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.
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 chessplayer would prefer the pawns anyday.
Also, In K+Q vs. K+R+R endgames, I think fortune favours the rooks; (so long as they defend each other) the reason being that its always possible that the side with a Q may slip up and allow you to trade into a K vs. K+R engame.
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.
Yeah, but the rooks pretty much have to limit themselves to being doubled on a rank or file or you have to play very proficiently to avoid a fork with the king on a diagonal attack on the rook.
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.
I agree that below a certain level of ability, the point system may be a very crude aid which helps. But beyond that, I don't see how it helps because it is too artificial.
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?
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.
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 opening, but Fischer soon won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead.
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
But I'm certain there are plenty of positions where the reverse it true.
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.
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.
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?
I think most 2R+pawns vs Q+pawns endgames with everything else equal (pawnstructure king safety) should favor the rooks simply because they can overpower a queen, any weakness the side with the queen has can be attacked 2 times by the rooks and defended only once with the queen, or twice if the king helps and even so the rooks might be able to give themselves up for a queen+pawn.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1306138
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.
But Rooks can protect each other simultaneously, which is handy against a queen.
Two rooks vs. queen?
06 Jul '07 01:56
Back to Top