Originally posted by Leonard LeaderThe way I learnt from books and experience,
There are many times in the opening, middlegame and even close to the endgame, where you can choose to swap your knight and bishop for a rook and a pawn. In what circumstances is that a good deal and in what circumstances is it a poor swap?
In the opening and middlegame it's not worth it. Endgame yes. Of course this depends on the position but generally that is how it goes.
This is the reasoning:
In the opening and middlegame there are still lots of pawns on the board and few if any open files. The rooks are basically doing nothing. Your knight and bishop are great in the opening and middlegame. Why give up 2 attackers for a rook and pawn.
That just means you opponent has 2 extra attackers.
How often do you seriously attack with a rook in the opening or middlegame?
How often with the minor pieces?
Hope that makes sense.
Edit: That is what I teach my students also. Lots of people wonder that so you are in good company.
generally i try to avoid swapping two pieces for a R+P ever unless i'm forced or i see some side benefit. my general principle is that two pieces can work together to overwhelm a rook on any particular side of the board. A rook can hold its own only if there is action on both sides of the board, (typically in the endgame) then the long range power of a rook can overcome a knight so. BB>RP?=?BN>NN (for open endgames) in a completely closed game i would say NN>BN>BB>RP.
I'd be interested in QUALITY examples of R+P beating B+N.
here is exactly what i mean.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1279363
i love trading a rook and a pawn for a bishop and a knight. usually when your up one piece you can just beat the hell out of your opponent while he doesn't have enough pieces to defend. i agree with rahim he makes very good sense. plus when you trade that early in the game they can arrange a more closed game with open diagionals than open files.