Is moving twice (in each turn) a bigger advantage than having an extra queen?

Just a random thought while talking about "odds games" with my friend. My friend thinks he can beat me with queen odds, but he can't beat me with double move odds. Is double move really that big of an advantage? Consider the following situation:
White starts the game without the queen, but can move twice in a row every move. Black has the standard set up and moves normally (only once). Whoever captures the king wins. Assume perfect play, is white winning?

The player moving twice will have a huge advantage. Imagine the possibilities. Every piece has a huge range when moving twice and the other player will lose its queen in no time

@plymouthargyle said in #1:
> Just a random thought while talking about "odds games" with my friend. My friend thinks he can beat me with queen odds, but he can't beat me with double move odds. Is double move really that big of an advantage? Consider the following situation:
> White starts the game without the queen, but can move twice in a row every move. Black has the standard set up and moves normally (only once). Whoever captures the king wins. Assume perfect play, is white winning?

It is definitely an advantage for the person who can move twice in 1 move.

For sure bigger than queen odds

theres so many unstoppable mate in 1s that can happen.

not to mention all the times you can get a free fork, even a free piece, and if you check the other king on the first part of your move, are you allowed to capture it and instantly win on the second part of your move?

I also think, yes, moving twice in a row would be a huge advantage.
However, this is such a big change! Opening theory, tactics, some positional aspects, endgame knowledge - everything would have to be developped newly.
Not before this will have happened, you can get a sound answer.

I'll take moving twice over a queen all day every day.

In fact, the advantage of moving twice per turn is so large that some people consider this variant to be more or less fair for both sides: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_chess. That's double move versus a queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and four pawns.

Let's assume this position--

lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/4N3/8/4P3/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKBNR_w_KQkq_-_0_1

White To Play, two moves at a time. Now white wins the black queen and eventually the game, by playing, 1. Bc4 and simultaneously 1. Nxf7, trapping the queen.

Or if you want to capture the king, then 1. Bc4 and 1.Bxf7 traps the king and wins it.

So, the advantage goes to White, who has the possibility of playing two moves at a time.

@MessyAnswer said in #8:
> In fact, the advantage of moving twice per turn is so large that some people consider this variant to be more or less fair for both sides: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_chess. That's double move versus a queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and four pawns.

Wow, I didn't know Monster- Chess.

It's so strange to me that you'd ask the opinion of strangers rather than try it and find out for yourself.

What would make you more certain a bunch of strangers guessing, or doing an experiment and finding out the answer?