he aired his unlikely decree
for all of us weakies to see
those who still cast a doubt
were soon being called out
by the eminent Chef Boyardee
I got a limerick
uhohspaghettioh said
the queen puts 2 rooks to bed
What he said was wrong
two rooks are equally strong
they equal each other I said
he aired his unlikely decree
for all of us weakies to see
those who still cast a doubt
were soon being called out
by the eminent Chef Boyardee
I got a limerick
uhohspaghettioh said
the queen puts 2 rooks to bed
What he said was wrong
two rooks are equally strong
they equal each other I said
We finally have a competitor. I present you this chessboard(link). Let the games begin!
limerick competition?
Looks at Shorts game..
he got owned by a queen with his 2 rooks.
interesting comments...
If it was the endgame and I was a peice up I would trade a queen for two rooks
If it was the endgame and I was a peice up I would trade a queen for two rooks
Effectively it means, you will trade a queen for 2 rooks and a bishop/knight. This is a big bargain.
I was recently forced into this exchange and didn't like it, mostly because I don't like to have my opponent dictate the game. I shouldn't have allowed it to happen.
I don't feel naked without my lady, but I was a little worried about it. However, my opponents queen was sort of stuck in a defensive position and I went on to win the game.
If the 2 rooks are used effectively then there is no problem.
If it was the endgame and I was a peice up I would trade a queen for two rooks
Effectively it means, you will trade a queen for 2 rooks and a bishop/knight. This is a big bargain.
I don't think it quite works like that. The piece is already in the pocket, so why factor it into a yet to be completed exchange?
Read the bold text in the post again, and you should be able to identify who has factored the extra piece into consideration before making the exchange.
Quoting from my today's econ class:
Total Cost = Sunk Cost(1 piece) + Variable Cost(2 Rooks)
Opportunity cost = 1 Queen.
Do you get it?
If it was the endgame and I was a peice up I would trade a queen for two rooks
Effectively it means, you will trade a queen for 2 rooks and a bishop/knight. This is a big bargain.
I don't think it quite works like that. The piece is already in the pocket, so why factor it into a yet to be completed exchange?
Read the bold text in the post again, and you should be able to identify who has factored the extra piece into consideration before making the exchange.
Quoting from my today's econ class:
Total Cost = Sunk Cost(1 piece) + Variable Cost(2 Rooks)
Opportunity cost = 1 Queen.
Do you get it?
Nevertheless, Q vs 2R + minor or Q + 2R vs Q + 2R + minor is easily winning in both cases for the stronger side. The fact that you are willing to trade that has no bearing on the evaluation of Q vs 2R
Gonnosuke, is that a direct quote? I had to read it several times before I knew what was intended. This part was tough on my brain:
'Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen'
I would have said that Portisch won two of Fischer's rooks for his own queen. But after finally getting my head around the writing, I think it means Portisch "won" the advantage of having two rooks against Fischer's queen.
Phew, I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
Gonnosuke, is that a direct quote? I had to read it several times before I knew what was intended. This part was tough on my brain:
'Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen'
I would have said that Portisch won two of Fischer's rooks for his own queen. But after finally getting my head around the writing, I think it means Portisch "won" the advantage of having two rooks against Fischer's queen.
Phew, I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
It is a direct quote. I think what Kaufman was saying is that Portisch had two rooks vs fischer's queen. He used "won" because just by counting points it should be advantageous but was not due to many minor pieces being on the board.
bondiggity, thanks, I got what was intended.
I guess I didn't explain why it was hard for me to read though. If I said I won a rook for a knight, I would mean that I took a rook and my opponent took a knight -- those pieces are now off the board. So when I read that Portisch won two rooks for Fischer's queen, I expected Fischer's queen to be off the board.
As I said in my first post, I had to re-read it several times (and in context of the whole paragraph) before I got the real meaning.
True I see what you are saying. I guess he was intending something more like "won the advantage of"
You're all wrong: the 3 bishops are stronger, unless you have 4 knights. 
Saying Fischer won "a weak pawn" a few moves later so then it was queen + pawn against 2 rooks is unfair because Fischer won the weak pawn BECAUSE of the queen vs two rooks, he probably actually even took it with the queen itself!!!!
Where are all these people giving credence to the idea of giving a queen for two rooks coming from? I wish they were in blitz, because it's a very common opportunity to have but hardly anyone ever takes it.
The queen is able to come in and go out of little windows picking up pawns along the way while unless it's in the endgame the rooks get stuck and they also generally have to interlock with each other to avoid capture. No matter what you do, the rooks can't beat the queen if you swap in the middle game.
Actually he won it with a Knight and Bishop combo.
Also I believe GM Kaufman has more than enough credentials to make some conclusions. He did an extensive study on material imbalances in the game. You on the other hand have little to no credentials.
It may sound trite, but it depends on the position on the board. In the past month I have won a game on each side of that argument, with 2RvQ vs a USCFG Expert & Qv2R vs a USCF Class A player. Not masters to be sure, but competent players nonetheless. The secret is whether the Rooks are free and coordinated. If the Rooks have free roam and can protect each other when needed, they will be superior. Where the Rooks are tied down or uncoordinated, the Queen will be superior. King safety for both sides is also important. Again it depends on the position. But in general the traditional values are approximately correct for most positions.
Also I believe GM Kaufman has more than enough credentials to make some conclusions. He did an extensive study on material imbalances in the game. You on the other hand have little to no credentials.
Not to mention that he wrote the evaluation function for Rybka 3 and Komodo. Other than Kasparov or some other Super GM, I can't think of anyone more qualified than Larry Kaufman when it comes to material imbalance in chess (and Shogi.)
Agreed. I must thank you for bringing up that article (awhile back in the forums). Whenever some question like this comes up I always go there first.
Numbers don't tell the tale. Yes two rooks are worth more' than a queen, but only on paper. Seriously, with most of the pieces left on the board (which creates a 'slower' environment where the queens dexteriity is a little muffled), I believe two active rooks approach a queen's worth. But that's just the point, they take time to become active and there is an "overhead" cost involved in that they may have to look out for each other's protection.Whereas the queen becomes active much more quickly and can travel light and is more nimble/destructive.
In the time it takes to double your rooks on an open file the queen may have eaten their lunch for them.
it generally depends on the position, is'nt it? but still, perhaps 2 rooks are more powerful..