Which is generally stronger? a queen or two rooks?
Sort:
I think that two rooks + king will have an easier time mating than queen + king. Perhaps I'll pit the two combonations against each other in a chess engine to see what comes out on top more often.
i think the 2 rooks would work better. in the senario 2 rooks vs. a queen, the rooks can attack more than the queen would. that and it is easier to attack with 2 rooks than it is to attack with just one.
firstly, i think this is a good question.
while a queen would be much more mobile and ready to force a pin or a fork, connected rooks can be very powerful. naturally, the number of pawns on the board and their positions makes a significant difference.
i've played multiple games where i end up w/ king queen vs. king rook rook and find myself being pushed around the board. i think i'd prefer the two rooks in a longer game.
For me of course the Queen, coz its has all the mobility to move around compare to two rooks !
ofcouse 2 rooks are more powerful than a queen...
Yeah that's true but the queen with the king can still checkmate the king, but if the queen do that her selve the king may end up in stalemate, if the queen is able of making the king get to the edge.
In my experience, this is usually a draw. Computers have an easier time with it, but usually I can't find a way to make any progress for either side in these situations.
i would say two rooks becasue u could checkmate with 1 rook and king or laddermate so the queen has only on the side when like i said it is very easy to get the king to the side using laddermate
ROOKS
striker52 wrote:
i would say two rooks becasue u could checkmate with 1 rook and king or laddermate so the queen has only on the side when like i said it is very easy to get the king to the side using laddermate
ROOKS
Umm... how do you plan to use 'laddermate' with a queen on the board?
rooks:
1: 10 pts instead of 9
2: two pieces so they can defend one another and you could spare one
3: I don't know who (probably fischer or kasparov) it was but I saw a game here once that really shows the weakness of the queen. After sacrificing a queen for some minor pieces he won by covering everything. The queen couldn't do anything because trade would always lead to loss. and it was his only active piece left if I recall correctly.
Maybe someone recognizes this game, or I will look it up, anyways its a great example so I'd rather put my money on 2 rooks
Fischer had a celebrated win vs Tal with 2 Rooks vs Queen. Kramnik beat Leko with 2 Rooks vs Queen in game 1 of their match. But there a lot of examples of the queen winning as well.
This one is a hot debate.
ROOKS because they can cover each other!:)
Saikoro wrote: I think that two rooks + king will have an easier time mating than queen + king. Perhaps I'll pit the two combonations against each other in a chess engine to see what comes out on top more often.
can u do that on chess.com?:S
Let's stop this now! K+2R v K+Q is equal unless one player blunders. OK, agreed?
All other assessments on which is the better combination depends entirely on the position on the board (ie the arrangement of the other pieces and pawns). Sometimes the Rooks are dominant, sometimes the Queen. There is, therefore, NO definitive answer. So, guys and gals, obtain your R.S.I. on you fingers on other topics more worthwhile. Ciao!!
I sometimes ask myself if the scoring system is correct, what will i be willing to trade for what, queen for 6 pawns and a bishop, queen for 2 bishops and a knight and so on, i think it is better to have two rooks because you can pin the queen and force a bad exchange, and can protect each other or even mate in some situations.
even though it depends mostly wich players turn it is because each side can check and gain tempo, and the queens side can force a draw by infinite mate or by taking one rook and the oter side fortreses.
May 9, 2008
0
#17
Two rooks are a little better than queen,but also it depends from the position on the board and how player uses the rooks to gain an advantage against queen..Needs very good manipulation and a move that is not so good could lead easily the game to a draw..
madpawn wrote:
It has nearly all been said really. However the question to ask is what else is at stake?
Consider these:
the relative postions of the kings in terms of exposure to danger, flight squares.
Other issues such as tempo, tactics, time pressure.
- the confidence and ability of your oponent
- whether the rooks are connected or not and whether the queen has the 'board to herself'
So you see the question is quite academic - it does depend heavily on contexts.
yes, it depends on the position. with plenty of open files and ranks two rooks are definitely better.
what you have asked is, GENERALLY, right? i would say 2 rooks.
reason 1: 10 versus 9 points
reason 2: queen plays the role of many attackers, but one defensive unit. it cant defend 2 pieces at a time if opponent is attacking both pieces. besides, queen as the most powerful piece is a rather bad defender esp if opponent has two attackers vs the queen. sad case.
reason3: two rooks, when facing each other, is very, very strong. always double your rooks. two rooks means backing each other up, and they are togetehr 2 defensive units and a pretty pro attacking force too. queen has only itself. 2 rooks has backup for each other.
(: chew on it. food for thought.
scoring system, though, is not 100% accurate...addressing some of you people's queries. every player will tell you it is determined by the position. a passed pawn, taken that promotion square is not attacked, 1 point, but can often be better than even a rook. position and tactics, and good analysis, thats what you need in chess.
For me a queen is stronger because the queen can move to square more easily and it's hard to eat the queen with two rooks, even two rooks have a total of 10 points but the queen can still eat them if they don't defend each one to other, that's my opinion....