Which is better in general? And how much it depends on position?
Any suggestion would be highly appreciated.
Any suggestion would be highly appreciated.
If the rooks can coordinate, they are better. Two against one, same as two minors usually beat a rook if they can work together.
When rooks don't communicate, the queen is better.
When rooks don't communicate, the queen is better.
If the queen is supported by minor pieces an attack on the king is very dangerous. Overall it depends very much on the position.
Theory says queen is worth 9 pawns, two rooks 10 pawns...So generally two rooks are better
If the rooks are supported by minor pieces, an attack on the king is very dangerous.
Overall, read #2 again.
Overall, read #2 again.
Two rooks are like the balls of jugglers , if one knows juggling he never loses a ball off his hand!
It depends on the position.
I've got it even worse - playing a queen vs. rook endgame in correspondence and seem to be unable to win it!
Just weird that I never had to play this endgame before.... (And I don't ask for hints here! Just in case you think that)
Just weird that I never had to play this endgame before.... (And I don't ask for hints here! Just in case you think that)
Most GMs don’t win Q vs. R against a tablebase. Even Kramnik wasn’t sure if he succeeds.
@Sarg0n
What features in a position you would see to give queen for 2 rooks?
What features in a position you would see to give queen for 2 rooks?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.