I took a look at the end game table base; and I don't think the situation is as clear as people are saying. Assume that white has the two rooks, then with white to move he'll win in 58.2% of cases, draw in 36.8% and lose in 5.1% of positions. With black to move first the stats change a bit: +1: 52.0% = 37% -1: 11%. Not all the positions where black wins are trivial (forking the pieces instantly):
black to play and mates in 49.
In this position black can force a fork in about 7 moves. What is definitely right is that, except in a few cases which you can probably avoid, once the rooks are connected black cannot win.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAbsolutely - this is critical. Once the Rooks are connected the player with the Rooks has the only winning chances but (depending on the position of the king) the Queen may draw by perpetual.
What is definitely right is that, except in a few cases which you can probably avoid, once the rooks are connected black cannot win.
My statement that the queen cannot win was based on the assumption that the side with the Rooks will be able to connect them. Clearly if the side with the Rooks does not have the move and they are not already connected the queen could win and must attempt to fork the rooks but will need to give constant checks. However even a Q vs R ending is notoriously difficult for the queen to win - this was discussed in an earlier thread.
In my humble experience, all else being equal the two rooks trump the queen--as long as the rooks are connected. In endgame, I strive to connect the rooks as soon as possible. But there are a lot of possibilities in a quirky position, possibilities in which the queen might be more maneuverable.
Originally posted by Dragon FireBut it didn't stop you posting your initial example.
Theorectically bad positions are always posible but unlikely to occur in practise.
My example was just a curious rarity where the rooks are protected but are badly placed. Sure, it has no practical value. But if practical value was the main theme of this thread, why are we using examples with no pawns...
Originally posted by VarenkaLets not split hairs. My initial example demonstrated the method in which 2 Rooks can force a win and is the sort of position that could occur in actual play and gives an example of the type of position the stronger player should aim for. Your example showed a loss in 1 move and showed the sort of position that would only occur at the end of a "forced" series of moves culminating in victory for the queen.
But it didn't stop you posting your initial example.
My example was just a curious rarity where the rooks are protected but are badly placed. Sure, it has no practical value. But if practical value was the main theme of this thread, why are we using examples with no pawns...
You may as well have posted this
White to move and win
Rooks beats Queen :'(