishops + 6pawns is better for the bishops in most situations  
  > **username_8**: @username_9 I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters in board analysis. Just that it is a "valuable starting point". Novice players who trade rooks for bishops can improve their game simply by saying a rook is 5 and a bishop is 3. I never said all 1 point advantages are the same, just that a material advantage quickly becomes significant.  
  > **username_0**: @username_7 Nice and detailed answer. But it seems that, generally, it is better to be without 8 pawns than without a queen, by that simple system of assigning points to figures, why the system is not changed to be a better system, is it really better, for example, to start a game without 8 pawns than without a queen?  
  > **username_8**: @username_0 That's a very extreme example - the more extreme these comparisons are, the more other factors come into play. To start the game with 0 pawns means minimal king safety, and king safety, like material, has a value. Normally these comparisons help when there are only a couple of pieces difference, not a 9-piece imbalance. This is all mentioned in the answer here.  
  > **username_0**: @username_8'Eh'username_8 It is really a very extreme example, but, we can ask a question: "If two players, equally good, start a game, one without a queen, and the other without 8 pawns, who is, generally, in advantage?" I could ask that question here also, but I think it could be closed.  
  > **username_10**: @username_0 The problem with that is that starting without pawns does at least as much to position (both positive - you can get your pieces out there more quickly - and negative - you're in a much less defensible position) as it does to material.  
  > **username_7**: @username_0 This discussion reminds me about people saying that Newton's gravity is wrong, because there is a better theory (General Relativity). However you can still calculate plenty of things to very decent precision with Newton's law, and the calculations tend to be easier for simple systems. Similarly in chess, no doubt that material plays a very important role in chess and IMO focusing on material for a beginner player (as a first approximation) is perfectly fine and will probably do in more than 50% of beginner level games.  
  > **username_11**: When analyzing a position, material imbalance is the first thing I look at. Saying "Black is up a bishop" is no different than saying, "Black is up 3 points". At that instant, I suspect black will win. Then the board can be examined to see if white has compensation.  
  > **username_9**: If you are going to use a "numer-of-points-advatage system", I would and that the boundary of "where a position is lost" decreases as the game progresses. A +2 advantage can be sometimes fought back in the early middlegame (think 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2) with piece activity and attack. However, unless there is an immediate tactical combination, you will lose all of your -2 piece endgames (I am talking here -2 as in "two pawns", not any of its "equivalences")  
  > **username_12**: @username_9 "However, unless there is an immediate tactical combination, you will lose all of your -2 piece endgames" - Certainly not *all* of them. I once posted here a game with rook and 2 pawns vs rook (with one of the pawns on the 7th and my rook behind it) that was a theoretical draw. Games with opposite-colored bishops are sometimes theoretical draws in spite of one side having an extra 2 pawns. Etc.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2019-06-25. Score: 7
  
  Unless there is a clear chance for counterplay, losing your queen means losing the game. You won that game because your opponent was a very bad player.
  
  With regards to the strength of the queen, there is no definite answer, as every position is different. However, as a general guideline:
  
  * Two rooks are slightly more powerful than a queen.
  * A rook and a minor piece(bishop/knight) is slightly weaker than a queen.
  * Two minor pieces vs a queen often means a lost position.
  * Three minor pieces are also slightly stronger than a queen
  
  Some folks will come with a "points system", well, that's just plain wrong.
  
  Finally, queens are a very bad piece at blocking enemy advancing pawns, so that may be a source of counterplay in "otherwise worse" positions.
  
  **NOTE** Since my statement about the pointing system was received with controversy in the comments, let me elaborate a bit further (even though this is beyond the scope of the original question, it's still related and interesting):
  
  * Any scoring system you can think of will always be inaccurate, because we cannot define a [total order relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order) in the "set of piece tandems" that actually models the "is more likely to be stronger than" relation. Even if we could, it wouldn't work well with addition/subtraction (R+6P - N+8P is more likely a rook-side win, but R vs N+2P is more likely to be a knight-side win)
  * Piece strength can vary a lot from one position to another, so, even if it were possible to define such scoring system, it would overlook a lot of exceptions and, more importantly, it would give us no criterion about when those exceptions happen.
  * Finally, a "one-point advantage" grows in importance as the game gets simplified, so we don't get a good reference either about how well/badly the game is going for us (even if we only care about material)
  
  For those reasons, I think every score-system is wrong (not even entering the discussion of which one would be right, since different people have had different opinions). But all of that does not really matter that much, even if we ignore 1 and 3, the second issue would still be there, and it's quite an important one! It you learn to think in terms of a scoring system, you will eventually have to un-learn all of that and, from my own experience, I can tell you that's really hard! The main problem is therefore that the scoring system is not useful in practice! It does not provide any help in your game and it makes progress more difficult.
  
  @username_7 pointed out that computers use the points system quite succesfully. Well, that's simply not the full story! Computer position evaluation has worked very differently for a long time, and even if it were the case, there is pretty much nothing to learn from computers in terms of "how to think" as a human
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Are you sure that there is no, when losing the queen, some extremely good strategy to win over even good average players?  
  > **username_7**: @username_9: Why do you think the points system is wrong? After all that's what computers use (and very successfully...).  
  > **username_9**: @username_7 I don't think that's a valid argument, as most techniques used by computers are of no value to human players, why should the pointing system be any different? Also, the way computers evaluate positions is way more complicated than just the points. On the other hand, stating "knight and bishop are equal" or "two rooks equal a queen and a pawn" is meaningless outside of its context. As an example, RR+5P vs Q+7P is a very different type of material unbalance than, let's say, RN+5P vs RN+6P. Considering them somewhat equivalent is confusing and of no practical value  
  > **username_9**: @username_0 If it's a full queen, with no compensation, not even the strongest supercomputer in the world would beat an average club player. There are some tips for playing those positions (mainly, attack the enemy king and don't trade pieces), but with such big on an unbalance, any decent player can get a win. It's a different story, though, if the queenless player has other material in exchange (like two bishops for instance) when the game can still get complicated  
  > **username_7**: Fully agree (also see my answer). I was merely objecting to the blunt statement you gave ("wrong ..").  
  > **username_9**: @username_7 OK, I kind of found it weird that you put that comment and then basically agreed with me in your answer. The issue may be word choice (useless rather than wrong) although, if it were right, wouldn't it also be useful after all? Anyway, who cares about that detail  
  > **username_8**: I think for inexperienced players, the framework of a points system (pawn = 1, knight / bishop = 3, rook = 5, queen = 9) is a helpful tool. For someone of the OP's indicated level of chess knowledge, asking 'how much is the queen worth' is, in my opinion, best answered with that system. This can be seen in @username_7's answer where he indicates that even a +/- 3 points is disastrous at a reasonable player level.  
  > **username_9**: @username_8'Eh'username_8 Except sometimes it isn't. And sometimes a -1 position is completely hopeless. And the bishop pair is often stronger than bishop-knighit. And three minor pices are often stronger than a queen. And a rook vs a minor piece +2 pawns can be a winning advantage in some endgames and losing in others. And queen+knight is often as strong as queen+rook. The list goes on forever. That's why I don't recommend beginners to learn the "points system", because once they learn it, it will be very difficult to eventually un-learn it (and they will at some point have to!)  
  > **username_8**: @username_9 Don't you think there's value in having a player understand "don't give up a rook for a knight without compensation?" The starting point for that discussion is... the points the pieces start as.  
  > **username_13**: "Some folks will come with a "points system", well, that's just plain wrong."  given that the points say a queen is worth 9; bishop/knight 3; rook 5;  you get:  2 rooks a little more powerful; a rook + bishop/knight a little less; 2 bishops/knights a fair bit less; 3 bishops/knights about the same.    Of course - neither comment takes into account that a rook that's pinned behind a king and pawns is worthless.   Points seem to get the same result as your comment.  
  > **username_9**: @username_13 Three minor pieces are almost always stronger than a queen. Also, the winning chances of two rooks against a queen are way bigger than that of a queen against rook-bishop  
  > **username_13**: @username_9 somewhat depends on the state of the game.  remove all the pawns and then see how the 3 pieces survive when the king is constantly in check; or as I said - when a single rook is trapped.  The points system is a guide; and reading it as a rule is folly  
  > **username_9**: @username_13 But you hardly ever reach a queen vs three piees position in an empty board. The pieces give you a good chance of attacking as well as pushing passed pawns. Even on the empty board, the queen has no chance of winning. If you want a point system that somehow serves as a reference, it should contemplate this fact: the pieces are stronger. Are there exceptions? Of course! Just as sometimes a knight is better than a rook. But if any general rule about piece value is entertained, it should "contain" the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen. Some even say queen are worth 10!  
  > **username_13**: "the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen" but that's the point you're missing.  It's not a fact - even though you keep claiming it to be.  It's a situational point where they MAY be stronger - but they can easily be weaker.  
  > **username_9**: @username_13 My logic is very simple: 1: Let's assume it is possible to assign numbers to piece strength. 2: Then that point system should be aware of the "power relationships" that often occur in chess games. 3: This power unbalance between 3 pieces and a queen is not reflected. 4: A different (or none) scoring system is needed. You argue that step 3 is flawed because there is not such unbalance, but then my question is: Why does the point system then insist that rooks are stronger than knights or bishops? Sometimes they are not! It's also situation-dependent  
  > **username_13**: @username_9 - what you're doing is tearing down a strawman.  Re-read my comments and you'll answer your question.   Hint:  "reading it as a rule is folly"  
  > **username_9**: OK. You have your thoughts. I have mine. We talk different languages. I see no point in discussing this any further. I'll let the potential reader judge himself  
  > **username_14**: @username_9: Pieces which are well-placed are worth more than pieces which are undeveloped but have reasonable prospects, which are in turn worth more than pieces which will be trapped for the foreseeable future.  One can assign scores to pieces whose placement is neither great nor horrible, with the caveat that such scores may not be applicable to pieces whose placement is better or worse.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2019-06-26. Score: 7
  
  Play the board, not the pieces. Chess is more than just a game of material advantage--much like war. This is why piece sacrifices exist.
  
  Take for example the following game:
  
  ```
  
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Fabiano Caruana (2823)"]
  [Black "Hikaru Nakamura (2779)"]
  
      1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 { Caruana had not expected Nakamura to play the Najdorf. } 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 h6 8. Bh4 Qb6 9. a3 { Note b2 is a poisoned pawn and trap for black queen. } 9... Be7 (9... Qxb2 10. Na4) 10. Bf2 10... Qc7 11. Qf3 Nbd7 12. O-O-O b5 13. g4 { Notice either push of pawns is easily met with resistance from end pawns. } 13... g5 { Push of g pawn threatens f pawn with potential setup for knight on e5 (see variation). } 14. h4 (14. fxg5 Ne5) 14... gxf4 15. Be2 b4 { Interesting sacrifice of b pawn. } 16. axb4 Ne5 17. Qxf4 Nexg4 { A second sacrifice for black to that will do well for him. } 18. Bxg4 e5 { With this fork, three of white's pieces are threatened. } 19. Qxf6 Bxf6 20. Nd5 Qd8 { More precise is knight to c6 (see variation). } 21. Nf5 (21. Nc6) 21... Rb8 { Nakamura spent 35 minutes analyzing the position and decided on Rb8, preventing white's threat of Bb6. } 22. Nxf6+ Qxf6 23. Rxd6 Be6 24. Rhd1 O-O 25. h5 { White prepares for Bh4. } 25... Qg5+ { In an effort to stall/prevent Bh4. } 26. Be3 Qf6 27. Nxh6+ Kh8 { As we will see, white will play Nxf7, but could have played it now. } 28. Bf5 Qe7 29. b5 Qe8 30. Nxf7+ Rxf7 31. Rxe6 Qxb5 32. Rh6+ { 1-0 Black resigns. } { Possible continuation: } 32... Kg8 33. Rg1+ Kf8 34. Rh8+ Ke7 35. Rxb8 Qxb8 36. Bc5+ Kd8 37. Rg8+ Kc7 38. Bd6+ Kxd6 39. Rxb8 { White is now up a bishop and two pawns. } 1-0
  
  ```
  
  Caruana sac'ed his queen and gained so much space, position, and tempo versus black's side.
  
  Also this game:
  
  ```
  
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov"]
  [Black "Oleg L Chernikov"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [Termination "Normal"]
  [ECO "B35"]
  [Opening "Sicilian Defense: Accelerated Dragon, Modern Bc4 Variation"]
  
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qxf6 Ne2+ 13. Nxe2 exf6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nxf6 Be2 22. Nxh7+ Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28. Bxf7+ Rxf7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Nxf7+ Kh7 31. Nxd8 Rxe4 32. Nc6 Rxf4+ 33. Ke2 { 1-0 Black resigns. } 1-0
  
  ```
  
  Through shear inundation of threat after threat, Nezhmetdinov creates a formidable attack even apart from his queen.
  
  Chess cannot be simplified to just piece/material advantage. There are more elements at play.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: Two very nice games. However I am not sure they are relevant to OP's question. As far as I understand it is about accidentally losing a queen and still fighting back. I am sure, that in both of the games you mention the white players were sacrificing/sacking their queen on purpose.  
  > **username_0**: @username_7 Yes, then I didn´t sacrifice the queen, I just lost her and won after that.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_16 on 2019-06-26. Score: 4
  
  I played a game recently where I lost my queen for a knight early on with no other obvious compensation or counterplay. I almost resigned, but decided to play on for a few moves to see if I could get anything, and ended up winning.
  
  The approach I used was to try and keep pieces on the board, as mentioned in another answer, as any simplification is usually bad if you're down material. Other strategies I used were - to keep attacking their queen; and generally favouring development, coordination, disruption of their position, and piece activity, over material (e.g. not capturing the dark square bishop in the game - link below).
  
  <https://lichess.org/zlVS5Nhj>
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_16**: Note - starting from move 24 there were many points where my opponent could have traded their queen for my rook and simplified into a winning endgame, so it's possible that they were also allowing me to keep material partly out of curiosity or something.  
  
  ---
  
  