Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:31:16 05/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 09:52:41, Uri Blass wrote: >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. As i said in human games the weird cases happen. However the majority of positions which the computer sees are big crap. About 99.999% of what is sees is complete nonsense. Loads of hung pawns and passers. Queens pick those things up quick then! >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. Which happens to be the case in 99% of the cases. >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.