It's common knowledge that rook + bishop work better than rook + knight. Likewise the queen + knight tend to work better than queen + bishop in the endgame because the queen + bishop duo can sometimes be redundant.
The knight is unique compared to the bishop.
‘A bishop and a rook are also stronger than a knight and a rook, but a queen and a knight may be stronger than a queen and a bishop.’
Even when it's proven some people don't agree for some reasons.
‘... I don’t necessarily agree with the clichéd adage that “the queen and knight duo are superior”.
Statistically QN vs QB scores 55-57% on average against QB. That percentage is found by chessbase statistics.
Nordlandia wrote:Likewise the queen + knight tend to work better than queen + bishop in the endgame because the queen + bishop duo can sometimes be redundant.
This might be true but it doesn't hold against two rooks: QN vs RR is a general draw while QB vs RR is a general win. The rook pair's main resource is the third rank defence which can be broken only by the Q+B duo. The key to success seems to be the bishop's ability to attack the first rank. An example:
Nordlandia wrote:It's common knowledge that rook + bishop work better than rook + knight. Likewise the queen + knight tend to work better than queen + bishop in the endgame because the queen + bishop duo can sometimes be redundant.
The knight is unique compared to the bishop.
‘A bishop and a rook are also stronger than a knight and a rook, but a queen and a knight may be stronger than a queen and a bishop.’
Even when it's proven some people don't agree for some reasons.
‘... I don’t necessarily agree with the clichéd adage that “the queen and knight duo are superior”.
Statistically QN vs QB scores 55-57% on average against QB. That percentage is found by chessbase statistics.
Many chess authors agrees that Q+N is stronger in tandem versus Q+B, as long as
Q+N cooperate harmoniously. Best game I can remember is the young GM Kamsky against Kasparov. My memory didn't serve me right, just a draw. Kasparov halved the point with Q+N vs Q+R of Kamsky.
Many chess authors agrees that Q+N is stronger in tandem versus Q+B, as long as
Q+N cooperate harmoniously. Best game I can remember is the young GM Kamsky against Kasparov. My memory didn't serve me right, just a draw. Kasparov halved the point with Q+N vs Q+R of Kamsky..
Chess authors tend to glorify Q+N positions and doesn't pay much attention to when Q+B is stronger. I think the idea behind this phenomena is to make readers aware of the mentioned quips.
Like i previously said. The theorem is statistically proven right. Nevertheless if you find yourself in QN vs QB endgame, QN duo advantage is comparable to home-field advantage in football.
Nordlandia wrote:It's common knowledge that rook + bishop work better than rook + knight. Likewise the queen + knight tend to work better than queen + bishop in the endgame because the queen + bishop duo can sometimes be redundant.
The knight is unique compared to the bishop.
‘A bishop and a rook are also stronger than a knight and a rook, but a queen and a knight may be stronger than a queen and a bishop.’
Even when it's proven some people don't agree for some reasons.
‘... I don’t necessarily agree with the clichéd adage that “the queen and knight duo are superior”.
Statistically QN vs QB scores 55-57% on average against QB. That percentage is found by chessbase statistics.
Where does that 55-57% figure come from? I just checked it out for myself and found that the QB scores almost 51%. Of course, you have to check for both colors, since White comes out ahead overall with either side of this configuration. The exact results will depend on your database, your threshold rating, your requirement for "persistence" (I use 3 plies), and your requirements regarding other material (I required no other pieces to be on the board, but any number of pawns as long as they are equal). Perhaps your requirements were very different?
My opinion is that in general bishops are better than knights, but with just a queen to assist each this advantage is much reduced though not completely eliminated.
lkaufman wrote:Where does that 55-57% figure come from?
Chessbase 14's Similar Endgames search.
Searching this position with symmetrical structure (colors is not ignored) from master class rated 2200 up to 2800s
[d]3qk1n1/pp3ppp/8/8/8/8/PP3PPP/3QKB2 w - - 0 0
My question to Kaufman: Is Q+N tandem eligible for material bonus for Komodo?
Yes, in majority of cases the bishop is most of the times the best minor piece. Capablanca's Theorem is the exception when combined with the queen in endgame.
lkaufman wrote:Where does that 55-57% figure come from?
Chessbase 14's Similar Endgames search.
Searching this position with symmetrical structure (colors is not ignored) from master class rated 2200 up to 2800s
[d]3qk1n1/pp3ppp/8/8/8/8/PP3PPP/3QKB2 w - - 0 0
My question to Kaufman: Is Q+N tandem eligible for material bonus for Komodo?
Yes, in majority of cases the bishop is most of the times the best minor piece. Capablanca's Theorem is the exception when combined with the queen in endgame.
symmetrical pawn structure greatly favors knights over bishops, so your methodology tell us nothing about queen + minor combination. Yes, Komodo does have a queen with knight bonus, but it is very small.
Nordlandia wrote:It's common knowledge that rook + bishop work better than rook + knight. Likewise the queen + knight tend to work better than queen + bishop in the endgame because the queen + bishop duo can sometimes be redundant.
The knight is unique compared to the bishop.
‘A bishop and a rook are also stronger than a knight and a rook, but a queen and a knight may be stronger than a queen and a bishop.’
Even when it's proven some people don't agree for some reasons.
‘... I don’t necessarily agree with the clichéd adage that “the queen and knight duo are superior”.
Statistically QN vs QB scores 55-57% on average against QB. That percentage is found by chessbase statistics.
