Which is best, a Queen and a pawn, or two rooks?
Sort:
hi
eso depende la reina con el peon
i guess it depends on the positions of the pieces,but what do I know
A queen and a pawn is better but I'm sure there are some positions were the rooks would win.
Queen 10
Rook 5
Bishop or Knight 3
Pawn 1
So without seeing the position that is 11 for the Queen and the pawn and 10 for the two rooks.
But in game endings pawns are MUCH more important than in openings or middle game.
Basically a pawn which as passed its oposing neighbours is difficult to stop and is therefore a huge threat.
The border pawn has less value also since the experience shows it is harder to promote.
I hope this answers your question.
Best regards.
Alex
Apr 22, 2008
0
#6
Some people (myself included) value the Queen at 9 points generally, which would make Q+p = R*2, not considering the actual position. But you can't promote a Rook. ;-)
Apr 22, 2008
0
#7
check this game out where my opponent sacrificed two of his rooks for a queen and ended up checkmating me
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=6556005
between move 16 and 21
for those of you too lazy, here it is:
so yea, i hope this answers ur question
Joe14's position was theoretically drawn. He only won because Black stepped into a fork, not because his Q+P was superior to his opponent's R+R.
As far as the general question, in endgames statistically Q (and pawns) beats R+R (and pawns) 55% of the time, and in equal-material endgames Q+P (and pawns) does significantly better then R+R (and pawns). But the initial positions of the pieces is always an overriding consideration--statistics don't win endgames.
Payet,
Queen has always been valued at 9 to my knowledge. Two rooks has always been superior to a queen.
Marshal_Dillon wrote:
Payet,
Queen has always been valued at 9 to my knowledge. Two rooks has always been superior to a queen.
Yes, but Im talking about a queen and a pawn, thank you :)
Just to pick up on something. Outside past pawns, are especially valuable, not less valuable, in an endgame because your opponent must vacate the rest of the board in order to look after the pawn and stop it promoting. Meanwhile you can go about your business on the rest of the board. The only problem comes when you dont have anything on the rest of the board. Then the pawn can be hard/impossible to promote.
Gaby wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote:
Payet,
Queen has always been valued at 9 to my knowledge. Two rooks has always been superior to a queen.
Yes, but Im talking about a queen and a pawn, thank you :)
That's funny, I thought I typed "Payet" in my reply, not "Gaby". Oh, wait I did, therefore I was not speaking to you. :) He valued a queen alone at 10, equal to two rooks, which is wrong. Two rooks is greater than a queen. Queen and pawn is only better than two rooks if you can promote the pawn before the two rooks can team up to take it off the board. If you can't promote the pawn, it is a liability because the queen has to protect it from the rooks or you have to have an active king protecting it. If the queen is being used to protect the pawn, you will not be able to use it's full power. The rooks will not be hindered at all. And since a king only moves one square at a time, it wastes moves to use the king as defender. Those moves will be used by the player with the rooks to win either the queen or the pawn from you.
rich> Two Bishops, are stronger than 1 knight and 1 rook.
I don't know who told you this, but it's false in the endgame. In a recent survey of high-level endgames, B+B scored only 43% against R+N. As always, knowing when one is better than the other is much more important than knowing the statistics.
rich> It's my knowledge I've played chess for 2 years now, and that's what I think.
GMs and statistical surveys disagree, but everyone is free to think as they wish. Perhaps it's an indication of which pieces you're most comfortable with? I recall in another thread you said you play better with bishops than with knights. I imagine at the 2550+ level players are very comfortable playing with either piece.
I am currently playing a 2R vs Q+P endgame and I'm almost certain that it's a draw, in my paticular game. However, I doubt this is enough to make generalizations.
B+B > R+N? I'd like to get you over the board some time if you're willing to play with that handicap.
At best, if you value bishops slightly higher than knights, you get 7 points (3.5 +3.5) for the two bishops versus 8 points (5+3) for the rook and knight. If you value bishops equal to knights, you only have 6 points to 8. The only way you win with bishops is to pin the knight and rook to each other or to the king so you get a piece for free. Rook, knight and king are also easier to deliver checkmate with in the endgame than bishop, bishop and king. Rook and knight also has the advantage that if I can force you to trade off one of your bishops for my knight, I still have sufficient mating material with my king and rook while you can never mate me with king and bishop.
Well I think the queen and the pawn are better, first because the queen is the most dangerous piece and the most powerful and the pawn is important in the ending because if you don't have all material for you to checmate the king you can keep it up with the pawn until he become a queen, rook, knight or bishop, that is my opinion, but still the knight and the rook may be better in some positions.