i just had a game were i traded my 2 rooks for my opponents queen. my opponent said 9 out of ten times that is a bad thing to do. now i have been playing chess long enough to know that everything else being equal (position, material, etc) that this is a fairly even trade.  what do you good people think?

Well, you have to look at the position and see which set left ON the board are better.

Rooks are generally better with less pawns on the board because they have better chance of being active.  Two well placed rooks obviously out muscle a well placed queen on an open board.

And so, early in the game it's often better to have the queen as the rooks can't match her majesty's mobility with all those pieces crowding things up.

So giving up your rooks for the opponent's queen early in the game may be winning.  In the middle game it's a bit like giving endgame odds, so you should have good reason (their rooks can't get too active).  And in the endgame it can be a losing exchange.

^your opponent has no idea of what the hell he is talking about. Like any other material inbalance (rook vs minor plus 2 pawns, 3 paws for a minor, 3 minors for a queen,etc) it completely depends on the position. Here are some things to think about before going for the trade:

The queen is better than the two rooks if:

The queen is in a king hunt attack against the king and the two rooks cannot join.

The queen is tends to be better if the other side is underdeveloped and the two rooks cannot connect.

The rooks are better when: 

The position is semi closed and the queen doesn't have an attack on the king.

The queen cannot force a perptual check or cannot open the position to allow perpuals.

In endgames,providing the king is safe,the two rooks outclass the queen,as they can double up against pawns the the queen is helpless. 

TLDR: In middle games with attacks against the king,the queen is better. In endgames where the king is safe and the rooks are joined, the rooks are better.

i feel like his opponent does have some idea what the hell he is talking about. at least some. although his 9/10 ratio might not be perfect, there is something to his advice.

^ right, because 9/10 is a resonable ratio for queen vs 2 rooks. Sighs. 

OP he has no idea what he's talking about. Maybe 8/10+ times it's actually a bad thing to keep your two rooks and let him keep his queen.

Of course there are many exceptions, but on average the queen is vastly superior to the two rooks, especially in the end game while there are still pawns around.

Here's a cool game I just read where Alekhine sacs two rooks for a queen, then a queen for a rook and then a queen for a knight.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012099

In any case when you exchange your queen for pieces the main consideration is whether you can effectively coordinate those pieces.

Here's a game from this year's Wijk an Zee where Aronian exchanges his queen for rook bishop and pawn and coordinates them beautifully to checkmate Nakamura.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1653894

---

 +1

See here for good example with annotations:

 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/queen-vs-two-rooks-game

Exactly.