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.