Minor Pieces vs Queen

Queen generally wins against 3 minors

But if the three minors are all knights then it is generally a draw

Doesn't match up with the figures here unless "generally" is taken to mean nearly 50% of the time. 

Of course, the colours of the squares multiple bishops occupy would probably affect the figures.

Here generally means the most common outcome.

We may be all talking at cross purposes.

The results depend on whether you're talking about practical play or theoretically perfect play.

For example the queen v. two knights endgame is described by Müller & Lamprecht as generally drawn (with some caveats). That is based on the results in the ChessBase Mega Database of around 1.7 million games. But the tablebases show that three quarters of positions are theoretically won for the queen.

The difference is that the wins are mostly too difficult for humans or engines.

When it comes to a queen v 4 minors it makes little sense to take the context as practical play.  Endgames with Q v 2 minors occur rarely in practical play and Q v 3 minors occur even more rarely by a factor of 8. It would probably be difficult to find any recorded game that came to a Q v 4 minors endgame.

@2718a's comment, "Here generally means the most common outcome", does little to clarify. Does it mean most common with perfect play or most common in practice? Out of positions that occur in practical play or out of all possible positions?

The theoretical figures, that can be looked up here, show that the queen has the advantage against fewer than 4 minors, but the advantage reverses for 4 minors. The draws mostly form over 40% with more than 2 minors.

The theoretical results also depend on whether the game is played under FIDE basic rules which don't have a 50 move rule or under FIDE competition rules which do. For example in KBBBN v KQ 15% to 20% of the theoretical wins under basic rules are theoretical draws under competition rules because they can't be forced within the 50 move rule. 

Definitely not true in theoretical or practical terms. KQ v KB and KQ v KN are almost always easy wins for the queen. It's not necessary in most cases to take the last minor piece (not even to achieve the shortest mate).

In some cases mate can be achieved without taking either of the minor pieces.

E.g. here White can opt to take both knights in 2 moves, but it's quicker to take one or neither and mate in 2 instead.

To contradict myself; you're almost right in theoretical terms, but it needs to be pointed out that both minors can be captured in three out of four positions. (It's just hard.)

If you somehow had 4 minor pieces and 3 pawns against a queen and 3 pawns, it would probably be a win. If you somehow had just 4 minor pieces against a queen, it would probably be a draw, as the queen could disrupt an attack.

With perfect play.

Also don't forget the 50-move rule and a possible perpetual check by the queen.

That would be a win for the queen tho if all are on same color

4 minor pieces beats a queen if you keep the minor pieces coordinated. For example, have the knights defend each other. Have the knights defend the two bishops. As long as they are the regular minor pieces(no bishops on same color), it is a win, but a difficult one.

If there are no pawns, four minor pieces beat a queen(unless the pieces are bishops all on the same color). Alexy Trotisky showed that four knights beat a queen.

3 minors against a rook is usually winning, but against a queen I don't think so. As for 4 bishops vs a queen, I would assume that 2 of the bishops should be on each color, 3 on one and 1 on the other seems more drawing to me, but am not sure.

These questions can now be mostly answered using the stats on the Syzygy table site.

(Unfortunately they don't treat bishops of different colours as different pieces - as Marc Bourzutschky's DTC tablebases currently under construction sensibly do - so the stats don't directly distinguish the obvious differences beteen different distributions of bishop colours.)

Simply consult these pages for four minors against queen. The stats are near the bottom of the right hand column.

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NNNNK3_b_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NNNBK3_b_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NNBBK3_w_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NBBBK3_w_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/BBBBK3_w_-_-_0_1

or these pages for three minors against queen.

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=kq6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NNNK4_b_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NNBK4_b_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/NBBK4_b_-_-_0_1

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=qk6/8/8/8/8/8/8/BBBK4_b_-_-_0_1

People often claim that the stats are misleading, but really they are complaining that the stats don't tell them what they want to know. (They mislead themselves.)

Chess literature is generally vague about exactly what stats would be appropriate, but a series of stats omitting positions that mate or convert in 1 ply, 2 ply, 3 ply etc. would be more useful (and side to move as a necessary split). Different stats in the series would be appropriate for different levels of player.

To illustrate; the Syzygy tables give KQvKR as winning in 85% of positions whereas KQvK as winning in 95% of positions (to the nearest 5%). If a player with a remarkable lack of mathematical and chess talent who had just learned the moves were to go only by those statistics he might conclude that he improves his chances of winning by 10% by capturing the rook here.

And of course, what generally happens can be wildly different from what should happen whatever the stats say as I remarked in #25.

4 minors could only draw if the queen sacrifices herself for two bishops unless it is an exception or if she sacrifices herself for more unless it is an exception.

,,

The OP was last online when i wasn't alive

4 knights vs a queen is a win. The knights and king can coordinate very well against a queen. I tested this once at my local chess club and played the 4 knights vs a Master with a Queen. I mated him in 20-something moves. 4 is just too many pieces to stop.

4 knights win just under 40% of all (semi-legal ply count 0) positions vs a queen.

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=3qk3/8/8/8/8/8/1N4N1/1N2K1N1_w_-_-_0_1

The queen wins a little over a quarter as many as the knights and about half are drawn.

Under FIDE competition rules, if ply count > 0 positions are taken into account, the vast majority would be drawn, but the ply count 0 positions are of the most interest because these, in general, are the positions which first occur in the endgame.

If one of the 4 knights is replaced by a bishop in the above then the distinction between basic and competition rules becomes significant. Still as a percentage of semi-legal ply count 0 positions the approximate percentages are:

Basic rules: minor pieces win 45%, queen wins 16% (rest drawn)

Competition rules: minor pieces win 40%, queen wins 16% (rest drawn)

See https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=3qk3/8/8/8/8/8/5N2/1NB1KN2_b_-_-_0_1

With more bishops the figures from the above site are less useful, because the results will obviously depend heavily on the distribution of light and dark squared bishops and the stats don't distinguish.