It depends on the position. A video about the topic has been posted on Mundo Ajedrez
http://mundoajedrez.com.pe/how-to-play-queen-vs-two-rooks-endgame-part-1/
It depends on the position. A video about the topic has been posted on Mundo Ajedrez
http://mundoajedrez.com.pe/how-to-play-queen-vs-two-rooks-endgame-part-1/
It depends on the position.
Don't just assume that 2 rooks are 10 and the queen is 9, so it's better.
As IM Rensch said, the queen is better when there are pawn weaknesses on both sides of the board, where it can move easily. Also with an open king the queen is better. In my opinion the queen is usually better.
The two rooks only gain an advantage when they can adequately defend all the weaknesses because they are on one side of the board. The rooks must coordinate to achieve this.
Of course, this is only with equal pawns.
IMHE, a queen is preferable if you're a tactical player, and two rooks are preferable if your'e a strong positional player.
IMHE, a queen is preferable if you're a tactical player, and two rooks are preferable if your'e a strong positional player.
not always.....
Queens are great at attacking multiple targets at once, but because of their value they suffer from poor defense. A queen can get pushed around by almost any defended peace.
Therefore, I would opt for the two rooks. True, I wouldn't be able to do diagnal attacks, but as long as I am careful to avoid a King/Rook fork where the rook is undefended, I would chose the two rooks over the queen any day (plus, with the rooks, I can push around two peices (the King and the Queen), with the Queen, I can only push around the King most of the time (assuming my opponent defends the rook in some way).
Queens are great at attacking multiple targets at once, but because of their value they suffer from poor defense. A queen can get pushed around by almost any defended peace.
Therefore, I would opt for the two rooks. True, I wouldn't be able to do diagnal attacks, but as long as I am careful to avoid a King/Rook fork where the rook is undefended, I would chose the two rooks over the queen any day (plus, with the rooks, I can push around two peices (the King and the Queen), with the Queen, I can only push around the King most of the time (assuming my opponent defends the rook in some way).
The OP hasn't been here for 19 months.
I would prefer to side with the rook pair since they can defend each other, and unlike the queen, when one of them is alone, it is lower in value than the queen, but can also be helped with his friend when attacked or defending something.
If you have open positions 2 Rooks are better. If you have somewhat complicated pawn structure Queen is better
You can't say it's 10points vs 9, that statement is not considering we are taking about the endgame here. Personally I think it depends on positioning, rooks ability to cover them selfs can be negated by the pawns structure and even if there is none, still depends on how the board looks.
I think, two rooks are more effective than a queen in the endgame. In the middlegame mobile is more important, so queen is better than rooks when there are many pieces. And queen always needs help.
The queen does not work well by itself. It needs the help of another piece. In the middle game the pieces are still on the board. As the wood comes off, the rooks will become stronger.
It depends on the availability of space and number pawns on each side.If the only pieces left on the board is 2 rooks and a king on one side and one queen and a king on the other side then, in my opinion, the side with two rooks has a good advantage.That person can win if he manages to force the opponent to exchange the queen for a rook.For example, take a look at the following position.
See what I am talking about?
However, if White has pawns, then the game may lead to a different result.Not only that, two rooks can control more squares than a queen can at a time.
I dislike this technique.
If there are no open or semi-open files, the queen is better. Otherwise, the rooks are (with a few exceptions).
Didn't get queen...it's always something.