Two rooks vs. queen?

I previously asked about three minor pieces vs. a queen. If you go by the point systems we were all given as a kid, the three pieces were each rated at three points and the queen 9, so you would think the game even everything else being equal.

Well, two rooks make 10 points. But somehow, I'd feel more comfortable with the queen, especially the end game, and definitely if I had an extra pawn to work with.

I have another combo to consider, but I'm in the middle of a game where it may come to pass so I'll wait until I'm committed before raising the question.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I previously asked about three minor pieces vs. a queen. If you go by the point systems we were all given as a kid, the three pieces were each rated at three points and the queen 9, so you would think the game even everything else being equal.

Well, two rooks make 10 points. But somehow, I'd feel more comfortable with the queen, especially the end game, game where it may come to pass so I'll wait until I'm committed before raising the question.

Originally posted by Shinidoki
The "points System" is a flawed way of thinking for several reasons, the most prominant being that Pawns change in value (via promotion) and therefore, pawns should not be considered "1" -- but a number from 0.5-9, depending on a variety of factors.

a really good example of the flaw would be K+B vs K+3p "points wise" they are equal but every good ches ...[text shortened]... ossible that the side with a Q may slip up and allow you to trade into a K vs. K+R engame.

It's true that the value of the pieces will change according to the board position, but the point system for pieces is still a very useful tool.

A number of years ago, IM Larry Kaufman made a study of the average relative value of the pieces, and he came up with more refined values than the old "Reinfeld" values. Rounded to the nearest 1/4 pawn, the Kaufman values are:

Pawn = 1 pawn
Knight or Bishop = 3 1/4 pawns (that is, 3.25 pawns)
Rook = 5 pawns
Queen = 9 3/4 pawns (that is, 9.75 pawns)
(Larry also found that the advantage of the bishop pair was worth a bonus of about 1/2 pawn.)

So, using the Kaufman average values, a queen is worth just a sliver of a pawn less than two rooks.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
the point system for pieces is still a very useful tool.

Okay, so let me alter the question a little bit. Putting aside the question of whether the rooks are inherently more powerful than the queen or vice versa, which would you prefer to play generally speaking and everything else being equal?

Rook+Rook versus Queen, no pawns.....=drawn game, according to the Oxford Chess Encyclopedia, and supposedly demonstrated by computer programs.
That's if both sides play perfectly. Anyone here feel up to playing perfectly?

Yes, but which would you personally feel most comfortable playing.

I think the rooks can stand up to the queen. Perhaps even a rook and a minor piece. But it takes more proficiency and skill.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I previously asked about three minor pieces vs. a queen. If you go by the point systems we were all given as a kid, the three pieces were each rated at three points and the queen 9, so you would think the game even everything else being equal.

Well, two rooks make 10 points. But somehow, I'd feel more comfortable with the queen, especially the end game, ...[text shortened]... game where it may come to pass so I'll wait until I'm committed before raising the question.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How about queen for two rooks? Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks, this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the ope ...[text shortened]...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I previously asked about three minor pieces vs. a queen. If you go by the point systems we were all given as a kid, the three pieces were each rated at three points and the queen 9, so you would think the game even everything else being equal.

Well, two rooks make 10 points. But somehow, I'd feel more comfortable with the queen, especially the end game, game where it may come to pass so I'll wait until I'm committed before raising the question.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Okay, so let me alter the question a little bit. Putting aside the question of whether the rooks are inherently more powerful than the queen or vice versa, which would you prefer to play generally speaking and everything else being equal?

the advantage that the queen has over the rooks is that it's just 1 piece and thus easier to work with. Therefore, it lets you be lazy.

But with no pawns or other pieces on the board, couldn't the queen just perpetually check the opposing king?

Originally posted by Ramned
I've done better with R + B and R + N against the queen. If there are plenty of pawns, you can trap and put away the queen from play.

I think I had R + N in Game 3013226 and actually trapped the queen. Move 28 put it out of play.

2 Rooks are tougher to use with a crowded board than R + N/B usually...but in the endgame or open board they can do well.