It always depends on the position of course. If one is even slightly better than the other than i would go for the imbalance that favors me.
Which side of the imbalance do you prefer?
Sort:
I've lost with the Queen v. 2 rooks; I've lost with the 2 rooks v. the Q. I don't like this deal either way you slice it. Queen just goes on a checking rampage 17 checks deep, man it's brutal.
Specifically, I'm a gambit player who likes to play on the shorter end of the stick, i.e. fewer "points," playing from behind if you will; give a pawn to just get out of your own way often leads to greater mobility and attacking potential.
I imbalance the daylights out of my opponents and love the pawns. Connected passers can topple a rook, happens all the time. Soul, man, soul.
Instead of the perjorative term "imbalance" check out the Japanese concept of "wabi-sabi". The point count is for amateurs and if you are losing (let's say 8-9), the board might be clearly in favor of the eight. The lower classes just look at this number without any understanding of the position, and this in itself is a way to beat up on the fish.
I also tend to sack the queen a lot; not really sack, but trade for let's say a rook and bishop; trades that often appear to be bad (Q for 2B). The shock value of seeing the queen fall usually almost always in fact leads to a later blunder by the guy who thinks he's winning. The Queensack is a huge, huge psychological boost and changes the very dynamic of the players as well as the game.
So if you've been playing Chess for any time at all then you've probably heard of the point evaluation of pieces to help aid in material trading. ( if not: pawn = 1 point, knights and bishops = 3 points, rooks = 5 points and the queen is worth 9 points). The trick to utilizing this system is in understanding how piece values increase and decrease depending on the current position. To get to my question, would you rather play with two rooks against a queen or vice versa? And would you rather have two minor pieces or one rook? My theory: two rooks are valued more than one queen however the queen is an "easier" piece to use and make valuable than two rooks are. The same goes for the other imbalance; a rook is easier to use than two minor pieces so even though the value of material would be higher, it requires a better understanding of the game to effectively utilize the two weaker pieces rather than the one stronger one. While we're at it, Would you give up a minor piece for three pawns?