two rooks should win in the endgame. i'd take the queen in the middle though.
Which is generally stronger? a queen or two rooks?
Sort:
b_baggins wrote:
two rooks should win in the endgame. i'd take the queen in the middle though.
Actually, I'd bet most KQ + pawns vs. KRR + pawns endgames are drawn if the number of pawns is close, they are on approximately the same ranks, neither side has a large majority on one side of the board, and there are no immediate tactics.
I've come to find that two queens beat one rook
Feb 25, 2010
0
#26
b_baggins wrote:
two rooks should win in the endgame. i'd take the queen in the middle though.
haha yeah you know what you are talking about cause you just beat me in a game where you had two rooks against my queen 
Does anybody know any example?
As long as the queen does not fork the rooks first, the rooks should be able to deliver checkmate.
@Nachiket777
1 Q cannot stand vs. 2Q's...eventually the lone QUeen will run out of good checks and the guy with 2 Q's can check in response to one of your checks
And as for 2 R's vs 1 Q, I'd say its even if the rooks are connected, maybe rooks can have slight advantage due to mate threats but even that is hard b/c in setting up one, you will have to disconnect the rooks and allow the Q to check.
bastiaan wrote:
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
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044015
or perhaps you mean this one
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361
On topic, two rooks are better than a queen when there are few pawns on the board because the rooks can eat pawns while the queen is helpless to save them.
However, the queen is not powerless against two rooks, especially in a middlegame situation. Q v 2R endgames are usually difficult for the Q though.
tdevic wrote:
Does anybody know any example?
From: The Evaluation of Material Imblances by GM Larry Kaufman
"QUEEN FOR TWO ROOKS
How about queen for two rooks? Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks, this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead."
khpa21 wrote
On topic, two rooks are better than a queen when there are few pawns on the board because the rooks can eat pawns while the queen is helpless to save them.
Even with White to move here, he's finished because there is no way the queen can stop the rooks from capturing the a2-pawn, and then Black's a-pawn will fly to the queening square
However, the queen is not powerless against two rooks, especially in a middlegame situation. Q v 2R endgames are usually difficult for the Q though.
I mean, there may be a win for black, but it's not so direct as immediately winning a pawn IMO.
You can find some insight on these material imablances here:
Chess piece relative value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The page seems to contradict itself, though. At one point it says that two rooks are about equal to a queen in the middlegame and about equal to a queen and pawn in the endgame, but at another point it says two rooks are better than a queen and pawn and often as good as a queen and two pawns.
Eebster wrote:
You can find some insight on these material imablances here:
Chess piece relative value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The page seems to contradict itself, though. At one point it says that two rooks are about equal to a queen in the middlegame and about equal to a queen and pawn in the endgame, but at another point it says two rooks are better than a queen and pawn and often as good as a queen and two pawns.
Kaufman says the queen needs no compensation to equal the rooks if there are at least 2 sets of minor pieces on the board... that's good enough for me :)
In the endgame, with more open lines, it seems the rooks value has increased (compared to the middlegame) and so the queen needs a pawn to compensate.
Two rooks being as good as a queen and 2 pawns is a little out there... they would have to be exceptionally active rooks (the 2 pawns wouldn't be passers, etc).
Estragon wrote:
[stuff]
I agree
I agree
I can add the anecdotal evidence of my own praxis. In rated OTB or correspondence games over 40 years of competition, I can find only 6 examples of the material distribution of Q v 2R (irrespective of pawns and other material), and the results are striking. I had the Q three times and the Rs three times, and scored one win, one loss, and one draw from each side! So either this supports the idea of equal chances, or my small sample is of no use at all.
Interesting.
2 rooks are stronger than a queen because they can mate where as a queen needs a king in a two rooks vs queen endgame. It takes a good player to convert this advantage either way. Also, on points system Q=9 and R=5.
gambit13 wrote:
2 rooks are stronger than a queen because they can mate where as a queen needs a king in a two rooks vs queen endgame. It takes a good player to convert this advantage either way. Also, on points system Q=9 and R=5.
This points system of yours seems to have the answers. How would you evaluate a queen vs three minor pieces?
orangehonda wrote:
gambit13 wrote:
2 rooks are stronger than a queen because they can mate where as a queen needs a king in a two rooks vs queen endgame. It takes a good player to convert this advantage either way. Also, on points system Q=9 and R=5.
This points system of yours seems to have the answers. How would you evaluate a queen vs three minor pieces?
Or even a queen and pawn vs. three minors.
How about two bishops for a rook and pawn?
I almost always prefer the two rooks unless given the position they won't be active.
[White "Kacparov"]
[Black "Computer"]
[WhiteElo "1909"]
[BlackElo "1961"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 a6 6.c3 d6 7.h3 b5 8.Bb3 O-O 9.Bc2 Be6 10.Nbd2 Bb6 11.Re1 h6 12.Nf1 d5 13.exd5 Qxd5 14.Be3 Bxe3 15.Nxe3 Qd6 16.Qd2 Rfd8 17.Qe2 Nh5 18.Qf1 Nf4 19.Red1 Qc5 20.a3 Rd6 21.Nd2 Rd7 22.Ne4 Qb6 23.b4 Nd5 24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.Nc5 Rd6 26.Re1 Rad8 27.Rad1 a5 28.Qe2 f5 29.Qh5 g5 30.Qe2 Kh8 31.Qe3 Qa7 32.Ra1 Ra8 33.Rec1 axb4 34.axb4 Qxa1 35.Rxa1 Rxa1+ 36.Kh2 Rd8 37.Nb7 Rda8 38.Na5 e4 39.Nxc6 Bxc6 40.Qd4+ Kh7 41.dxe4 R8a2 42.Bb3 Rb2 43.Bf7 Bxe4 44.Qf6 f4 45.Be6 h5 46.Qf7+ Kh6 47.Qf8+ Kh7 48.Bg8+ Kg6 49.Qf7+ Kh6 50.Qf6+ Bg6 51.Qh8+ Bh7 52.Qxh7# 1-0
Here black rooks had a lot of space to move and the queen was still better :-)
animalsafariranger wrote: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it true, but the queen may still have a chance to win, if the opponent leave the 1 rook undefended then if the queen is in a position where it can eat it then the queen will eat it problaly and then it's K-R vs. K-Q and K-Q will win.