30 ( +1 | -1 ) Queen over 2 RooksWhat would you prefer to have, a queen or 2 rooks? I know that in value tearms a queen is 9 and the rooks are 10, but personally I would much rather have the single queen. Howevever is the answer to this dependant on the position and if so, what type of positions would suit one or the other?
103 ( +1 | -1 ) I'm rushing around a bit now, so I won't say (or figure out) what I think just yet.
But this is always a great place to start: -> mywebpages.comcast.net
"How about queen for two rooks? Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks, this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead."
72 ( +1 | -1 ) IMHO...I agree with the previous summary:
Endgame with few other pieces: Slightly favor 2 rooks. Middle game or earlier with a minor piece or more for the queen side: Favor the Queen.
A queen cannot by herself administer checkmate (unless the king has trapped himself). The queen needs help. Unless two or more pawns are in the vicinity of the opposing queen, the queen needs help from a minor piece to be a consistent threat.
However, with an empty board, the two rooks can coordinate their attacks against the other pawns or against the king.
I've been the victor and the victim of two rooks v queen, one of each situation. (If I recall correctly.)
29 ( +1 | -1 ) Actually ...there was a great GK thread on this a couple years back, with a big contibution by perhaps loreta? or duchess? Memory fades. But it is probably Googleable to those with high googleability. (hey, Bucklehead ... how's dem fer new words!! ?) :))
34 ( +1 | -1 ) If you think about it, a lone queen against two rooks is actually more dangerous for the queen than the rooks. The queen can more easily be lost to one of the rooks and following that, the game itself. I think it's mainly pawns on the board that tip the scales in favour of the queen. Without any pawns on the board, I'd favour two rooks.
55 ( +1 | -1 ) One interesting factor ...As dc_montana says, its all over if the Queen is lost. But there are chances for the Rook side to hold a draw even minus one of the Rooks! For eg. a Rook and two connected passed pawns vs a Queen cannot usually be won by the Queen. Sometimes even one pawn can be enough if it is advanced enough to be threatening, etc. But in the case of Rook and the two pawns, does not have to be advanced to draw fairly easily by cutting off the King of the stronger side, and keeping the Rook protected by the pawns ... and king if possible.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) Like all things...... it depends on the position. Suppose there were several pawns on each side, but only one side had a passed pawn. I'd probably go for the side with the passer, whoever had the queen or rooks. The side with the rooks can in some circumstances have a "fall-back" position whereby they can give up a rook to secure a book draw of this type: w In general, though, I'd probably prefer the queen's mobility in Q vs 2R endings.
47 ( +1 | -1 ) Another thing to keep in mind is not only the fact that more pawns favours the queen but that king safety (ie a weak pawn structure) also favours the queen. In many cases the side with the queen can throw in a couple of checks picking off one or even two pawns.
I also find it hard sometimes to watch my two rooks if they are unprotected as they are liable to check-check-fork tricks from the queen.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) queen vs 2 rooksI agree it depends on the position. Having minor pieces does not necesary favor the queen side. The question is whose minor pieces are better positioned. Does either side have weak pawns? How safe is the king? I think I prefer the rooks if the rook side does not have any serious pawn weaknesses and the king is relatively safe.
5 ( +1 | -1 ) Just be sure to keep the rooks connected!
12 ( +1 | -1 ) perhaps...a more interesting question would be. What is better 3 minor pieces(2 bishops and a knight for example) or a queen?
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Or even what about this position, white to move:
I almost reached this in a game with far1ey some time ago, but was a little too unsure of it.
15 ( +1 | -1 ) YepI started that subject a couple years ago, but a discussion wasn't very intensive :) Anyway, some statistics and examples were given.
106 ( +1 | -1 ) 3 minor pieces vs queen...... In general I'd much rather have the minor pieces. The queen turns out to be to clumsy a piece in combat against the combination. There are some lines in the King's Indian Defence; Saemisch Variation in which Black gives up a queen for 2 minor pieces plus 2 pawns and gets thereby a very active game (a Bronstein special), and Tal also came up with a similar kind of sac against (I think) Bobotsov. ganstaman's position is a very interesting one, and it may be that the respective pawn structures make all the difference. White has two compact pawn islands (give or take the advanced pawn on b6), and 7 pawns into the bargain. Black's 4 are more scattered, two of them are isolated. Nominally, White has the material edge (12 "points" against 11), but it's the tidier pawns that makes me fancy White's chances after say 1.Qe3 or 1.Qc3. However, rook, knight and bishop make a very mobile and flexible combination, so Black has plenty of play... Very hard to assess!