Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:52:41 05/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 08:35:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 05, 2001 at 12:01:08, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >> Here is an interesting article found in a 1989 CCR article. > >Exactly the biggest misunderstanding in chessbooks is that 2 rooks >are stronger as a queen. Even in most endgames a queen wins easily >against 2 rooks. I disagree. 2 rooks that defend themsleves are stronger than a queen. When 2 rooks attack a pawn then the queen can do nothing to protect it. Based on the games that I saw (I am not talking about GM's games) 2 rooks are often clearly better than a queen. The main exceptions to this rule are cases when the rooks cannot cooperate or when there is a dangerous passed pawn that cannot be stopped or when there are bishops of opposite colour that support mate attack for the queen. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.