- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by HFRorbisTwo rooks tend to be better than a queen......
no
a queen is worth 2 rooks if not more because the queen moves easier among opponent's lines
the queen is worth more than 2 rooks in the beginning of the game because the rooks are stuck in the corners
and the queen is worth 2 rooks in the mid game when the 2 rooks are active
and as a general rule,in an empty board,
a rook =5 pawns
a queen = 10 pawns =2 rooks
Over all the rooks can work together better and control more squares than a queen, a centrally posted queen can control 20 squares two centrally posted rooks can control 26 squares. If you think of it this way two rooks can control say the d+e file where as the queen could only control one, and if the queen was opposed by a rook then under normal conditions the queen would have to move.
For an inexperienced player like me, even a single well supported rook is a force to be reckoned with even against a queen - this game had me practically tearing my hair out because it went on for 55 more moves even after a queen trap bore rare fruit on move 24 - I sincerely believed that it was all downhill from now on: Game 1675662
Originally posted by hollowGood point.
For an inexperienced player like me, even a single well supported rook is a force to be reckoned with even against a queen - this game had me practically tearing my hair out because it went on for 55 more moves even after a queen trap bore rare fruit on move 24 - I sincerely believed that it was all downhill from now on: Game 1675662
For example, how can white make progress from this position?
white to move.
The Evaluation of Material Imbalances
by IM Larry Kaufman
first published in Chess Life March 1999
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
"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."
The Portisch-Fischer game as mentioned by IM Kaufman above:
Portisch vs Fischer
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044015
I've always enjoyed playing through the 2 Rooks vs Queen endgame in the game below. 🙂
Fischer vs Matthai
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044034
(Edit: More open files = better for rooks.)
Originally posted by ckoh1965
Well, just a couple of days ago, someone started a thread, asking which is better, to have a queen or two rooks. This would be one example that could answer his question.
Just had that comment about this game, so I thought it could illustrate it, even if it's full of blunders - not mentioning the missed mate in one 😉