I was recently on the losing end of Q vs. R & B end game: Game 1343686
On material points alone, I believe the Q has the edge (9 vs. 8). But I wasn't able to capitalize - I never seemed to overcome the flexibility offered by his two pieces to my one, even if that one was more powerful.
In general, should Q beat R & B in end game?
Any thoughts on how I could have played my end game differently?
Any examples of Q vs. R/B games in which Q side won?
One possible option for victory may have been to exchange my Q for R & B at move 28.5 b/c I think that my pawn structure was sufficiently better than my opponent's (K side pawns more advanced, Q side pawns in adjacent files and supported by K). Regardless of what the non-pawn material advantage was, do you agree that I had the advantage in pawn structure at move 28.5?
Originally posted by masscatIf it's a draw with no Ps, then seems like point system is a bit out of calibration since Q > B+R
Fine covers Q vs R & Minor Piece in Basic Chess Endings. With no P's, it's a draw. With even P's, it favors the Q, esp. if the P's are unbalanced.
Even P's gives Q the advantage - hmm, my instinct would be that Q has harder time protecting P's than two pieces. What tatics are used to give the Q/P combo the edge?
Originally posted by mbrennanThe point system has its limits, especially in certain endgames. For example, K+N+N vs. K is a +6 point advantage, but there's no forced win in most positions.
If it's a draw with no Ps, then seems like point system is a bit out of calibration since Q > B+R
Originally posted by mbrennanThe "point system" is a useful guideline; the most common system (Q 9, R 5, B 3, N 3) is one of many. There are many potential imbalances that undermine this system, as well as the alternatives. An excellent discussion of several point systems, and many situations where they will fail you can be found in Andrew Soltis, Rethinking the Chess Pieces.
If it's a draw with no Ps, then seems like point system is a bit out of calibration since Q > B+R