♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) queen exchangeI was wondering if, towards the endgame, if people would prefer to have a Queen, or 3 minor pieces (rooks having been exchanged off)? IThe "point counts" are the same but my suspicion would be having a single piece would be disadvantageous. I've not seen this discussed much in any of hte books I've got so would appreciate a strategical opinion....
♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 ) I don't know about a strategical opinion, but a practical opinion is that such a line-up happens so infrequently that it's not worth studying it in advance. I would repeat the usual advice given to enquirers about endgame technique, and urge you to give priority to studying rook and pawn endings, which make up the majority of endgames. :)
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) Rather have 3 piecesI don't think it would ever happen, but I'd rather have 3 pieces than one Queen.
Yes, it would depend on a specific position especially if the King is exposed or not. But I think the best Queen can do is make a draw by perpetual checks, while two Bishops or connected Knights can limit the move of Queen while the other piece is working.
♡ 123 ( +1 | -1 ) The endgame manuals suggest......that this is generally a draw unless there are pawns on the board; and even then, Q+1P only draws against three pieces (with no pawns). If the side with the pieces has a pawn, however, a win is possible. Of course this is a general finding and can depend on a large number of factors. But this makes sense if you think about it: how is the lone Q supposed to march the enemy king into the corner with so many other pieces blocking the way?
And at worst the Q can trade itself off against one of the opposing pieces (preferably a bishop) to force a godawful mating march. Remember that B+B or B+N can win, but N+N vs K is a draw in the practical sense. More likely, as dysfl suggests, the Q can check like crazy, but make no real headway. And how can even three pieces coordinate a delicate mating maneuver with a powerful queen to contend with?
But I must also second the thoughts of philaretus : it's not worth your study. Indeed in this case I suspect the draw would make itself evident over the board in fairly short order.
♡ 17 ( +1 | -1 ) the queen woni was once in the position of having three minor pieces, but my opponent's queen was resouceful in issuing double attacks, and my pieces were soon whittled down.
♡ 65 ( +1 | -1 ) King's Indian defenceThere is a line in the King's Indian Defence where black sacrifices his queen in the opening for 2 bishops and 2 pawns - leads to an interesting game.
I used to play this occasionally about 6-7 years ago. At that time it was considered to be double edged and playable for black. I must check recent advances in this opening and see if the variation is still considerd playable.
The material difference is similar to what you enquired about.
regarding Q v. 3Pieces - I would generally prefer to have three pieces, although I can't imagine it happening very often!!
♡ 42 ( +1 | -1 ) Q vs 3 pieces.If there are prawns still on the board then the queen still has a good chance of winning. One of the main factors is if the pieces are on 'outposts', or defending each other. If they aren't then the queen has a good chance of getting in a lot of checks. There's a good Short vs. Korchnoi game which I'll post when I get the chance, where Short sacrifices his queen for three pieces and wins comfortably. :)
♡ 20 ( +1 | -1 ) thanks everyoneThanks for the interesting replies, my own experiences come from miscalculations - thinking I could get the Q for 2 pieces then losing a 3rd - both times I have lost convincingly soon after this.