05 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyIn that case then yes, two rooks vs. queen should win. I'm sure though that there are still some OTB variations that would disprove that theory. They just aren't coming to me now.
Ok, I was thinking of no pawns, literally two Rooks vs a Queen (with Kings, of course. 🙂 ).
In fact I can see two rooks vs. queen being a draw by repetition in some cases, now that i think about it. Perpetual check. You know.
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by lauseyTHE QUEEN
Shouldn't the one with the two rooks theoretically win?
Many books say that rook, minor piece, and pawn are equal to or even better than a queen, but Garry Kasparov wrote that the side without the queen must also have the bishop pair to claim equality, which agrees quite well with my statistics. When not opposed by the bishop pair, the queen is worth rook, minor piece, and 1½ pawns. The knight seems to be marginally better than the single bishop in assisting the rook against the queen.
As to which side benefits from the presence of an extra pair of rooks, Karpov wrote in Chess Life that the side without the queen definitely wants to keep the extra rooks on the board, but later when he actually found himself with rook and minor piece vs. queen against Kamsky in their title match both players acted as if the opposite were true. Probably the explanation was that the exchange of rooks makes thte game more drawish (see the 1996 game Topalov-Anand where Anand lost his queen and a pawn for rook and knight but managed to draw rather easily with the other rooks off the board), and since Kamsky was the only one with winning chances in that game. Karpov sought the rook exchange and Kamsky avoided it, ultimately winning.
My statistics mildly confirm Karpov's written statement. Roman Dzindzichashvili [DH: "Dzindzi"] told me that he believes the extra rooks tend to favor the queenless side because a pair of rooks can defend each other against the queen. Note that my principle of major piece redundancy does not help us in this case, since the extra rooks are redundant extra pieces for both sides. In general, if you have a queen you don't need rooks nearly as much as if you are queenless.
QUEEN FOR TWO ROOKS
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.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by JDChessActually, with perfect endgame play, I've heard that a draw is sometimes likely eventhough it may not seem possible for the less discerning eyes of a woodpusher. Chess out ICC and the practice rooms. It's a trip.
In that case then yes, two rooks vs. queen should win. I'm sure though that there are still some OTB variations that would disprove that theory. They just aren't coming to me now.
In fact I can see two rooks vs. queen being a draw by repetition in some cases, now that i think about it. Perpetual check. You know.
05 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerQ vs 2 Rs is normally a draw unless the side with the Queen has a badly placed king.
Hi all,
What's the technique for playing two rooks vs. a queen (or vice-versa)? Do you have any illustrative games?
Cheers,
LH
Take this position
1. Rh7+ .. Kg8;
2. Rh7e7
The sole purpose of move 1 was to drive the king to g8 to deny this square to the queen and thereby prevent the queens escape, e.g.1.Rf7 .. Qd6 draws
2. ......... Kh8
All queen moves fail to 3. Rg7+ .. Kh8; 4. Rh7+ .. Kg8; 5. Rb7g7+ .. Kf8; 6. Rh8+ winning
3. Rb7c7!!
With the idea 3. ......... Qg8; 4. Kf1!! when c4 is denied to the black queen and 4. ........ Kf8+; 5.Rf7 .. Qg8; 6.Kf2 leads to zugzwang
3. ........ Kg8;
4. Ra7 .. Kh8;
5. Rf7 .. Qe8+;
6. Kf2 .. Kg8;
7. Rg7+ .. Kf8;
8. Rh7!! .. Kg8;
9. Ra7g7+ .. Kf8;
10 Rh8+ winning
So not at all easy. This exchange is the one I hate the most. Should I take the 2Rs up, should I offer them. In practice so much depends on the other pieces and the position of the pawns but if the rooks are not joined and /or the pawns are scattered and (potentially) vulnerable the queen may just grab pawns and win.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7I agree...in a position like below, white has forked the king and a rook, but in higher level play, it is unlikely to occur.
Depends
In amateur play usually an unexpected fork or skewer by the queen happens often. With perfect play as in the high level masters I don't think Queens will be better.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by wittywonkaNever ever separate the Rooks.
I agree...in a position like below, white has forked the king and a rook, but in higher level play, it is unlikely to occur.
[fen]r7/1Q6/7r/3k4/8/1K6/8/8[/fen]
The Queen must take a perpetual if she can. Usually except in exceptional cases the side with 2Rs cannot prevent this.
If the Rooks protect each other there is absolutely no way for the queen to win (short of blundering badly).
06 Dec 06
Don't say in high level play they don't make silly mistakes. Skewers and forks happen all the time in time trouble. Or they just merely occur. Remember: Kramnik missed a mate in one against a computer (a simple one). I remember a Steintz game where he tore his opponent apart with forks and skewers. This would be something interesting, in fact. See how many GM games you can find with obvious blunders. You'll be surprised.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineA skewer cannot occur with only a Q & 2Rs on the board.
Don't say in high level play they don't make silly mistakes. Skewers and forks happen all the time in time trouble. Or they just merely occur. Remember: Kramnik missed a mate in one against a computer (a simple one). I remember a Steintz game where he tore his opponent apart with forks and skewers. This would be something interesting, in fact. See how many GM games you can find with obvious blunders. You'll be surprised.
Once the Rooks are joined then there is no way a GM would blunder. The fork would have to occur as the last move in a series of exchanges in which case we are not really talking Q vs 2R ending.
It is more likely the player with the queen would blunder resulting in a check that loses the queen as in my example a few posts back that gave a forced win for the 2 Rs.
Other than this example nothing short of a horrendous blunder would give any other result but if your approach is always to be that either player can win because the other side might blunder then any assessment of any position becomes pointless.
The question has to be given best play who will win in an ending K&Q vs K&2Rs and the answer is except in very exceptional circumstances when the weaker sides king is badly placed when the 2Rs will win the gane is a draw. Please note the weaker side is the Queen NOT the 2 Rooks.