Which is generally stronger? a queen or two rooks?

Sort:
Avatar of nimzo5

In actual play, the Rooks tend to have a much higher than expected win %. But as always it depends on the rest of the position.

Avatar of trysts
echecs06 wrote:

 2 pieces are often better than two.


+1Laughing

Avatar of oscartheman

Queen versus two rooks: this is usually a draw, but either side may have a win (Nunn 2002a:311).

Source:wikipedia

Avatar of pdela

i can't answer "generally"

Avatar of Sceadungen

The best player with either

Avatar of MrNimzoIndian

I prefer the queen over the two rooks, not withstanding that it really depends on the overall position. Perhaps the preference indicates a particular view of life. Two rooks seem solid and boring. A rampant queen seems more exciting to me ! Smile

Avatar of MrNimzoIndian

Here are two games played in rounds 1 and 3 of an open tournament earlier this year where I somehow managed to get a queen versus two rooks on each occasion. Losing the first and winning the latter. In the first game I just "overlooked" the exchange !

 

 

Avatar of khpa21
orangehonda wrote:
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.


Yeah, you're right. Stupid amateur khpa21 who thinks that being better means winning easily.

Avatar of Hammerschlag

I understand the question is in "general" so that would have to be the Queen, but in all honesty, the question has to be more specific in the "situation" for the question of which is stronger to be answered best. I think a board with nothing but the Kings & Queen versus King & 2 Rooks is way different if there are pawns still on the board. Completely open with Kings expose, I believe the 2 Rooks have a (very) slight edge although with best play should turn out a draw.

Avatar of MrNimzoIndian

And one of Fischer's

Avatar of chessroboto

27. ... Qd5 and 29. R1xe3 of the Portisch-Fischer game in post #53 shows that white was going to lose one of the rooks soon and ends the discussion of which side still had the advantage (2 rooks vs 1 queen).

Avatar of WindowsEnthusiast

Either side will win with passed pawns.

But for lower rated players the queen is easier as the rooks take a lot of coordination.

Avatar of Eebster
Hammerschlag wrote:

I understand the question is in "general" so that would have to be the Queen, but in all honesty, the question has to be more specific in the "situation" for the question of which is stronger to be answered best. I think a board with nothing but the Kings & Queen versus King & 2 Rooks is way different if there are pawns still on the board. Completely open with Kings expose, I believe the 2 Rooks have a (very) slight edge although with best play should turn out a draw.


It's not that simple at all. The value of pieces is not usually judged by their effectiveness in the opening or even middlegame because most games do not end there. For example, consider that bishops tend to be stronger than rooks in the opening and are sometimes as strong as a rook even in the middlegame. Yet rooks are nearly always valued higher because they dominate the bishops in the endgame and it can be very difficult to convert minor opening or middlegame advnatages into significant endgame material advantages.

But that isn't even really relevant here because it isn't even clear that a queen is usually stronger in the middlegame than two rooks. It certainly is in some cases, but the rooks are stronger in some, too. What is clear is that the rooks are much stronger in most endgames, so if the rooks can hold the position against the queen (admittedly not an easy task), they will probably have the edge eventually.

As for KQvKRR pawnless endgames, these are very complicated and while they tend to be theoretical draws, this is not always the case and the side to check first often has the win.

Avatar of orangehonda
khpa21 wrote:

Yeah, you're right. Stupid amateur khpa21 who thinks that being better means winning easily.


Just a bit of fun :p  Obviously in the diagram you gave, black has every advantage (well, except for immediately winning some material or something).  Good illustration of two rooks being much better etc etc.

Avatar of khpa21
orangehonda wrote:
khpa21 wrote:

Yeah, you're right. Stupid amateur khpa21 who thinks that being better means winning easily.


Just a bit of fun :p  Obviously in the diagram you gave, black has every advantage (well, except for immediately winning some material or something).  Good illustration of two rooks being much better etc etc.


I just found an even better example of two rooks smothering a queen

Avatar of orangehonda

Ouch -- that would be an exceptionally painful ending to draw out the defense to :) black hung tough though, I would have whimped out and resigned Tongue out

Avatar of gambit13
Eebster wrote:
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?


Q vs 3 minor pieces should be even but 2 bishops and knight would be stronger than two knights and a bishop. I give a slight advantage and slight disadvantage respectively but should be a drawn position with good play. Also, 3 minor pieces can force mate, where as a queen can't.

Q and pawn vs 3 minors should be drawn with good play.

I would give an advantage to 2 bishops over rook and pawn as bishops can continually attack rook but is difficult to convert into a win.

With minor pieces and above, more pieces is better than less pieces of equal value. It is difficult to convert these advantages. Strong players prefer more pieces because they have more agility.  

Hope this helps

Gambit13

Avatar of King_of_pawns

I am in a game w/jogebelo and I am in process of getting queen but lose both rooks, so check it out. Lots of pieces left, so who knows.

Avatar of browni3141
King_of_pawns wrote:

I am in a game w/jogebelo and I am in process of getting queen but lose both rooks, so check it out. Lots of pieces left, so who knows.


I've played him twice.

I've also got a current game on a different site where I've just traded my queen for two rooks.

Avatar of wandafish

in my opinion, depends of the position