What is better : a queen or three minor pieces ?

What is better :

a queen or three minor pieces ?

a queen or two rooks ?

Definitely three pieces better than the queen but It also depends on the position

RR > Q. The rooks can attack a pawn twice and the queen can defend it only once.
Three minor pieces are about te same as a queen: neither side can win.
The pieces must stick together so the queen cannot chop one off with some checks and double attacks.

@4

What experts?
What 3 minor pieces?
BNN cannot be better than a queen, as the queen can sacrifice for the bishop to leave a draw.
Even BBN, how can these defeat a queen?

This position would be a white win, if not for the 50-moves rule.

0-500: queen equals 10 minor pieces.

500-1000: queen equals 7 minor pieces.

1000-1500: queen equals 4 minor pieces.

1500-2000: queen equals 3 minor pieces.

2000-2882: queen equals < 3 minor pieces.

#9: 100 is the lowest elo

It depends one the position, and if there are any other pieces in play. It would most likely be a draw.

In a middle-game position, the pieces are better if they can get coordinated before the Queen forks something.

I'd say 3 minor pieces are better. Since the queen is just a bishop + rook combo, a bishop, rook, and knight obviously are better. The problem is, they cant all be in the same place. Also, I have not read more than 2 posts on this discussion, so I don't know whether or not this has already been stated. This is only this formal because this is my first post on Chess.com.

3 minor pieces are usually better than a Queen assuming that they can coordinate before a Queen fork or something.

Queen versus 2 Rooks are trickier, but here is a video of mine on this topic back from before I got a webcam

In general you need 4 minor pieces to beat a Queen in the long run. 3 minor pieces can usually hold for a draw but everything depends on position in all senerios.

4 minor pieces @chessterd5 ? Nah, that is too much. In most positions, I'd happily trade my queen away for 3 minor pieces.

I didn't say that it wasn't playable. But the side with the 3 minor pieces is going to have to play solid or geometrically something is going to fall. But the position is always a factor.

King safety and pawn cover if any is also a factor. It is never simple when you get into the nuts and bolts of things.

What an old post
That diagram above, of course the queen is better because the knight is lost to a series of checks, if it's white's move. If it's black's move, it's an obvious draw (1 ...Be6 being simplest).

Four minor pieces always beat a queen; the queen is unable to prevent checkmate. It may require an extension of the 50 move rule (this rule is not absolute, as there are certain forced wins that take more than 50 moves, this rule may have been abolished due to difficulties in understanding when to allow more), but the queen often has to sacrifice itself for a bishop+knight.

What would be very interesting is this, in a real life tournament:

The player was 2 moves away from the absolute 50 move rule. But in fact an exchange of pieces (or a checkmate) is forced in 4 moves. Would the TD allow the game to continue? I don't think anyone has ever had such a bizarre situation.

In middlegames, queen vs 3 minor pieces doesn't happen very often. If the queen engages this combination intentionally, she usually wins as it's related to either an attack on the king or a development advantage combined with severe square weaknesses, resulting in the win of further material. If the pieces engage this sequence, it depends on the position of the rooks and the pawn health; the side with the pieces wants rooks on the board. It's similar to endgames with 2 minor pieces vs a rook+pawn, with two rooks+rook still on the board; the side with the minors often wants to avoid having his last rook exchanged, ESPECIALLY when it's a position with bishop+knight.