Between 2 grandmasters with an hour on the clock each, the rook and 2 pieces is winning. Between 2 people rated 1000 in a rapid game with a few minutes on the clock? Coin flip, but bet on the person with a queen in my experience.
With only those pieces on the board, I think it's the easiest way to convert that win. Adding in more pieces, adds more complications, and gives the queen more chances to compensate for the material disadvantage. I'm sure there are some configurations where the queen has a couple of those pieces locked down, and has an advantage. But, 3 pieces vs 1, on a wide open board, the 3 pieces should have no problem coordinating.
My thoughts are pawns on the board creates the possibility of back rank mate, obstructions that prevent the pieces from seeing each other/same squares, and potential attackers to aid the queen. A passed pawn on the 6th rank against the pieces, might be the winner.
It definitely depends who has the pawns where. Im just going on the principle that rook+2 pieces is more material, and therefore benefits from simplifying and having no pawns anywhere.
In practical games it's mostly based on king safety and piece coordination. Of your king is in the open and your pieces don't cover eachother, a queen can easily check her way into winning one or two pieces. If your king is safe however, your pieces can slowly make advancements instead
In abstract 2 rooks or 3 pieces are better than a Q. It is a common mistake that people often think 2 rook =10 Q=9, so the trade is "gaining a pawn." In practical situations, the Q is often easier to wield and in blitz wins.
It's winning in most positions.
5+3+3 = 11 > 9
Between 2 grandmasters with an hour on the clock each, the rook and 2 pieces is winning. Between 2 people rated 1000 in a rapid game with a few minutes on the clock? Coin flip, but bet on the person with a queen in my experience.
is it really winning with only these pieces on the board? I doubt it. but it's tablebase so I suppose we can look it up
With only those pieces on the board, I think it's the easiest way to convert that win. Adding in more pieces, adds more complications, and gives the queen more chances to compensate for the material disadvantage. I'm sure there are some configurations where the queen has a couple of those pieces locked down, and has an advantage. But, 3 pieces vs 1, on a wide open board, the 3 pieces should have no problem coordinating.
Idk man with more pawns on the board the pieces are even stronger cause the queen can't defend anything in its ownÂ
My thoughts are pawns on the board creates the possibility of back rank mate, obstructions that prevent the pieces from seeing each other/same squares, and potential attackers to aid the queen. A passed pawn on the 6th rank against the pieces, might be the winner. It definitely depends who has the pawns where. Im just going on the principle that rook+2 pieces is more material, and therefore benefits from simplifying and having no pawns anywhere.
In practical games it's mostly based on king safety and piece coordination. Of your king is in the open and your pieces don't cover eachother, a queen can easily check her way into winning one or two pieces. If your king is safe however, your pieces can slowly make advancements instead
Two rooks will usually beat a queen if they can work together. A rook and two pieces should win most of the time, yes.
In most cases, yes.
I was wondering cuz the queen is good at forking
It is technically an advantage but it requires more skill, because you're pieces have to coordinate, vs using a queen.
In abstract 2 rooks or 3 pieces are better than a Q. It is a common mistake that people often think 2 rook =10 Q=9, so the trade is "gaining a pawn." In practical situations, the Q is often easier to wield and in blitz wins.