queen for queen theory

i honestly think that it is best to sacrafice your queen and your opponent does the same. why? because a, you just did a good trade, and b, because now, at least your opponent does not have her most powerful peice in the game to play! well, neither do you but.. HEY! the game will be much smoother now.

Do you honestly teach chess to people?  Have you ever been to a rated tournament?  If so, what organization rated it?

That's a theory?  I'll trade queens if I can get something else out of it.  Certainly not to deprive my opponent of their most powerful piece at the expense of my own, though.  That's just bizarre.

Yeah, but not uncommon to hear this kind of advice from beginners, at least I've heard it a lot from beginners before... which makes me wonder about the OP :p

Oh, yeah?  When I first learned the game, I would avoid trading queens even in situations when I should have.

I love the ladies.

 Oh, but is fun to exchange queens if you know that your opponent does not like to play without a queen.  That is usually true with many beginners.

As Crosspinner points out, some beginners imagine their opponent's like the queens on, so they try to trade them off.

Some beginners don't know many people they can beat, and imagine that if the queens are exchanged, they're not as likely to get attacked early.

Some beginners, like to bring the queen out early, mistaking power of mobility for power of captures.

You see... beginners have a lot of theories about the queen 

i'll trady queens in a heartbeat if i am playing someone much stronger than i am.  stronger players tend to pick me apart with their queen, so if i can get her off the board it at least seems to prolong my game.  naturally, i will avoid trades if my queen is considerably stronger than my opponents, but if all things are equal, i will gun for her.

just a beginner's advice, i suppose. 

 I was referring to knowing for a fact that my opponent did not like to play without a queen, and exchanging queens would put my opponent in a panic. I meant that usually it is only beginners that fears loosing their queens in an exchange, because to them they have lost all of their power.

Yes, beginners usually get drunk on the queen's power and charge into the battle early with no protection, A shameful way to treat a lady.

Trading queens in and of itself gets you nothing.  The material is equal.  Its only an improvement if the situation after the exchange is somehow better than it was before.  The OP sounds like he dislikes sharp tactics and just wants to take the teeth out of the position.  Unless there is positional advantage to be gained, or unless one is under a sharp attack and you need to blunt the enemy initiative, the trade he suggests is moving you closer to a draw, not a win.

i sometimes trade queens early in the game, when only the king can take my queen and then cant castle

 Which would be one of the positional advantages I spoke of.  You have kept the enemy king in the middle of the board, made it harder for him to unite his rooks, and it will likely cost him several tempi to get his king to safety, if he can do so at all.  The material remains equal, but the resulting situation is more to your advantage.  But one shouldn't trade just to trade queens, as the OP suggested.

 Not only should one not exchange queens just to exchange them, but that goes for every chessman.  Some players exchange pieces to clear the board because they don't like tight positions, but they forget that in doing so it also clears the board for the opponent, too.

I had a player tell me that he always exchanged pieces every time he had the opportunity. He did, too, and I took advantage of it.

When playing skittle games I like to toy around with wild exchanges and attacks, but in serious games each exchange I execute has a definite purpose to the best of my ability.

I am probably one of these "beginners" that orangehonda is so fond of referring to. Sometimes I trade queens just because I am in a mood to play without queens on the board. As long as the trade leaves me in at least an equally strong position as before the trade, I see nothing wrong with it. Some days, I just feel more relaxed with the queens out of the way.

I think that you shouldn't swap where you get nothing out of it. Get something, either piece-wise or positionally, out of the swap. 

I think it is good to play a few games where a player can just relax and see what comes of exchanging queens, and as far as I"m concerned, that includes players of all levels. It is a challenge for me, when playing relaxing games (skittle games), to play without the queens on the board. I play chess for the sheer joy of it, and that includes both serious games and skittle games. Hey, life is short, take advantage of some spontaneous lighthearted games of let's-see-what-happens-if.

 RDR75 wrote, "I am probably one of these "beginners" that orangehonda is so fond of referring to. Sometimes I trade queens just because I am in a mood to play without queens on the board. As long as the trade leaves me in at least an equally strong position as before the trade, I see nothing wrong with it. Some days, I just feel more relaxed with the queens out of the way."

I think we are talking about trades that are not sacrifices.

Good for you.

 I agree. Even in skittle games where I may move just to determine what my opponent might do, I still don't make an exchange just to play recklessly. It is just sometimes difficult to foresee what an opponent might do, especially beginners. Oh, no, there's that word again.

I'm teaching my wife to play chess, and it helps me determine her level of understanding by exchanging chessmen to watch what she does to retaliate. Even then I don't do it foolishly. When we analyze the game it would not be of  value for her if she thought I was moving foolishly. As a beginner I learned the  that some exchanges are better not to engage in. They may be sacrifices.

My estimate is that the OP is at least IM level.