11208 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
In the end game phase, do you think it would be better to have 2 rooks or 1 queen, why? Please also clarify what your idea and perception of end game is, what it involves and which piece is best for this essential (and exciting) phase of chess.
In this post, let's say each side has king and few pawns, plus a knight. Would you rather have a queen or two rooks?
It depends on my pawns. Almost every endgame decision I make depends on if my pawns are safe and potentially dangerous. So I would likely take two rooks over a queen if my pawns will not disappear quickly.
If there is not too much traffic ie pawns blocking vital files and ranks, then I would choose two rooks over a queen if they can easily be connected.
I watched a friend of mine play an ending in which he had a Queen and his opponent had 2 Rooks and the observations I gained from these endings was thus:
The Queen can simultaneously operate on 2 diagonals and a file and a rank. In an open board she controls 27 squares. @ Rooks can only control a rank and file and if working in tandem, only command 13 squares, independently (that is say one on the 3rd rank and one on the 4th rank, their maximum influence is 26 squares.
In terms of strength overall, in an ending (let's assume one to two heavy units, Rook or Queen and pawns) there are some interesting ideas to remember. Since the Rooks operate only on lines and not diagonals, if a King has the cover of one or two pawns on the same color, then after a check if he maneuvers to the side of the pawn opposite the check, the Rook will need 2 moves to be in position to check again. This is why when you have a passed pawn duo and the King is connected, you can slowly advance the pawns if the the opposing King is a sufficient distance away from the pawns as well (the closer the King the more difficult it becomes) and usually win the Rook for a pawn.
With the Queen however, if the pawns are on the same color (g2 and f3 for example) then the dark squares can be expolited once the King goes to them. Likely if the opposing King is distant, there is drawing potential for both sidesbut again the closer the King is to the King that has the Rooks, the draws become smaller and smaller.
One way to limit the advantages of the 2 Rooks is to try to defend the rank or file behind the connected Rooks (or from the longer side of the board. as long as the King and Queen are not on the same line together, The Rook side has no chance of winning an exchange.
Conversely, say White has the 2 Rooks and one is defending while the other one is roaming around and Black with the Queen can only move the piece but has a mate threat. If the active Rook is gone, the game would stalemate or reach a 50 move draw. All White has to do is check the King on a square next to the King. The Rook cannot be taken or there is stalemate. If he gets in 50 checks, not only is there an annoying perpetual but the 3 fold or 50 move rules come into effect. Ergo, the 2 Rooks side can in some cases hold a draw against the Queen.
Honestly, if one has a good understanding of endgames and piece imbalances and plays well, he can draw with 2 Rooks pretty easily providing that e does not leave himself open to forks and skewer/x-ray attacks or diagonal pins.
This is a composition study and I will not go into the moves of it since I think the side with the Queen is on the move but it looks something like this:
Notice the King cannot go to the 1st rank or h-file without losing a Rook to check and as long as the side with the Queen checks on the 5x5 box inside the Rooks, he can draw. If a Rook is diverted, he might get something but at this point, Black should play for checks next to the King say on g3 then f3, e3, etc.
All in all, this is not an easy ending with pure pieces and likely even more difficult with pawns and minors, if say one side has 2R+B and the other Q+B, I would give the position an edge to the 2R because he has a piece doing something the Queen can do as well. The Q+B though has a piece that the Queen can do. Now if 2R+B v Q+N, edge should be to the Q+N since the Knight does what the Queen cannot. Any other combos (2R+B/2R+N v Q+N would be most likely draws with good or precise play.
Just my 2 cents on the idea.
Karsten Mueller Chess endgames 3 dvd has about 10 video clips on this subject. Both at times can have the advantage. With two rooks and king safety, also outposts for the rooks give the rooks more power.
With a lot of open targets for the queen and if the queen side has connected passed pawns they can be very dangerous and effective for the queen side.
Great insight into the post benonidoni. I would concur 100% in that.
It's better to have a job that pays 6 figures.
If there is a lot of traffic the queen is likely better. In an endgame (a few pawns and a couple of pieces) the rooks are almost always better
It depends on the position.
If the rooks can get to the king fast the rooks will win.
Showing a handful, or thousands, of examples does not contradict my general/true statement.
Depends on the position. Sometime a queen is better than 2 rooks. Sometime 2 rooks are better than a queen
Of course it depends on the position. We can construct positions where you would prefer a knight to a queen. Nonetheless, we would generally agree one would prefer the queen. We would not waste time talking about the exceptions.
I would think usually 2 rooks are better.
Q+K vs 2R+K. Cannot checkmate with Queen alone without the King helps.
2R can checkmate.
I prefer 2R vs Q given equal game.
Aronian did not have 2- rooks. It was a phantom. There was a long combination that required Aronian to cough up the exchange to avoid mate. He never actually had the 2 rooks.
Moves 27... to 35... was one combination of forced moves.
One situation where th queen was better than the two rooks.
SCID vs PC
by cortman 4 minutes ago
Fun gmae =)
by MrDamonSmith 5 minutes ago
by cortman 7 minutes ago
QG - Tarrasch vs Albin Counter Gambit
by AssauIt 8 minutes ago
Easily my favourite GM to watch lecture.
by dashkee94 8 minutes ago
14 Sicilian games so far, only 1 open Siclian. What about you?
by Andre_Harding 12 minutes ago
by chessterd5 12 minutes ago
How do I know which courses I've completed?
by Petrosianic 21 minutes ago
Queen's gambit accepted
by FromMuToYou 25 minutes ago
by Princess_Kenny 26 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!