13

Obviously a lot is going to depend on the exact position, but I'm asking if there are any general signposts - e.g. bishops usually get better than knights if the position is open, or in an endgame, but I can't say the same about Q vs 3 minors.

Improve this question
1

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
10

The queen does a good job when there are a lot of weaknesses to attack, especially if the opponent's king is out in the open, so there are a lot of options for double attacks.

The pieces are generally stronger if they can coordinate and the king is still relatively safe. Earlier in the game that's usually the case.

Improve this answer
1
  • I would say it even shorter: Given the material is uneven (three minors, two rooks, maybe rook and minor) the queen is a great attacker and a lousy defender.
    – Hauke Reddmann
    Jan 12, 2022 at 19:53
3

A lot depends on whether there are other pieces involved and the pawn structure.

If you mean positions with Q alone vs three minor pieces then relative king safety comes into play. The side with the Q tries to expose the opponents king and harass it.

The Q alone side may need to create connected passed pawns to make progress since the pieces should easily cope with a single passed pawn by twice covering the square in front of the passed pawn.

However, the side with three pieces may need to only create a single passed pawn to create winning chances.

Also, the three pieces side would find it easier to create fortress type positions at least to avoid defeat.

Personally, I would prefer to play the three pieces for the previous two reasons.

But (there's always a but!) in blitz time formats I would prefer the Q!

(As an aside, I once drew a strong IM in a regular tournament game with only two pieces v Q and equal pawns by setting up a fortress.)

I don't have a chess database but someone who does may be able to research positions with just Q vs three minor pieces and provide some statistics.

Improve this answer
2

Generally speaking the queen is going to be better when the opponent's king is exposed to checks and/or when the position is "loose" ie pieces and pawns hanging, pawn weaknesses etc.

If the side without the queen can hold the position together and push a passed pawn there isn't really anything the queen can do.

Improve this answer
2

According to the Syzygy tablebase, the position is likelier to be winning for the queen than for the minor pieces.

  • in KQ v KBBN, 48.9% of positions are wins for KQ, a further 2.3% are frustrated wins for KQ, 26.2% are drawn, and 22.6% are wins for BBN. (Frustrated wins are positions which are theoretically won, but in practice drawn because the defending side can get a 50-move draw.)

  • in KQ v KBNN, 49.7% of positions are wins for KQ, 30.4% are drawn, and 19.9% are wins for BNN.

  • in KQ v KNNN, 38.3% of positions are wins for KQ, 47.8% are drawn, and 13.8% are wins for NNN.

Improve this answer
2
  • This would count as an answer to my question about 3 knights vs a Queen if you posted it there! chess.stackexchange.com/q/38943/31792
    – Eoin
    Jan 11, 2022 at 14:35
  • But this question is older, and a link to it was given in a comment to the later question. So I feel that this question is a better place for this information.
    – Rosie F
    Jan 11, 2022 at 15:10
0

Please see in action the famous games from the grandmasters demonstrating the combat dynamics of a Queen versus three minor pieces. No English language can explain the entire dynamics. You must see it for your self.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016182

Improve this answer
-1

For me I belive that the Queen is worth 3 pieces for a variety of reasons,

  1. It combines the functionality of the Rook and the Bishop, the Bishop, which act like snipers in the early-mid game, are very valuable, because of their sniper-like capability, whereas the rook is bad in the early stages of the game, because the board is crammed usually, conversely, in the Endgame, Rooks are better, because they allow you to occupy an area and put up a wall that the king cannot cross, by the definition of a bishop, since they are on a single color diagonal, it requires 2 Bishops to create an inescapable wall for the king, the Queen provides for both of these, by being able to snipe pieces on the outskirts with its bishopesque range, and it can wall of sections of the board at the endgame because it can cross multiple colors like the rook

  2. This is more of an extension of the last point, but its your main offensive tool, overall, Rooks are best in the Endgame, Bishops and Knights are great in the Mid game, but the Queen can function almost anywhere, they also exceed in their ability I call the "Royal Attack" because of its long Range, devastating attacks and multitude of directions, it is often used to attack 3 or more pieces at one, where as the Knight can fork but not pin pieces, and the bishop can not fork but can pin pieces, the Queen combines all the functionality into 1, therefore in most situations, if you lose your queen, unless it was a mistake on you opponents move, thus leading to a delayed trade, or mate, its usually time to resign as most of you offense is gone

  3. The Queen is also great at counter-attack, for example in this trap from the Queens Gambit:

    [FEN ""]

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 d5 5. Qa4+ Kf8 6. Qxb4+ Ke8
Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    The long rambling comma-spliced sentences are quite hard to read, damaging what might otherwise be a valuable answer. I suggest you insert some periods.
    – D. Ben Knoble
    Jun 27, 2020 at 1:07
  • Sorry Bamboo this is wrong: "..and the bishop can not fork but can pin pieces.." Perhaps you might check this on a chess board as the bishop can and does regularly fork pieces!
    – cousin_pete
    Jun 27, 2020 at 14:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.