22860 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Whether Queen or Rook(s) is stronger often depends on general positions of the king and pawn formation in close proximity to the monarch.
If the hostile King is airy and open the Queen usually get the upper hand.
The rooks require coordination to work together.
The Queen is able to give some cunning/menace checks in case threatened.
Generally (generally), two rooks are stronger.
Two pieces are better than one.Number of pieces that can control a square is often more significant than the power of those pieces.
SmyslovFan «A natural assumption is that the two rooks will be stronger than the queen in the majority of positions; another is that a material balance is struck when the side with the queen has an extra pawn. I must admit that, when I examined top-flight games from my database, I was surprised to see that the queen outscored the rooks. I would have predicted a small edge for the rooks but in fact the side with the queen managed 55%»
if the 2 rooks are coordinated, they are stronger than the queen.
if the 2 rooks are uncoordinated, the queen is stronger.
CONNECTED ON THERE OWN THEY ROOKS ARE BETTER
I just ran a database check of Q vs 2 Rs, no minor pieces and the pawn structure being symmetrical. In other words, pure examples, "all other things being equal".
The side with the two rooks scores 62%-38%.
Here's one example from the hundreds of games that came up:
I agree, if there are a bunch of minor pieces on the board, the Q may prove to be stronger in a practical setting. It's very difficult to coordinate the minor pieces, as Fischer showed against Portisch. But in pure examples such as the one above, the Rooks are generally better.
«A natural assumption is that the two rooks will be stronger than the queen in the majority of positions; another is that a material balance is struck when the side with the queen has an extra pawn. I must admit that, when I examined top-flight games from my database, I was surprised to see that the queen outscored the rooks. I would have predicted a small edge for the rooks but in fact the side with the queen managed 55%»
«The Queen is weaker than two Rooks if the hostile King is protected against Checks, otherwise it may be stronger. Ceteris paribus, it would appear that the Queen is trifle weaker than two Rooks»
Definition of trifle "something that does not have much value or importance"
"With other things the same" or "other things being equal or held constant"
It would be nice if you cited your sources.
2 rooks can checkmate without king help, queen cant
Well, K+R vs. K mate is also easier than K+B+B vs. K, and still I would be happy to trade one of my rooks for two bishops in virtually any stage of the game.
Take a look at the position in post 131. There is nothing special about that position, and yet it was clear that White was striving for a draw while Black was working for the victory.
In general, when all things are equal and there are no minor pieces on the board, the Rooks are better than the Q.
Qs work really well with minor pieces, especially Knights.
it depends on the position at hand. Open position with the center open, Q is usually a bit better, locked pawn structure with few weaknesses and 1 open file, and the rooks will have a small edge.
It's really based on the player. For me, I would say a single Queen is better since it's a single piece that has so much flexibility on the board. Plus, you only have to keep one piece alive instead of two, and two Rooks would require two moves to move both of them. I guess it also depends on your opponent and their current standing, since certain pieces would be better in certain situations.
Penalty for the rook pair (Larry Kaufman called it "principle of redundancy" Although how much of penalty implied is unknown. In theory rook pair, knights and queens suffers from this.
Here is what Korchnoi said about having two queens.
"The game was drawn, with Korchnoi an extra queen. Later he explained something extremely strange... 'The board is too small for two queens!'>
his full statement..
"During the analysis, I discovered something very remarkable: the board is simply too small for two Queens of the same color. They only get in each other's way. I realize that this might sound stupid, but I fully mean it. The advantage is much less than one would expect by counting material."
taken from Mastering Tactical Ideas by Minev."
Definitely it depends on the certain position. I personally do like more to have the queen than two rooks, 'cause to my experience it often beacems very tricky with only having two rooks. But otherwise two rooks in combination with a free pawn became really dangerous.
Yup, having two Qs may be clearly worse than having a Q and 2 Rs. That would definitely be a special case.
Bronstein once pointed out that if you have a Q and R and the initiative against an exposed K, you can usually force mate. That may sound dead obvious, but that means that your opponent could have two Qs and still be lost.
Major pieces are really, really powerful.
The way to judge the relative merit of Rooks vs Qs is when there are no other pieces to mess with the calculus. That's why I focused on positions where there are no other pieces, and only pawns to consider. (Pawns aren't pieces, their piece wannabes. That's why they aren't given a "P" in algebraic notation!)
HI: HERE is an interesting answer to your question. IF two strong players are in that situation it will usually be drawish. YES friends i said drawish. EVEN the great one bobby fischer asked for a draw in that very situation many years ago when he played in a tourney in philadelphia. I don,t know if it was world open or not. THE guy he played was tony kapany and fischer who was known to never play for a draw actually asked tony for a draw in that game! look it up it is a very good game. IT is a good example of that q against 2 rooks.
Playing Black. Where did I first go Wrong?
by rootintootin a few minutes ago
Monster pawns, or not?
by Arisktotle a few minutes ago
how's silman book??
by notmtwain a few minutes ago
Who is your favorite Grandmaster??
by gchess33 2 minutes ago
Need some advice
by RussBell 4 minutes ago
by thegreat_patzer 4 minutes ago
I play a lot, but I'm not improving. What am I doing wrong?
by chesster3145 4 minutes ago
8/30/2016 - All Things Are Connected
by roniron 5 minutes ago
Knight sacrifice in exchange for a mating attack
by arkrocks1234 6 minutes ago
Beating an arch-opponent in a cool opening
by chesster3145 7 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!