08 Feb '06 17:39>
which is better to have for an end game situation? each player has 3 pawns ....
Originally posted by renmasterStatistically, Q tends to beat 2R more than the opposite. However in the particular endgame you describe, I don't know.
was curious what players thought would be a stronger position. although 2 rooks would probably dominate the board, would the 3 pawns be able to block their 3 files and allow the queen to manourvre ? just a thought...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthe statement is likely true duing the middlegame where Q + pieces can generate more threats with suddenness. an endgame situation is difference. if 2 rooks target a pawn then it will lead to a 3 vs 2 pawn endgame, right?
Statistically, Q tends to beat 2R more than the opposite. However in the particular endgame you describe, I don't know.
Originally posted by renmasterThey say two "active" rooks are stronger than a Queen. If you have two inactive rooks, you might as well have no pieces against a Queen. But, if they are "active," they are much more powerful so I've heard. But, something about losing my "darling" always gets me depressed - even if I kill the other guy's "lady." When I win a game with my Queen still on the board, I feel like I'm going to get rewarded when I get home. HAHA
which is better to have for an end game situation? each player has 3 pawns ....
Originally posted by powershakeremo
They say two "active" rooks are stronger than a Queen. If you have two inactive rooks, you might as well have no pieces against a Queen. But, if they are "active," they are much more powerful so I've heard. But, something about losing my "darling" always gets me depressed - even if I kill the other guy's "lady." When I win a game with my Queen still on the board, I feel like I'm going to get rewarded when I get home. HAHA