Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    16 Dec '06 21:00
  2. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    16 Dec '06 21:01
    No.
  3. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Dec '06 21:01
    2Rs should win against a single R except in the most exceptional of circumstances.
  4. 16 Dec '06 21:03
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Yes, or where the side with two rooks thinks it's unethical to win.
  5. 16 Dec '06 21:04
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    A full house beats two Rooks. Doesn't it?
  6. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    16 Dec '06 21:08
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    is it likely to draw with a rook vs. queen
  7. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Dec '06 21:10
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    No, I mean the sort of position where the 2 Rooks are disconnected and the weaker king is in a "bad" position.

    For example, in this position with white to move he can check the king indefinately.

  8. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Dec '06 21:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ramned
    is it likely to draw with a rook vs. queen
    R vs Q is a win for the Q but it is extremely difficult if the weaker side does not blunder but it is of course unsporting for the side with the Rook to play on hoping the guy with the Queen can't do it.

    He is just wasting time making unnecessary moves.
  9. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Dec '06 21:13
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Yes, or where the side with two rooks thinks it's unethical to win.
    Its against against the rules of fair play not to offer a draw if you only have 2 Rooks against a Rook, isn't it?
  10. 16 Dec '06 21:17
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    That's pretty cool. But wouldn't it be unethical of White to force a stalemate?
  11. 16 Dec '06 21:18
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    Its against against the rules of fair play not to offer a draw if you only have 2 Rooks against a Rook, isn't it?
    In the name of fun, the player with two rooks should sacrifice one of them.
  12. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    16 Dec '06 21:19
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    In the name of fun, the player with two rooks should sacrifice one of them.
    For the other players rook.
  13. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Dec '06 22:13
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    The side with 1 Rook should then make 50 pointless moves chasing the King about the board and then complain that the player with no Rooks who used to have 2 Rooks has not yet resigned.
  14. 17 Dec '06 02:51
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    The side with 1 Rook should then make 50 pointless moves chasing the King about the board and then complain that the player with no Rooks who used to have 2 Rooks has not yet resigned.
    Well he did just chase a loophole. He should have been playing chess the right way by resigning!
  15. 17 Dec '06 04:48
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    No, I mean the sort of position where the 2 Rooks are disconnected and the weaker king is in a "bad" position.

    For example, in this position with white to move he can check the king indefinately.

    [fen]5R1K/3r4/4k3/8/8/6r1/8/8[/fen]
    the thread asks if it's likely to happen, it's unlikely that that position would arise (if it does, then white should be hit in the head by a 2x4...or given an endgame book...)