What is stronger: 1 queen or 2 rooks?

Well, I have went though plenty of analysis and searched through dozens upon dozens of games with 2 rook v. 1 queen games. And I have come to a slightly undazzeling conclusion...

The position is equal! Literally, perfectly equal. Like, you could create a game that had only 2 rooks against the 1 queen. Thats how equal the two varities are.

Now, this would be a fun game to watch, 2 players with 2 kings each, but with different sets: 2 rooks or one queen. Anti-Climatic drumroll please!

I have seen many forums and blog posts about this exact topic, and its understandable; it has even happened to me a couple of times!

I will demonstrate why a queen v two rooks is a near perfect in every way. Please use you ocular muscles and bring your eyes to my PGN below!

[Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/5q2/4k3/8/8/3K4/2RR4/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Re2+ Kd5 2.Rcd2 Qf5+ 3.Ke3+ Kc4 4.Rd4+ Kc3 5.Re4 Qg5+ 6.Kf2 Qf5+ 7.Ke1 Qb5 8.R2e3+ Kc2 9.Kf2 Qf5+ 10.Kg3 Qg5+ 11.Kh2 Qh6+ 12.Kg2 Qg5+ 13.Rg3 Qd5 14.Rg4 Kd3 15.Kf3 Qb7 16.Rf4 Qc6 17.Rg4 Qb7 18.Rh4

An advanced elo rated chess computer analyzed this position for over 8 hours (left my computer running over night) and after a bashing processing depth of 48 moves, the computer concluded the position was dead equal. I checked my chess program deeper, and found that white had a +0.00019 advantage, with a 1 being up one pawn. So in all realistical logistics and statistics, if 100,000 people played at a tournament with this exact same set up, then everyone would draw, except for 19 people playing with the 2 rooks. They would win. Logically...

So in a mind shattering context, I can not make any solid conclusions :/



Pros of 2 Rooks

1). 2 pieces = more options

2). Able to coordinate with the other piece

Cons of 2 Rooks

1). If unconnected with the other rook or king, is easy prey for the queen to scoop up

2). The linear movement of a rook makes for predictability, and is easy for the opponent to calculate



Pros of 1 Queen

1). Can move diagonally

2). Is able to deliver checkmate more easily then a rook

Cons of 1 Queen

1). If pinned to the king, is automatically a lose for the player with the queen, since the rook player can force checkmate with 1 rook.

2). It's still only a single piece, and since the opponent has only the queen to focus on, will result in shrewd predictable games.

I was hoping my computer would not show the position as a 0.00, it deludes this chess post, making it icky and unwanted!

So it is up to the chess community to decide! Brotheren! I call to heed your fair aid! What do you think? Which side has the greater advantage? I am really at a lose and am looking for any sort of argument that concludes one side has a stronger advantage!

"With silent lips, give me your games, your analysis, you huddled chess programs yearning to process faster" - Ancient made up chess wisdom

Well, the obviously correct answer is: "It depends."

There are positions in which two rooks are quite superior to the queen, and positions where the reverse is true

On average, the two rooks will be a bit better than the queen, but the average is a bit misleading.

As more and more pieces come off the board, the value of the rooks increase (more scope for the rooks, fewer targets for the queen, and the 2 to 1 heavy piece ratio gets more important with fewer defensive pieces), until in close to bare endgames, the queen really needs an extra pawn to equal the rooks.

In the initial position, though, the queen will be stronger than two rooks even without an extra pawn, and then as pieces get traded off the value of the rooks trends up.

Even that general trend is subject to the "it depends" truism, of course.

So, on average, 2 rooks are a bit better than a queen, but that's a bit like saying that on average {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} is higher than {5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5}.

Strictly speaking the average of the first is of course higher, but that glosses over the fact that the average masks the fact that it really depends which specific values you're dealing with (in chess terms with Q and 2 R, which phase of the game you're dealing with).

So, as with so many complicated subjects, there is a misleading "on average" statement that is technically correct, and then a more accurate "it depends" answer :)

Hello #1,

I'm not good enough a chess player to comment on theory here, but I can tell you that you don't need to let your computer run overnight to analyze such positions, you can just look them up in an endgame tablebase.

Indeed, all chess positions with seven pieces (including kings) have been computed out, and we now know exactly which ones are wins, draws, etc.

Check out for instance: http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb .

Your example position is indeed a draw, whether white or black moves first.

a Queen is stronger than two rooks most of the time. The more pawn left on the board the stronger the Queen is.

Two rooks are stronger than one queen because a queen can be lost in a single move and to lose two rooks would take two blunders.

in that case even two pawns are stronger than a Queen.

Depends on position. If enemy king is open I'd rather take queen, because she can do lots of checks and take lots of other pieces, but if enemy king is not open, then I'd rather take two rooks.