loreta
50 ( +1 | -1 )

Q vs 2 R endgame More and more often I'm going to worry about endgame phase. This time I'm interested into technics of play Q {+pawns} vs 2 Rooks {+pawns} endings.

Has someone known some online resources or could send scanned pages from book (I'd provide my real e-mail to him/her then). English, Russian, Polish, Czech (and any other slavian) French, Spanish, Italian languages are prefered. German {and even any Scandinavian, except Finnish} is acceptable too.

Q vs 2 R endgame More and more often I'm going to worry about endgame phase. This time I'm interested into technics of play Q {+pawns} vs 2 Rooks {+pawns} endings.

Has someone known some online resources or could send scanned pages from book (I'd provide my real e-mail to him/her then). English, Russian, Polish, Czech (and any other slavian) French, Spanish, Italian languages are prefered. German {and even any Scandinavian, except Finnish} is acceptable too.

More: Chess Tournament

loreta
13 ( +1 | -1 )

Nobody? :-( Anyway, could somebody find, at least, some interesting games, where that kind of endgame has appeared...

Nobody? :-( Anyway, could somebody find, at least, some interesting games, where that kind of endgame has appeared...

More: Super Mario Chess

larsenb
136 ( +1 | -1 )

Something from Scid database * 10 game from around 1900

Janowski - Pillsbury =-= Nuerenberg GER 1896

Charousek - Pillsbury =-= Nuerenberg GER 1896

Steinitz - Pillsbury 0-1 Nuerenberg GER 1896

Teichmann - Tarrasch 1-0 Monte Carlo 1902

Marshall - Janowski =-= Ostend BEL 1905

Chigorin - Janowski 0-1 Carlsbad CZE 1907

Von Bardeleben - Wolf 1-0 Duesseldorf 1908

Janowski - Capablanca 0-1 New York 1918

Euwe - Alekhine =-= Amsterdam NED 1926

Spielmann - Stoltz 0-1 Bled SLO 1931

* 10 game from around 1970

Tal - Karpov =-= Moscow RUS 1971

Najdorf - Ribli 1-0 Wijk aan Zee NED 1973

Smejkal - Kavalek =-= Amsterdam NED 1973

Speelman - Popovic =-= Groningen NED 1975

Timman - Browne 1-0 Wijk aan Zee NED 1975

Kavalek - Mecking 0-1 Manila PHI 1975

Smejkal - Ljubojevic 1-0 Moscow RUS 1977

Karpov - Timman =-= Tilburg NED 1977

Sveshnikov - Dzindzichashvili =-= Hastings 1977

Portisch - Timman 0-1 Bugojno BIH 1978

* 10 game from around 2000

Topalov - Anand 1-0 Dortmund GER 2001

Ljubojevic - Milov 1-0 Villarrobledo ESP 2001

Berelovich - Golubev 1-0 Ordzhonikidze 2001

Jakovenko - Balashov 1-0 Omsk RUS 2001

Svidler - Ponomariov 0-1 Moscow RUS 2001

Volkov - Tkachiev 0-1 Moscow RUS 2002

Kornev - Alekseev 1-0 St Petersburg 2002

Van Wely - Gelfand 1-0 Monaco MNC 2002

Morozevich - Shirov 0-1 Monte Carlo 2003

Alekseev - Iljushin 1-0 Istanbul TUR 2003

Hope this helps

Something from Scid database * 10 game from around 1900

Janowski - Pillsbury =-= Nuerenberg GER 1896

Charousek - Pillsbury =-= Nuerenberg GER 1896

Steinitz - Pillsbury 0-1 Nuerenberg GER 1896

Teichmann - Tarrasch 1-0 Monte Carlo 1902

Marshall - Janowski =-= Ostend BEL 1905

Chigorin - Janowski 0-1 Carlsbad CZE 1907

Von Bardeleben - Wolf 1-0 Duesseldorf 1908

Janowski - Capablanca 0-1 New York 1918

Euwe - Alekhine =-= Amsterdam NED 1926

Spielmann - Stoltz 0-1 Bled SLO 1931

* 10 game from around 1970

Tal - Karpov =-= Moscow RUS 1971

Najdorf - Ribli 1-0 Wijk aan Zee NED 1973

Smejkal - Kavalek =-= Amsterdam NED 1973

Speelman - Popovic =-= Groningen NED 1975

Timman - Browne 1-0 Wijk aan Zee NED 1975

Kavalek - Mecking 0-1 Manila PHI 1975

Smejkal - Ljubojevic 1-0 Moscow RUS 1977

Karpov - Timman =-= Tilburg NED 1977

Sveshnikov - Dzindzichashvili =-= Hastings 1977

Portisch - Timman 0-1 Bugojno BIH 1978

* 10 game from around 2000

Topalov - Anand 1-0 Dortmund GER 2001

Ljubojevic - Milov 1-0 Villarrobledo ESP 2001

Berelovich - Golubev 1-0 Ordzhonikidze 2001

Jakovenko - Balashov 1-0 Omsk RUS 2001

Svidler - Ponomariov 0-1 Moscow RUS 2001

Volkov - Tkachiev 0-1 Moscow RUS 2002

Kornev - Alekseev 1-0 St Petersburg 2002

Van Wely - Gelfand 1-0 Monaco MNC 2002

Morozevich - Shirov 0-1 Monte Carlo 2003

Alekseev - Iljushin 1-0 Istanbul TUR 2003

Hope this helps

More: Chess Here

loreta
13 ( +1 | -1 )

Tnx, larsenb for your reference... I'll try to find, at least, a few of them... When I am ready I'll give my opinion about it (that kind of endgame)...

Tnx, larsenb for your reference... I'll try to find, at least, a few of them... When I am ready I'll give my opinion about it (that kind of endgame)...

More: Chess Online Free

loreta
53 ( +1 | -1 )

Misleading opinion? I thought it's common opinion that 2 Rooks are better then Queen. As I started to look through this kind of endgame, I started to feel that Queen wins too often. So, at first, I calculated statistics from games I found:

Queen wins: 54%

2 Rooks win: 21%

Draws: 25%

--

Of course, that says nothing (really?) as all depends on position but a tendency is clear - a Queen is very powerfull piece. What do you prefer to select for endgame - 2 Rooks or Queen (plus only pawns, sure)?

Misleading opinion? I thought it's common opinion that 2 Rooks are better then Queen. As I started to look through this kind of endgame, I started to feel that Queen wins too often. So, at first, I calculated statistics from games I found:

Queen wins: 54%

2 Rooks win: 21%

Draws: 25%

--

Of course, that says nothing (really?) as all depends on position but a tendency is clear - a Queen is very powerfull piece. What do you prefer to select for endgame - 2 Rooks or Queen (plus only pawns, sure)?

More: Chess Magnet School

mate_you_in_fifty
15 ( +1 | -1 )

I think... In general,the queen increases in power if there are more pawns on the board and/or if the rooks are not coordinated.

I once played a game of RBB vs Q. The queen was powerless.

I think... In general,the queen increases in power if there are more pawns on the board and/or if the rooks are not coordinated.

I once played a game of RBB vs Q. The queen was powerless.

More: Multiplayer Chess

loreta
86 ( +1 | -1 )

When 2 rooks win against Queen I reviewed these games - I'm posting key positions of these games.

Maybe, somebody knows more games of that kind? As you could see, period 1930 - 1970 isn't covered at all.

.

I will start by games when 2 Rooks were superior...

-------------------------------------------

L.Portisch – J. Timman, 1978, Bugojno, 0:1

After 49 Black’s move:

W.: Kh3, Qg6, a2, g3, h2

B.: Kd4, rc4, Re2, a5, c2, e3, h5 - won, 60 moves

------------------

R.Spielmann – G.Stoltz, 1931, Bled, 0:1

After 42 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qh3, a3, b4, e4, g3, h2

B.: Ke7, Rc1, Rf6, a6, b5, f7 – won, 51 moves

-----------------------------------------------------

W.Steinitz – H.Pillsbury, 0:1

After 40 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qe3, g2, h3

B.: Kh8, Rd7, Rf8, a7, g7, h7

----------------------------------------------------

This game shows a technique how to advance extra pawn (see position after 74 move)

M.Chigorin – D.Janowsky, 1905, Carlsbad, 0:1

After 49 Black’s move:

W.: Kd3, Qa8, a4, d4

B.: Kh7, Ra1, Rg4, g7, h6 – won, 99 moves

-->

After 74 Black’s move:

W.: Kc4, Qd8

B.: Kh7, Rg6, Rh1, g7

-------------------------------------------------

M.Najdorf – Z.Ribli, 1:0

After 28 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rf2, Re5, a2, b3, g2, h3 – won, 105 moves

B.: Kh8, Qf8, a7, b6, c7, h7

--->

After 52 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rc3, Rg3, a2, g2

B.: Kh7, Qh4, h5

--->

After 87 Black’s move

W.: Kh1, Rf1, Rh4, g2

B.: Kg7, Qa3

--->

After 95 Black’s move winning pawn ending:

W.: Kh2, g2

B.: Kh8

When 2 rooks win against Queen I reviewed these games - I'm posting key positions of these games.

Maybe, somebody knows more games of that kind? As you could see, period 1930 - 1970 isn't covered at all.

.

I will start by games when 2 Rooks were superior...

-------------------------------------------

L.Portisch – J. Timman, 1978, Bugojno, 0:1

After 49 Black’s move:

W.: Kh3, Qg6, a2, g3, h2

B.: Kd4, rc4, Re2, a5, c2, e3, h5 - won, 60 moves

------------------

R.Spielmann – G.Stoltz, 1931, Bled, 0:1

After 42 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qh3, a3, b4, e4, g3, h2

B.: Ke7, Rc1, Rf6, a6, b5, f7 – won, 51 moves

-----------------------------------------------------

W.Steinitz – H.Pillsbury, 0:1

After 40 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qe3, g2, h3

B.: Kh8, Rd7, Rf8, a7, g7, h7

----------------------------------------------------

This game shows a technique how to advance extra pawn (see position after 74 move)

M.Chigorin – D.Janowsky, 1905, Carlsbad, 0:1

After 49 Black’s move:

W.: Kd3, Qa8, a4, d4

B.: Kh7, Ra1, Rg4, g7, h6 – won, 99 moves

-->

After 74 Black’s move:

W.: Kc4, Qd8

B.: Kh7, Rg6, Rh1, g7

-------------------------------------------------

M.Najdorf – Z.Ribli, 1:0

After 28 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rf2, Re5, a2, b3, g2, h3 – won, 105 moves

B.: Kh8, Qf8, a7, b6, c7, h7

--->

After 52 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rc3, Rg3, a2, g2

B.: Kh7, Qh4, h5

--->

After 87 Black’s move

W.: Kh1, Rf1, Rh4, g2

B.: Kg7, Qa3

--->

After 95 Black’s move winning pawn ending:

W.: Kh2, g2

B.: Kh8

More: Chess Anytime

furryfunbundle
327 ( +1 | -1 )

Hope this is useful for you loreta As your question asserts, tricky to evaluate – and as with most things chess, dependent upon the position of supporting pawns and respective kings. References you may wish to consult are “Fundamental Chess Openings” and the excellent "Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual".

Summation from these two references suggest that:-

Rooks - the player with the rooks can harmonise their movements to win weakened (isolated?) pawns or can blockade advancing pawns. Additionally, they can combine to deliver mating threats against a poorly positioned king. Crucially, one has to evaluate whether the player with the two rooks can establish them on any outposts and better still, are the outposts underpinned by connected pawns.

Queen – the player with the queen has the advantage when the rooks are disconnected (“doomed”) to passivity either to stop passed pawns or to defend pawns).

Example 1 (Dvoretsky: Chernin vs Marjanovic Subotica izt 1987)

A sharp line of the QGambit that led to following position (evaluated as winning for white due to the number of isolated black pawns ripe for attack by a pair of co-ordinated rooks) which after the elimination of pawns lends itself to a winning attack against the king.

wKg1,Rc1,d5,Pe3,f2,g3,h4/bKg8,Qa2,Pa5,c4,f6,f7,h5

6k1/5p2/5p2/p2R3p/2p4P/4P1P1/q4P2/2R3K1

1.Rc5 (Rxh5? Qd2! - separation of the rooks tells, 2R xc4?? Qd1+) 1...a4 2.R1xc4 Kg7 3.Rb4 (There is analysis on Rf4 here - let me know if it interests you) 3...Qa3 (3...a3 4. Ra5 +-) 4.Rcc4 Qa1+ 5.Kg2 a3 6.Rc5 Qd1 7.Ra5 Qd6 8.Rc4!? (Chenin was looking for more than the position following Rba4 offered thus:) [8.Rba4 Qc6+ 9.e4 f5 10.Rxa3 fxe4] 8...Qd7 [8...f5 is not good 9.Rc3 a2 10.Rca3] 9.e4 Qd3?! Analysis also follows on the move 9...f5! which would make the job harder for White - again let me know if you want this)

10.Rca4 Qc2 11.Rxa3 Qxe4+ 12.Rf3 This is the position Chenin was aming for - believing the win is elementary due to the weakened Black pawn structure. Note however that in a similar position without these weaknesses (ie pawn on "f6" is moved to "g6" as in Gurgenidze vs Averback USSR ch, Baku 1961, White won by doubling up against the f7 pawn) 12...Kg6 13.Ra6 Qd4 14.Rf4 Qd5+ 15.Kh2 Qd8 16.Rc6 Qe7 17.Ra6 Qd8 18.Raxf6+ Qxf6 19.Rxf6+ Kxf6 20.Kh3 Kf5 21.f3 f6

22.Kg2! [22.g4+? hxg4+ 23.fxg4+ Kf4‡] 22...Kg6 [22...Ke5 23.g4 hxg4 24.fxg4 Kf4 25.Kh2‡] 23.g4 and Black resigned

Example 2 (Dvoretsky: Evans - Rossiollimo USA ch NY 1965/66) Some combinations follow... 1...Rxc2!! 2.Qxh4 Rd4! rather than 2... Rxc1? 3. Rxc1 Rd4 in view of 4. f3! f5 Qg3!) 3.Qd8+ (f3?? fails of course to 3 Qxg2#) 3...Rxd8 4.Rxd8+ Kh7 5.Rxc2 Qxe4 6.Rc1 Qe2! 7.Rb1 Evans did not want to give the pawn away and chose a passive continuation since it is only now possible to double rooks up on the first rank. In what follows, Rossolimo combines strengthing his own position with prophylactic measures against the activation of white's rooks. Dvoretsky considers 6.g3!? Qxb2 7.Rc7 b5 10. Kg2 e4 11. Rb7 (or 11. h4!?) and postulates that an attack on the 8th rank may be possible in conjunction with h4-h5) 7...f5 8.Rdd1 e4 9.Re1 Qc4 10.a3 Qa2! 11.g3 Kg6 12.Kg2 Qb3 13.Kg1 Qa2 14.Kg2 Kf6 15.f3 Ke5 16.fxe4 fxe4 17.h4 Qb3 18.Kh3 Qc2 19.Rec1 Qf2 20.Rf1 Qb6 21.Kg2 g6 22.Rf8 Qb5! 23.Rf2 e3 24.Re1 Ke4 25.a4 Qc5 26.Kh3 b5! 27.axb5 axb5 28.Rf6 Qe5 29.Rf8 Qe7 30.Rf4+ Kd3 31.Rf3 Kd2 32.Rfxe3 Qxe3 33.Rxe3 Kxe3 34.Kg4 Ke4 35.b4 Ke5! 36.Kf3 Kd5 37.Kf4 Kc4 38.g4 Kxb4 39.g5 h5 40.Ke5 Kc5 41.Kf6 b4 42.Kxg6 b3 43.Kh6 b2 44.g6 b1Q 45.g7 Qb3 46.Kh7 Kd6 47.g8Q Qxg8+ 48.Kxg8 Ke5 49.Kf7 Kf5 Whire resigned

Games also quoted in fundamental chess openings (Apologies I do not have time to type these in but if you look them up and have any questions then I will see if there is any supportiong analysis to answer your questions) are:-

- M. Botvinnik - I. Boleslavsky (Sverdlovsk 1943)

- A.Shirov - N. Short (Erevan OL 1996

- R. Letelier - G. Stahlberg (Mar del Plata 1946)

- A. Yusopov - Y.Dokhooan (Bundesliga 1993/4)

- A.Shirov - V. Anand (Linares 1998)

All the best.

Hope this is useful for you loreta As your question asserts, tricky to evaluate – and as with most things chess, dependent upon the position of supporting pawns and respective kings. References you may wish to consult are “Fundamental Chess Openings” and the excellent "Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual".

Summation from these two references suggest that:-

Rooks - the player with the rooks can harmonise their movements to win weakened (isolated?) pawns or can blockade advancing pawns. Additionally, they can combine to deliver mating threats against a poorly positioned king. Crucially, one has to evaluate whether the player with the two rooks can establish them on any outposts and better still, are the outposts underpinned by connected pawns.

Queen – the player with the queen has the advantage when the rooks are disconnected (“doomed”) to passivity either to stop passed pawns or to defend pawns).

Example 1 (Dvoretsky: Chernin vs Marjanovic Subotica izt 1987)

A sharp line of the QGambit that led to following position (evaluated as winning for white due to the number of isolated black pawns ripe for attack by a pair of co-ordinated rooks) which after the elimination of pawns lends itself to a winning attack against the king.

wKg1,Rc1,d5,Pe3,f2,g3,h4/bKg8,Qa2,Pa5,c4,f6,f7,h5

6k1/5p2/5p2/p2R3p/2p4P/4P1P1/q4P2/2R3K1

1.Rc5 (Rxh5? Qd2! - separation of the rooks tells, 2R xc4?? Qd1+) 1...a4 2.R1xc4 Kg7 3.Rb4 (There is analysis on Rf4 here - let me know if it interests you) 3...Qa3 (3...a3 4. Ra5 +-) 4.Rcc4 Qa1+ 5.Kg2 a3 6.Rc5 Qd1 7.Ra5 Qd6 8.Rc4!? (Chenin was looking for more than the position following Rba4 offered thus:) [8.Rba4 Qc6+ 9.e4 f5 10.Rxa3 fxe4] 8...Qd7 [8...f5 is not good 9.Rc3 a2 10.Rca3] 9.e4 Qd3?! Analysis also follows on the move 9...f5! which would make the job harder for White - again let me know if you want this)

10.Rca4 Qc2 11.Rxa3 Qxe4+ 12.Rf3 This is the position Chenin was aming for - believing the win is elementary due to the weakened Black pawn structure. Note however that in a similar position without these weaknesses (ie pawn on "f6" is moved to "g6" as in Gurgenidze vs Averback USSR ch, Baku 1961, White won by doubling up against the f7 pawn) 12...Kg6 13.Ra6 Qd4 14.Rf4 Qd5+ 15.Kh2 Qd8 16.Rc6 Qe7 17.Ra6 Qd8 18.Raxf6+ Qxf6 19.Rxf6+ Kxf6 20.Kh3 Kf5 21.f3 f6

22.Kg2! [22.g4+? hxg4+ 23.fxg4+ Kf4‡] 22...Kg6 [22...Ke5 23.g4 hxg4 24.fxg4 Kf4 25.Kh2‡] 23.g4 and Black resigned

Example 2 (Dvoretsky: Evans - Rossiollimo USA ch NY 1965/66) Some combinations follow... 1...Rxc2!! 2.Qxh4 Rd4! rather than 2... Rxc1? 3. Rxc1 Rd4 in view of 4. f3! f5 Qg3!) 3.Qd8+ (f3?? fails of course to 3 Qxg2#) 3...Rxd8 4.Rxd8+ Kh7 5.Rxc2 Qxe4 6.Rc1 Qe2! 7.Rb1 Evans did not want to give the pawn away and chose a passive continuation since it is only now possible to double rooks up on the first rank. In what follows, Rossolimo combines strengthing his own position with prophylactic measures against the activation of white's rooks. Dvoretsky considers 6.g3!? Qxb2 7.Rc7 b5 10. Kg2 e4 11. Rb7 (or 11. h4!?) and postulates that an attack on the 8th rank may be possible in conjunction with h4-h5) 7...f5 8.Rdd1 e4 9.Re1 Qc4 10.a3 Qa2! 11.g3 Kg6 12.Kg2 Qb3 13.Kg1 Qa2 14.Kg2 Kf6 15.f3 Ke5 16.fxe4 fxe4 17.h4 Qb3 18.Kh3 Qc2 19.Rec1 Qf2 20.Rf1 Qb6 21.Kg2 g6 22.Rf8 Qb5! 23.Rf2 e3 24.Re1 Ke4 25.a4 Qc5 26.Kh3 b5! 27.axb5 axb5 28.Rf6 Qe5 29.Rf8 Qe7 30.Rf4+ Kd3 31.Rf3 Kd2 32.Rfxe3 Qxe3 33.Rxe3 Kxe3 34.Kg4 Ke4 35.b4 Ke5! 36.Kf3 Kd5 37.Kf4 Kc4 38.g4 Kxb4 39.g5 h5 40.Ke5 Kc5 41.Kf6 b4 42.Kxg6 b3 43.Kh6 b2 44.g6 b1Q 45.g7 Qb3 46.Kh7 Kd6 47.g8Q Qxg8+ 48.Kxg8 Ke5 49.Kf7 Kf5 Whire resigned

Games also quoted in fundamental chess openings (Apologies I do not have time to type these in but if you look them up and have any questions then I will see if there is any supportiong analysis to answer your questions) are:-

- M. Botvinnik - I. Boleslavsky (Sverdlovsk 1943)

- A.Shirov - N. Short (Erevan OL 1996

- R. Letelier - G. Stahlberg (Mar del Plata 1946)

- A. Yusopov - Y.Dokhooan (Bundesliga 1993/4)

- A.Shirov - V. Anand (Linares 1998)

All the best.

More: Chess Rankings

loreta
75 ( +1 | -1 )

Tnx, furryfunbundle It was very nice post. I'll review all that information (but as ussually that goes wery slowly :-(

---------------------------------------------------------

Next portion of positions – when there were draws….

.

E.Sveshnikov – R.Dzindzichashvili, 1977, Hastings

After 27 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Re1, Re6, a2, f2, g2, h2 – a draw after 38 move

B.: Kg8, Qc3, a7, b7, f6, g7, h7

.

------------------

A.Karpov – J.Timman, 1977, Tilburg

After 41 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qd7, a2, d6, e4, g2, h3 – a draw after 53 move

B.: Kh6, Re8, Rf8, a6, c5, e5, g6, g5, h7

.

---------------

M.Tal – A.Karpov, 1971, Moscow

After 27 Black’s move (many last moves were uninteresting as they didn’t give any progress to state of game):

W.: Ke3, Rc1, Rf1, a2, c4, e2, g3, h2 – a draw after 103 move

B.: Kg8, Qa8, a5, b6, f7, g7, h7

.

---------------

Charousek – Pilsbury, 1896, Nuremberg

After 37 Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Rd4, Rg1, a2, b2, c2, h2

B.: Kh8, Qf8, a7, b7, h7

.

----------------

D.Janowsky-H.P.Pilsbury, 1896, Nuremberg

After 39 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qe8, a3, a5, d2, f2, g3 – a draw after 55 move

B.: Kc7, Rc8, Rd6, b5, c5, d5, h5

Tnx, furryfunbundle It was very nice post. I'll review all that information (but as ussually that goes wery slowly :-(

---------------------------------------------------------

Next portion of positions – when there were draws….

.

E.Sveshnikov – R.Dzindzichashvili, 1977, Hastings

After 27 Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Re1, Re6, a2, f2, g2, h2 – a draw after 38 move

B.: Kg8, Qc3, a7, b7, f6, g7, h7

.

------------------

A.Karpov – J.Timman, 1977, Tilburg

After 41 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qd7, a2, d6, e4, g2, h3 – a draw after 53 move

B.: Kh6, Re8, Rf8, a6, c5, e5, g6, g5, h7

.

---------------

M.Tal – A.Karpov, 1971, Moscow

After 27 Black’s move (many last moves were uninteresting as they didn’t give any progress to state of game):

W.: Ke3, Rc1, Rf1, a2, c4, e2, g3, h2 – a draw after 103 move

B.: Kg8, Qa8, a5, b6, f7, g7, h7

.

---------------

Charousek – Pilsbury, 1896, Nuremberg

After 37 Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Rd4, Rg1, a2, b2, c2, h2

B.: Kh8, Qf8, a7, b7, h7

.

----------------

D.Janowsky-H.P.Pilsbury, 1896, Nuremberg

After 39 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qe8, a3, a5, d2, f2, g3 – a draw after 55 move

B.: Kc7, Rc8, Rd6, b5, c5, d5, h5

ccmcacollister
56 ( +1 | -1 )

Q vs Rook(s) Agree fully with Furryfun, the outcome is potentially highly variable, depending upon Position, Rook(s) Outposts and/or capacities to Double aor Co-operate, and on Connectedness of pawns. And isolani's very bad for the K-Q to have. Just want to add a couple examples how variable & position dependant it can be. In these BL has K+Q. WT takes One R & Draws, with 1 then 2 p's. #1) WT Kb3,Rb4,pb7...BL either piece on b8 & the other anywhere, wither side to move.Draw...#2)WT p's @ c3 & d4,Re5 or Rc5, Kc2...BL K any sq on BL's 1st 3 ranks, Q any open sq.Draw. (WT just keeps his K always in contact with the c3 p & if his K gets zugzwanged from moving or not in check, the R can temporize between Rc5 & Rd5.).

Q vs Rook(s) Agree fully with Furryfun, the outcome is potentially highly variable, depending upon Position, Rook(s) Outposts and/or capacities to Double aor Co-operate, and on Connectedness of pawns. And isolani's very bad for the K-Q to have. Just want to add a couple examples how variable & position dependant it can be. In these BL has K+Q. WT takes One R & Draws, with 1 then 2 p's. #1) WT Kb3,Rb4,pb7...BL either piece on b8 & the other anywhere, wither side to move.Draw...#2)WT p's @ c3 & d4,Re5 or Rc5, Kc2...BL K any sq on BL's 1st 3 ranks, Q any open sq.Draw. (WT just keeps his K always in contact with the c3 p & if his K gets zugzwanged from moving or not in check, the R can temporize between Rc5 & Rd5.).

ccmcacollister
56 ( +1 | -1 )

Q vs Rook(s) Agree fully with Furryfun, the outcome is potentially highly variable, depending upon Position, Rook(s) Outposts and/or capacities to Double aor Co-operate, and on Connectedness of pawns. And isolani's very bad for the K-Q to have. Just want to add a couple examples how variable & position dependant it can be. In these BL has K+Q. WT takes One R & Draws, with 1 then 2 p's. #1) WT Kb3,Rb4,pb7...BL either piece on b8 & the other anywhere, wither side to move.Draw...#2)WT p's @ c3 & d4,Re5 or Rc5, Kc2...BL K any sq on BL's 1st 3 ranks, Q any open sq.Draw. (WT just keeps his K always in contact with the c3 p & if his K gets zugzwanged from moving or not in check, the R can temporize between Rc5 & Rd5.).

Q vs Rook(s) Agree fully with Furryfun, the outcome is potentially highly variable, depending upon Position, Rook(s) Outposts and/or capacities to Double aor Co-operate, and on Connectedness of pawns. And isolani's very bad for the K-Q to have. Just want to add a couple examples how variable & position dependant it can be. In these BL has K+Q. WT takes One R & Draws, with 1 then 2 p's. #1) WT Kb3,Rb4,pb7...BL either piece on b8 & the other anywhere, wither side to move.Draw...#2)WT p's @ c3 & d4,Re5 or Rc5, Kc2...BL K any sq on BL's 1st 3 ranks, Q any open sq.Draw. (WT just keeps his K always in contact with the c3 p & if his K gets zugzwanged from moving or not in check, the R can temporize between Rc5 & Rd5.).

loreta
65 ( +1 | -1 )

New portion So I looked into pointed games and append these positions into the list:

-----------

2 Rooks win:

A.Shirov – V.Anand, 1998, Linares

After 32 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qf5, a2, c3, e5, g2, h5

B.: Kg8, Rc4, Rd5, a7, f7, g7, h6 – won, 55 moves

---------

Draw:

M.Letelier – G.Stahlberg, 1946

After 33 Black’s move:

W.: Kg3, Qb8, a2, c4, d5, g2, h2 – draw, 100 moves

B.: Kg6, Re7, Rf5, a7, a5, c5, d6, g5, h5

.

After 69 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, a3, d6, g2, h3

B.: Kd3, Re4, Rf4, a6, a5, h4

.

After 81 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, a3, g2, h3

B.: Kb2, Rd8, Rd4, h4

-----------------------------------------

And finally, games where Queen were superior:

---

M.Botvinnik – I.Boleslavsky, 1943

After 33 Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Qh3, b2, d3, e4, g4, h4 – won, 52 moves

B.: Kf7, Rc8, Re8, a5, b5, d6, h6

---------

A.Shirov – N.Short, 1996, Yerevan

After 36 Black’s move:

W.: Kg3, Qf6, a2, b2, c3, d5, e3, e4, g5, won, 60 moves

B.: Kh7, rc7, rd7, a6, b7, c5, d6, e5, f7

-----------

A.Jussupov – Y.Dokhoian, 1993 (I likd an opening of this game :-)

After 26 Black’s move:

W.: Kc1, Qh7, a2, b2, c4, f2, h5 – won, 25 moves

B.: Kc8, Rd8, Rf8, a7, c6, e4, f5

New portion So I looked into pointed games and append these positions into the list:

-----------

2 Rooks win:

A.Shirov – V.Anand, 1998, Linares

After 32 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, Qf5, a2, c3, e5, g2, h5

B.: Kg8, Rc4, Rd5, a7, f7, g7, h6 – won, 55 moves

---------

Draw:

M.Letelier – G.Stahlberg, 1946

After 33 Black’s move:

W.: Kg3, Qb8, a2, c4, d5, g2, h2 – draw, 100 moves

B.: Kg6, Re7, Rf5, a7, a5, c5, d6, g5, h5

.

After 69 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, a3, d6, g2, h3

B.: Kd3, Re4, Rf4, a6, a5, h4

.

After 81 Black’s move:

W.: Kh2, a3, g2, h3

B.: Kb2, Rd8, Rd4, h4

-----------------------------------------

And finally, games where Queen were superior:

---

M.Botvinnik – I.Boleslavsky, 1943

After 33 Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Qh3, b2, d3, e4, g4, h4 – won, 52 moves

B.: Kf7, Rc8, Re8, a5, b5, d6, h6

---------

A.Shirov – N.Short, 1996, Yerevan

After 36 Black’s move:

W.: Kg3, Qf6, a2, b2, c3, d5, e3, e4, g5, won, 60 moves

B.: Kh7, rc7, rd7, a6, b7, c5, d6, e5, f7

-----------

A.Jussupov – Y.Dokhoian, 1993 (I likd an opening of this game :-)

After 26 Black’s move:

W.: Kc1, Qh7, a2, b2, c4, f2, h5 – won, 25 moves

B.: Kc8, Rd8, Rf8, a7, c6, e4, f5

loreta
84 ( +1 | -1 )

Queen superioty, p.1 And the last [biggest] portion of positions where Queen was superior:

L.Ljubojevic – V.Milov, 2001

After 53th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qf5, a2, b2, d5, g2 – won, 74 moves (d pawn reached d7 and Q vs R endgame)

B.: Kg7, Re7, Re3, a7, b6. g4, h6

------

A. Berelovic – M. Golubev, 2001, Ukraine ch.

After 41th Black’s move:

W.: Kg2, Qd5, a3, b2, f2, g3, h2 – won, 68 moves, f reached f6 causing difficulties for Black

B.: Kg7, Re1, Rg6, a7, b6, g5, h5

--------

P.Svidler – R.Ponomariov, FIDE ch.

After 527th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Re3, Rf1, a2, c3, d4, g4, h2

B.: Kg8, Qg5, a7, b6, d5, e4, g6, h7 – won, 44 moves, Activeness of King and pawns at centre

------

S.Volkov – V.Tkachev, 2002, Aeroflot

After 46th Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Rb1, Rd1, f3, h3

B.: Kh6, Qe2. b4, f5, g6, h7 – won, 65 moves

--------

van Wely – Gelfand, 2002, Mobaco

After 32th Black’s move:

W.: Ka1, Qd7, a3, b2, c4, h2 – won, 75 moves

B.: Kg6, Re6, Rf8, a6, b6, e6, f7, h6

--------

D.Janowsky 0 J.Capablanca, 1918, N.Y.

After 53th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rd4, Re8, a4, f2, g2, h5

B.: Kg7, Qb2, a6, c6, f7, g6, h7 – won, 55 moves

---------

C.von Bardeleben – H.Wolf

After 24th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qd6, a2, c2, c3 d3, e4, g2, h5

B.: Kf6, Ra8, Rh7, a7, b7, c6, e6, g5

----------

T.Teichmann – S.Tarrash, 1902, Monte Carlo

After 25th, Black’s move:,

W.: Kg1, Qf5, a2, b2, c2, f3, g2, h3 - won

B.: Kg8, Re8, Re1, a7, c7, g7, h7

Queen superioty, p.1 And the last [biggest] portion of positions where Queen was superior:

L.Ljubojevic – V.Milov, 2001

After 53th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qf5, a2, b2, d5, g2 – won, 74 moves (d pawn reached d7 and Q vs R endgame)

B.: Kg7, Re7, Re3, a7, b6. g4, h6

------

A. Berelovic – M. Golubev, 2001, Ukraine ch.

After 41th Black’s move:

W.: Kg2, Qd5, a3, b2, f2, g3, h2 – won, 68 moves, f reached f6 causing difficulties for Black

B.: Kg7, Re1, Rg6, a7, b6, g5, h5

--------

P.Svidler – R.Ponomariov, FIDE ch.

After 527th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Re3, Rf1, a2, c3, d4, g4, h2

B.: Kg8, Qg5, a7, b6, d5, e4, g6, h7 – won, 44 moves, Activeness of King and pawns at centre

------

S.Volkov – V.Tkachev, 2002, Aeroflot

After 46th Black’s move:

W.: Kh1, Rb1, Rd1, f3, h3

B.: Kh6, Qe2. b4, f5, g6, h7 – won, 65 moves

--------

van Wely – Gelfand, 2002, Mobaco

After 32th Black’s move:

W.: Ka1, Qd7, a3, b2, c4, h2 – won, 75 moves

B.: Kg6, Re6, Rf8, a6, b6, e6, f7, h6

--------

D.Janowsky 0 J.Capablanca, 1918, N.Y.

After 53th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Rd4, Re8, a4, f2, g2, h5

B.: Kg7, Qb2, a6, c6, f7, g6, h7 – won, 55 moves

---------

C.von Bardeleben – H.Wolf

After 24th Black’s move:

W.: Kg1, Qd6, a2, c2, c3 d3, e4, g2, h5

B.: Kf6, Ra8, Rh7, a7, b7, c6, e6, g5

----------

T.Teichmann – S.Tarrash, 1902, Monte Carlo

After 25th, Black’s move:,

W.: Kg1, Qf5, a2, b2, c2, f3, g2, h3 - won

B.: Kg8, Re8, Re1, a7, c7, g7, h7