A queen for two rooks?!(A.K.A, battle of the limerick masters!!)Join the battle!

Though two rooks are worth more than a queen, some doubt has always arisen when trading the queen, even for me. In some cases people have lost the game doing this. What do you think? Should you trade or no trade? I know it depends upon the situation, but I'm just asking.

I rasied a similar question.

Check this out

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/queen-sac-games

They are. Unless Waitzkin, Silman, Seriwan, and every other strong chess player are incorrect.

I agree with tony about the 2 rook superiority and also that he is not half-reasonable but fully-reasonable! Only half-reasonable players might think that "a queen is nearly always VASTLY superior to two rooks in MOST situations."

Reminds me of something. Did you previously challenge(in a public forum) Ziryab to a few matches? What happened to the match results?

With a lot of pieces on the board, the Queen equals two Rooks. With many minor pieces off the board, the rooks are slightly better. (Kaufman) 

 Dude just the sheer logic of it should make you see why the two rooks are better-Lets look at this random position bellow>> The rooks for one thing controll more space- you might argue, well thats just because they are on good squares but in fact this is what two rooks can accomplish almost by force If one was attacked by  the queen they can defend eachother and controll the center WITHOUT THE POSIBILITY TO BE DISLOGED BY THE QUEEN. the second is that black in this case must always be wary that white may either skewer or pin his king and queen, the rooks have no such problem. And to top it all off the rooks are simply worth more in terms of math. The 2 rooks are better-they just are!

I'll take that challenge, depending on...

1. Do we have other pieces at the start of said game?

2. Who would play White?

On a side note... most excellent limerick, tonydal. Most excellent indeed.

Position position position. It's all that matters, otherwise they're an equal trade.

Silly rabbits...

This one is really a good poem. Huge improvement compared to the one you posted in the kurogkug's thread, "if you know" 

Which one? Tony must have posted a handful in that thread.

Typically nifty bits of short verse.

God, I didn't realize there was a whole thread devoted to this absurdity. I just posted this link in the other thread where this came up. Here for this thread is GM Robert Byrne on Queen vs. two rooks.

Spaghettio, while I'm here, explain something to me. Is the point in trolling to get attention, and as long as people are paying attention to you it doesn't really matter how foolish you look? That must be it. Honestly, I don't really get what motivates you people -- can you illuminate?

Got it.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-you-know?page=33

I think that one is just fine too, even if not his best. Could be pithier I guess.

Well I find this interesting cause I lost two games when I had a queen against two rooks, is it really depending on the situation but for now queen is stronger than two rooks but vice versa if the rooks get the upper hand. 

I have and generally would sac my queen for two rooks.

Definately for two rooks and some momentum.

But what would I know.

two rooks can be insanely strong - but they have to be positioned right.

Yet one 'but' doesn't mean two rooks are significantly weaker than a queen, especially not in "the VAST MAJORITY of positions".. After all this 'but' applies to her majesty too.

I've played a few games where I had my queen cut off from the action (usually through a greedy pawn grab) and so I can tell you from experience - the queen can be very displaced.

As others  have saide It depends on the position. The 2 rooks are better in the endgame. Queen is better when there are other pieces on the board. Also, amongst beginner players, it is easier to play with the queen since there is less pieces to watch out for, and therefore less chance of a blunder.

I'd always heard the two rooks are better if they have a passer to help along or if they can infiltrate effectively.  They're worse if they can be kept from coordinating.  Everything else being equal I thought it was roughly equal and depends on king safety and pawn weaknesses.

Uhohspaghettio some player may have mistakenly informed you that the queen is so much better.  Regardless of all these chess players disagreeing even masters on the board disagree, you may want to look this up or even simply look at the point values to realize the queen can't be so vastly superior.  Just like Q vs 3 minor pieces, it's not so open and shut.

If you know it depends on the situation, why are you asking?  I mean seriously, what's the point of your question?  Evaluate your position and try to make the best choice then see how things work out.  Duh.