Q+N is typically better because the Queen can move like a bishop but not a knight
What is better? Q+N or Q+B
Sort:
Jul 9, 2013
0
#23
Q+N if they are cooperating well, i.e., the knight is close to the queen and at a critical part of the chess battle.
Jul 9, 2013
0
#24
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
Q+N if they are cooperating well, i.e., the knight is close to the queen and at a critical part of the chess battle.
Never thought that some grandmaster would answer my question! Thank you for your view Natalia!! 
If I had bishop and queen in the ending I'd have the queen cover the opposite colour squares to the bishop. I think that they would be better than queen and knight because I can cover more squares with them. The knight only covers 8 squares and that is when it is in the middle of the board.
It depends on the situation.
Krestez wrote:
FanOfCarlsen wrote:
I would like to hear something from masters as well..
Q+N is certainly better. You don't need a master to tell you that. That's why in an endgame Q vs Q+N it's harder to draw for side at a disadvantage, whereas in a Q vs Q+B is much easier. It's somewhat logical since the knight complements the queen, which can already move as a bishop. Anyway the game is still theoretically drawn in a Q vs Q+N, but more careful play is needed.
If ever I had to face Q+N vs Q on the board, I would not be afraid (which I would be a lot in R+B against R, and quite a lot in R vs N).
As for the Q+N being better than Q+B, well, I heard it, and afterwards I found it to be true in my games, but that might be a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Q+N
Jul 10, 2013
0
#29
Long story short, there is no one answer to this. ThrillerFan
Theoretically I suppose Q+N because the Kt adds a unique movement to supplement the Queen, unlike the redundant Bishop which is basically "one-third" of a queen - it moves along diagonals like a queen, but can't move along files and ranks - like a queen. AND the Kt isn't limited to half the bd ie only the light or dark squares,
BUT in reality ThrillerFan is correct, the practical answer depends on each position being evaluated on its own merits without relying on stodgy preconceptions all the time - like this one fish I know who was a pawn up with a Q+B vs Q+N endgame who ASSumed being a pawn up (a passed pawn no less!) - and with a "good bishop" (ie on an open bd, with plenty of mobility) that it was a simple win. Turns out it was a simple draw for his opponent - because the "inferior Kt" can attack on all the squares while the "superior" bishop was unable to support the passed pawn's advance on the "wrong colored" squares - and there was no way to win without queening a pawn. (-SIGH-)
Jul 10, 2013
0
#30
I personally prefer the queen and knight as I find that I sometimes require knight moves (which the queen doesn't have) to overcome an equal piece value game. Even in open games, I would still prefer the knight as bishop's diagonal movements are already covered by the queen.
Q and N is very definitely better. Many games are won becaue of the strong duo of Q and N. The N covers squares the Q cannot cover.
Q+B
Ponziani Power recently won a vote chess game vs a top team using the duo of Q and N.
I would say Queen & Knight, if the Bishop is bad or if you are trying to break into a fortress or if the Knight has a good outpost close to the king.But if the bishop is good and the board is open, it is probably easier to play the Queen & Bishop.
I won a game vs a current correspondence GM precisely because I had an endgame with Q and N vs Q and B.
Rook + Bishop works better than Rook + Knight.
Pawn + Bishop Pair equals the strength of Rook + Knight.
Three minor pieces are better than Q and P.
4 Ns are better than 4 Bs
ponz111 wrote:
4 Ns are better than 4 Bs
Looks like the kind of things :
1- of absolutely no practical value ;
2- that highly depends on the position (I mean, is that even possible to set all this stuff on the board without having a check, a hanging piece or a fork for the side to play ?) ;
3- really awesome to know.
Long story short, there is no one answer to this.
Q+N vs Q+B is no different than R+N vs R+B or B vs N. There are instances where the Q and N are better. There are instances where the Q and B are better.
What you are seeing above, and Capablanca's theory, are simply points that these instances are not all "50/50". Statistically speaking, if you take every game ever played that featured the ending in question, the Bishop tends to be better than the Knight SLIGHTLY more frequently in B vs N endings, a little more frequently in R+B vs R+N endings, and the Knight tends to be better than the Bishop a little more frequently in Q+N vs Q+B endings.
However, there is no cut-and-dry answer to this, just like any other combination of material. I had a game about 2 1/2 weeks ago over the board where my two bishops and pawn dominated his rook and knight, even though in terms of material count, I was down 8 vs 7 (plus other material that was offset, like I still had a Rook, he had a second one, the Queens were on, and we each had a bunch of pawns). I was able to win a couple of pawns, and got it down to R+P for White, B+4P for Black, and I eventually won. He promoted his only pawn, but had to give up the Rook for it, and a few moves later, I promoted mine via tactics. It then became Q vs QBPP. White had a few checks, but I was able to avoid the perpetual, get a second queen, and mate him.
In other instances, I've seen Rook and Knight take down Two Bishops and a Pawn, so it works both ways. That's why you have imbalances. If imbalances were one-sided, nobody would ever go for them!