RR vs Q, what tips do you have to share?

I've never really made that trade before. I know that theoretically if the position is right then two rooks are better than one queen.

I've got my board right now, I've just played 1.e4 as white, and I'm looking to follow up with the Sicilian as black. The objective? RR vs Q.

What insights do you have on such a game?

It requires a WHOLE LOT of co-ordination, to a point i even think queen is better than 2 rooks

I know what you mean. But there has to be certain positions in which the rooks thrive better than a single queen. What is the composition of these positions?

I think I've seen a master game or two where such a decision was made. If I knew which one I would've posted it as well.

yeah these positions spring up in tactics every now and then, but it's something I surely won't suggest if your have less than 20 minutes time on your clock

For example, I know that one working example would be the endgame where there are open files for the rooks and possibly open ranks as well. Perhaps closed midgames too, where the queen doesn't have much play but the rooks have secured an open and powerful line.

Haha, I wouldn't try it with 60 minutes either. Just daily chess.

I have been in 2RvQ situations in open files, and I've noticed that mainly opponents try to irritate you, I've had a nice game approx 9 months ago where this happened

Nice game. You could probably win that now at 1400. That gives me some ideas.

I know what you mean. I think the Rooks are "worth" more (10 v 9 points) than a Queen, but it takes way more coordination to play the Rook side a lot of the time; I usually think that the Rooks are worth more, but the Queen is the more pleasant side to play as (but of course every position is unique). 

Typically, I find two factors key when I am faced with this endgame (or deciding to go into it or not) : 

1) King vulnerability - I find a more protected King to often favor the Rooks side. Meanwhile a more open, exposed King tends to favor the Queen side; this is because Queen's are more mobile and can harass the King with many checks when the Queen is in a worst-case-scenario (checks for a tactic, or perhaps more frustrating are checks for perpetual check when the Queen side is losing; in this situation, a draw is the worst result the Queen can get if played correctly on an exposed opponent King) 

2) Pawn abundance - in a related point, I tend to find more pawns on the board to favor the Rooks side. The idea is closely related to the pawns creating a shelter for the King to reside in while the Rooks coordinate against the Queen; less pawns offer less cover, in-turn a potentially more exposed King, which in-turn gives the Queen side more options.

I've gotten both sides of this endgame many times before (in long and short time controls) and obviously these are guidelines; these are generalizations. As I stated, every position is unique. In the similar vibe to WSama, I too agree that more time to think through the complications and unique aspect of the current position is definitely preferred (but not always does the luxury of excess time present itself).

Here are my tips:

• You get increased mobility as opposed to your opponent.
• The opponent's queen wouldn't dare challenge the open file, not directly.
• In well defended positions the queen alone can't do much, especially those games that require a sacrifice for progress.
• It's no longer easy for the side with the queen to make a sacrifice or trade material, because all the eggs are in one basket.

I think those are pretty interesting. And the more I think about it the more reasonable it sounds. Trade a queen for the rooks, lock down the position (make it impenetrable), mobilize the pieces, and let the rooks dominate the open files and ranks. 

Right. Thanks KeSetoKaiba. Perpetual check would be a problem - queens are exceptional at it.

lol yeah "extra" time is nice, but not always available. I recall a rated blitz event I was in (OTB) and I got the 2 Rooks side versus a Queen (with few pawns on the board [which usually favors the Queen side in my experience]). It was a blitz game, so I don't recall the exact position (and it was a while ago) but it was certainly one of those "unique" exceptions to generalizations. In this position I threatened to win a crucial pawn with my coordinated Rooks, so the Queen was forced to place itself on an awkward square to hold the pawn. When my opponent defended this way, I ironically knew I got the win. The defense of the pawn was a deflection that allows a Rook tactic to seal a mating net. From there, the Queen had to sacrifice itself to prevent mate, and they were checkmated a few moves later anyway. 

Obviously blitz doesn't give both sides enough time for such situations (or at least as much as one may like). Part of it was some luck on my end too though. In that position, the Queen side was probably winning, but the winning continuation was tricky to find. The winning theme in that position was to give a Queen check first and then defend the pawn from a different angle (to guard against the mating net), so basically, I got lucky

(but like I said, we both had low time)

Oh no...not this debate again...

The two rooks must either coordinate well or be able to launch a good attack. The queen must not fall prey to pins and must be able to utilise its diagonals.

Overall. it's fair and square for both sides, on average.

I would prefer two rooks if the king is safe. It is easier to collect the pawns by doubling up the rooks and also to queen a passed pawn. 

I knew I felt a touch of deja vu. What's going on with this topic...

I really like that concept. It reminds of a rook tied to the back rank avoiding enemy promotions. If you have a passed pawn and your rooks behind it, that feels good.

That is a concise way of summarizing my looong post; I need to learn how to post shorter responses too

Eeh 😅, I thought that was different with a mating net and stuff.

I was once in a situation of queen vs two rooks. I was on the side of the two rooks but could not manage the strong queen and eventually I lost.

Here is that game. I was holding the Black pieces in this game.

The game can also be found in this post https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/counter-intuitive-move where I noticed something unusual about a sideline.

Yeah! but that is because you blundered by allowing the strong g pawn to get up the board.