Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 22 Feb '11 22:23
    So, this is mainly a question of strategy. The moves above, after black has castled, effectively mean that White is surrendering two minor pieces for a Rook and a Pawn. In simple numbering, it is a fair swap (3+3 = 5+1) and has the advantage of dismantling the defence around the black King. My question is, does this actually give someone an advantage, or are there times when it is better (if white still has both Rooks for example), and some instances when it is not a good idea at all?
    Ta muchly
  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    22 Feb '11 22:58
    Originally posted by morgski
    So, this is mainly a question of strategy. The moves above, after black has castled, effectively mean that White is surrendering two minor pieces for a Rook and a Pawn. In simple numbering, it is a fair swap (3+3 = 5+1) and has the advantage of dismantling the defence around the black King. My question is, does this actually give someone an advantage, or ...[text shortened]... has both Rooks for example), and some instances when it is not a good idea at all?
    Ta muchly
    White has to make four moves just to take on f7. Black's Rook has made only half a move [castling] and the f-pawn hasn't moved at all. White is throwing away a lot of tempi by making this trade. White usually needs some kind of other compensation [endgame advantage or further attack against Black's King] to justify this trade.
  3. 22 Feb '11 23:27 / 3 edits
    This subject pops up from time to time.

    Thread 85301 & Thread 136505

    In the first thread there is a good example by WittyMcVitie
    (or what ever his name is)

    In the latter I posted this. It got two recs so someone found it handy.

    Stats appear to favour the holder of the two minor pieces.

    On the 1400 DB. (with over 1½ millon games a good base
    for reference as it made up with games played by the lads
    who read these Forums and some think this exchange is OK for the Rook).

    Searched for games Where one side has just a Rook,
    other has Bishop and Knight. (and of course Kings & pawns).

    White has the Rook. 2342 games

    White Wins 796
    draws 371
    Black Wins 1175

    Black has the Rook 2205 games

    Black Wins 733
    Draws 390
    White Wins 1082

    Of course the pawns matter and the
    Bishop and Knight must work well together.

    But overall it does indicate a + for the Bishop & Knight.

    Wins for the Rook in R v B+N at the lower level usually happen when one of
    the minor pieces gets picked up by the Rook pulling off a tactical trick.

    The minor pieces have to be careful about settling
    on unprotected squares and always be on the alert for
    Forks, Pins, Skewers and Harpoons.


    1.Rc3 is a standard Rook Fork.


    1.Rb8 winning the pinned Bishop.


    1.Rb8+ Skewers the Bishop.


    1.Rc3 is what I call a Harpoon.
    It is neither a Pin (weaker piece pinned to stronger piece).
    Or a Skewer (The stronger piece moves exposing the weaker piece).
    A Harpoon fits the bill.

    A basic: attack, check and Rook Fork.


    1.Rc3 N any 2.Rc8+ then 3.Rc7+ and 4.RxB

    Also the minor pieces have to be wary about getting
    too close to the enemy King.


    1.Ke6 is a King fork

    Then there are Rook sac tricks winning the two minor pieces.



    1.Rc8+ and 2.Rxc3 or 1.Ra6+ and 2.Rxf6.

    All these tricks cropped up in games I looked at on here.[/b]
  4. 23 Feb '11 02:44
    Obviously it depends on the position but in general this is one time where one should disregard the 5+1 = 3+3 point evaluation. Usually, as mentioned in one of the other threads, one needs to gain rook plus two pawns for the two minor pieces - all else being equal - which rarely happens.
  5. 23 Feb '11 10:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kbear1k
    Obviously it depends on the position but in general this is one time where one should disregard the 5+1 = 3+3 point evaluation. Usually, as mentioned in one of the other threads, one needs to gain rook plus two pawns for the two minor pieces - all else being equal - which rarely happens.
    Thanks for that. The reason I posted this was because I won a game exchanging the two minor pieces, but felt I was lucky to do so:


    This was one of those "rare" occasions where I did get two pawns and a rook for the knight and bishop, but made a mistake at 10. g5 and had to rely on a mistake by white (16. Kg1 instead of Nxe7 or Nf6+) to be able to come back into the game.
  6. 23 Feb '11 10:08
    Originally posted by morgski
    So, this is mainly a question of strategy. The moves above, after black has castled, effectively mean that White is surrendering two minor pieces for a Rook and a Pawn. In simple numbering, it is a fair swap (3+3 = 5+1) and has the advantage of dismantling the defence around the black King. My question is, does this actually give someone an advantage, or ...[text shortened]... has both Rooks for example), and some instances when it is not a good idea at all?
    Ta muchly
    In my feeble opinion, it is generally better to have the two minor pieces instead of the R+pawn.

    Thus, I generally avoid trading, for example, at a f7 square a bishop and knight for their rook and f-pawn.
  7. Standard member chessicle
    The Chessicle
    23 Feb '11 11:07
    B+N is certainly better than R; R+P is less clear, but I think I'd generally rather have the minor pieces, especially in a more crowded middle-game. R+PP probably trumps B+N most of the time. It always depends on the placement of the pieces and pawns.

  8. 24 Feb '11 14:21
    Usually the trade is bad and having two minor pieces is superior to a rook and a pawn. There are exceptions, such as the dilworth variation of the open spanish, which is very exciting and sometimes leads to very interesting endgames (Yusupov played nice games with this variation). Here it is: