user1105: 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. 

user5629: 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.

user8576: 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   

1105: <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>
 5629: <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>
 8576: <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>
