Answers.Body: <p><em>On average</em>, two bishops are better than two knights, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., a closed position where the bishops don't have room to operate).</p>
  
  <p><em>On average</em>, two rooks are better than a queen, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., when the player with the rooks has a bunch of weak pawns that are easy for the queen to attack).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T19:55:25.077Z
Answers.Text: I totally agree with you : D
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mamihlapinatapai
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-16T18:33:21.083Z
Answers.Text: I once heard a grandmaster say that you should not play chess as a bookkeeper. All depends on the position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Marco
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T19:45:31.360Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-15T19:45:31.360Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.Body: <p>Read the article "Evaluation of Material Imbalances" by GM Larry Kaufman:
  <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm" rel="nofollow">The Evaluation of Material Imbalances</a>.</p>
  
  <p>He says about the bishop pair:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn (more when the
    opponent has no minor pieces to exchange for one of the bishops),
    enough to regard it as part of the material evaluation of the
    position, and enough to overwhelm most positional considerations.
    Moreover, this substantial bishop pair value holds up in all
    situations tested, regardless of what else is on the board. This large
    a bishop pair value is surprising because in the opening grandmasters
    will often give up the bishop pair to double the opponent's pawns or
    to gain a mild lead in development, factors which are generally not
    worth half a pawn [DH: Since at the very start of the game a tempo is
    worth roughly a third of a pawn - and more later! - it is worth losing
    a tempo to save the bishop pair, but if you can gain two tempo by
    giving up the bishop pair that may be worth it in the short run!]</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Later, queen vs. two rooks:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks,
    this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two
    or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I
    recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two
    rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon
    won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal
    point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized
    Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with
    lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the
    rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>His basic tables of values is:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>Pawn = 1</p></li>
  <li><p>Bishop pair = +½</p></li>
  <li><p>Rook =  5</p></li>
  <li><p>Bishop = 3¼</p></li>
  <li><p>Knight =  3¼</p></li>
  <li><p>Queen =  9¾</p></li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T20:38:28.463Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-16T15:28:30.250Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-08-16T15:28:30.250Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: limits
Body: <p>Which give me more advantage two Knights or two Bishops ?. And what should I choose two Rooks or a Queen ?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T19:41:55.337Z
Comments.Text: I am quite sure that 2 Rooks are better than a Queen, 10 vs 9 ?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mamihlapinatapai
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T20:37:00.653Z
Comments.Text: No. Sometimes a queen is better than 2 rooks, such as if there are no open files. A strong player used to win games in which he had a queen and gave his opponent 2 rooks.
Comments.UserDisplayName: limits
Tags: <strategy><material-balance>
Title: Which are better of these two pairs
ThreadText: # Which are better of these two pairs
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-15)
  
  Which give me more advantage two Knights or two Bishops ?. And what should I choose two Rooks or a Queen ?
  
  **Tags:** strategy, material-balance
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I am quite sure that 2 Rooks are better than a Queen, 10 vs 9 ?  
  > **username_1**: No. Sometimes a queen is better than 2 rooks, such as if there are no open files. A strong player used to win games in which he had a queen and gave his opponent 2 rooks.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-08-15. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  *On average*, two bishops are better than two knights, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., a closed position where the bishops don't have room to operate).
  
  *On average*, two rooks are better than a queen, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., when the player with the rooks has a bunch of weak pawns that are easy for the queen to attack).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I totally agree with you : D  
  > **username_3**: I once heard a grandmaster say that you should not play chess as a bookkeeper. All depends on the position.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2015-08-15. Score: 5
  
  Read the article "Evaluation of Material Imbalances" by GM Larry Kaufman:
  [The Evaluation of Material Imbalances](http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm).
  
  He says about the bishop pair:
  
  > The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn (more when the
  > opponent has no minor pieces to exchange for one of the bishops),
  > enough to regard it as part of the material evaluation of the
  > position, and enough to overwhelm most positional considerations.
  > Moreover, this substantial bishop pair value holds up in all
  > situations tested, regardless of what else is on the board. This large
  > a bishop pair value is surprising because in the opening grandmasters
  > will often give up the bishop pair to double the opponent's pawns or
  > to gain a mild lead in development, factors which are generally not
  > worth half a pawn [DH: Since at the very start of the game a tempo is
  > worth roughly a third of a pawn - and more later! - it is worth losing
  > a tempo to save the bishop pair, but if you can gain two tempo by
  > giving up the bishop pair that may be worth it in the short run!]
  
  Later, queen vs. two rooks:
  
  > Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks,
  > this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two
  > or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I
  > recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two
  > rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon
  > won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal
  > point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized
  > Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with
  > lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the
  > rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead.
  
  His basic tables of values is:
  
  * Pawn = 1
  * Bishop pair = +½
  * Rook = 5
  * Bishop = 3¼
  * Knight = 3¼
  * Queen = 9¾
  
  
  ---
  
  