Is trading queens worth it at all?

Maybe it’s worth it in the endgame or something but what about really early on or something like that? Is it even worth it at all?

The basic explanation is queens represent dynamic play.

If your advantages are dynamic (like development, an attack, an initiative, or their king is exposed) then it's usually better to avoid a queen trade.

If your advantages are static (like material, pawn structure, or they have a very bad minor piece) then it's usually better to trade queens.

Also, I remember a comment I saw on a video. It was a 1700 player showing his game vs a beginner. The 1700 player said he avoided a queen trade because his opponent was not a good player. One of the comments on the video was disgusted and said they wanted to learn how to play real chess, not making decisions based on their opponent's rating.

In some sense the comment was correct, but there's another aspect to queen trades (or any piece trades) that I didn't mention... and that's how quickly (or slowly) you're going through the stages of the game. The longer you draw out the game, the more chances you give your opponent to blunder. Objectively the position may be equal whether you trade or not, but sometimes people avoid the trade as a way of fighting longer and harder in the game.

Basically, if you are ahead in material, trade queens. As they are the most powerful pieces on the board, a small material edge can be converted into a winning advantage. Or in another case, maybe your minor pieces are very mobile while  your opponent's are sitting close to home or on their original squares. Then a queen exchange gives you a big plus in mobility. Or maybe the queen exchange prevents your opponent from castling and sticks his king in the middle of the board--go for it. Or maybe he's made several moves with his queen while you've made none. A queen trade can put you ahead in tempo; that is, he's made a bunch of moves that are now, basically, wasted. So getting rid of the queens puts you ahead in moves. Too often the beginning player holds on to his queen for dear life because he doesn't know how to work with the other pieces. But the queen is just one part of the battle.

Ask yourself:  "What type of advantage do i gain from this exchange?" 

If you dont know.  Then why did you exchange?

White has a few advantages, gets distracted with a passed pawn, offers to trade Queens, Black refuses, then things change and Black accepts the offer going on to win. Black is about 400 points higher rated 2500+

Alternate line is the game (f5 is my mistake)

look at the mess Black castle into

If you're in trouble, like Area 51, best to exchange.

In a few openings you can trade Queens early (they haven't moved) and the King has to capture on d-file (forfeiting casting). Not my cup of tea to have to do that usually.

Depends upon the position and if you are getting anything in return, tactically or positionally. But the best analogy I have heard though is this: Trading Queens is just like sitting out your two starting QB's at the beginning of the game. Doing so makes it harder to win.

It can't be bad for both players...

Can it be good for both?

If not, then it must usually be bad for someone.

trading queens is bad when you are attacking, and good when they are attacking

Chess is a zero sum game. If it's good for one player it's automatically bad for the other. The only other option is it's neutral (neither good nor bad for either).

You could come up with practical examples where it's good for both (players playing for a draw, players low on time, etc) but objectively it's only good for one or other other.

I know what you mean here, but, from a certain standpoint, it can:

Queens seem like they have to be traded, sooner or later.  Yet, if Black does it, it helps White's develoment. And if White does it, it helps black's...

This is what people get taught when they are beginners. When you're a beginner, it's usually right to trade queens when you're ahead, because it gives the opponent less chances to win back material tactically. Also, if you're 2+ pawns up, other endgames usually are easier than queen endgames anyway. In essence, this is a good tip for OP. 

However, when you get stronger, this rule really shouldn't be followed all that much. It all should depend on the position. If you're 2 pawns up and the opponent has a completely exposed king, while our king is safe, why in the world would we trade queens there and give up our attacking potential? If we're 1 pawn up and completely control the position, should we trade our queen and relinquish that pressure just because we're 1 pawn up? That does not make sense, as we'd give up the chance to win more pawns and win more easily. And there are also positions where a rook endgame would be very hard to win, while the queen endgame can be won. 

Chess is a beautiful game. There are almost no questions that can be answered with an answer that's always 100% true. It almost always depends. That's why chess is difficult. That's why chess is still worth playing even though there are superstrong computers around.

K thx