Originally posted by apolloboyYou would want something else for sure (in general) !!
Just curious...Is it advisable, relatively early in the game with equal material loss, to trade a knight and a bishop to obtain a rook? Is there some intangible that would outweigh the point loss that would result?
Usually two pieces are better than a rook...this is consistent with the point values of 3 for bishop and knight and 5 for rook...So you'd be giving up 6 points to get 5...generally this is NOT good.
You better get a rip roaring attack going in order to justify the trades.
It really just depends on the position...but in the very beginning when both players don't have good lines of attack set up...it's inadvisable.
You can begin to see my point if you set up the board with one side missing a rook and the other missing a bishop and knight.
While you're working with the openings you'll instantly begin to notice the advantage to the side who has been missing a rook.
If you are not...I will play you and you WILL see why...
I still wouldn't do it in the opening without a good position...which I might have...your going to have to give us an example before we can answer the question.
Generally a giant gambit like that in the beginning is advised against. You are suggesting 3-4 pieces for 1 piece. That is a major gambit.
Originally posted by yamiyokaze5rk1/5ppp/8/6N1/2B5/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
I still wouldn't do it in the opening without a good position...which I might have...your going to have to give us an example before we can answer the question.
Generally a giant gambit like that in the beginning is advised against. You are suggesting 3-4 pieces for 1 piece. That is a major gambit.
Consider the above FEN (black castled king side behind pawns on f7, g7 and h7; white has knight and bishop attacking pawn on f7)
Is the following generally advisable...?
1.Bxf7+ Rxf7 2.Nxf7 Kxf7
This brings black's king slightly into the open, and trades two minor pieces for rook and pawn.
Originally posted by fawcr011. Bxf7+ is not the move I would make for this situation...1. Bxf7+ is a weak move and leaves black in excellent condition in the endgame.
5rk1/5ppp/8/6N1/2B5/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
Consider the above FEN (black castled king side behind pawns on f7, g7 and h7; white has knight and bishop attacking pawn on f7)
Is the following generally advisable...?
1.Bxf7+ Rxf7 2.Nxf7 Kxf7
This brings black's king slightly into the open, and trades two minor pieces for rook and pawn.
I suggest (and I'm thinking super far here so my moves my not be completely right all the way down there): 1. Kf2 h6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Kg3 Rc8 4. Bd5 Rc3 5. Kg4 Rxf3 6. Kxf3 Kg7 7. Kf4 f5 8. Bg2...I dare don't think furthur than that...but my point is...this is a far better position for Black.
Just so you can see what I'm talking about: 1. Bxf7+ Rxf7 2. Nxf7 (Ke2) Kxf7 3. Kf1 h5 4. Kf2 g5 5. Kg2 Kf6 6. Kf3 Kf5 7. Ke3 g4 8. Kd4 h4 9. Ke3 h3 10. Kd2 h2 11. Kc2 h1Q 12. Kc3 g3 13. Kc4 Qb7 14. Kd4 Qb5 15. Kc3 g2 16. Kc2 g1Q 17. Kd2 Qf2+ 18. Kc1 Qbf1++
There you go...
Originally posted by apolloboyLike everything else in chess, it all depends on the posistion, when making the decission whether to take a rook, ask yourself one Question, how strong is that rook ?, if hes sat idle doing nothing leave him be,
Just curious...Is it advisable, relatively early in the game with equal material loss, to trade a knight and a bishop to obtain a rook? Is there some intangible that would outweigh the point loss that would result?
