My 1st win EVER without a queen!!

I am making this a big deal for me because as a beginner, we amateurs usually freak out without playing a queen.

I realized I had the rook pair as compensation, so that is why I played on.

Now I will admit something, I would've resigned. But because I know how to use the imbalances, I was safe this time.

If you "freak out" when you lose you queen, lose your queen more often( logically trade); through experience you will get better. And I will not lie: checkmates are so much more elegant when you don't use queens. But good job!

If you want a challenge, try the bishope's mate! If you want an ever greater challenge, try practicing a knight and bishop mate.

I did think things through a little bit. But I am saying this for most or all amatures. If we all know how to read the board, and use the imbalances to our advantage, then we all won't be as lost as we could've been.

If you're a beginner, how do you have such a rating?

Checker99 two rooks are actually sometimes better than a queen

Yeah, you seem to be a bit misinformed, Checker. You actually won 2 rooks for a queen. :)

30...Ne5 would have won for black, not because of the queen, but because of the passed pawn e4.
RR > Q
QP > RR

This win is.....good as my quuen is doing nothing on c2 rather then threaten mate on h2

It's nothing