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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 16 Jun '08 17:59
    I found that with a somewhat equally skilled opponent I can pull off a W much easier by losing a rook in sacrifice to taking his/her bishop and knight, as opposed to trying to pull off a W when the tables have turned.

    How do you feel about this trade?
  2. 16 Jun '08 18:05
    That is a trade that sometimes happens in the italian game. Most consider it a stupid move to take the pawn on f7 with the rook behind it and doing the trade like you say(rook and pawn for bishop and knight) because those minor pieces are needed in the middle game. Not a guaranteed win though but generally a bad trade.
  3. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jun '08 18:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I found that with a somewhat equally skilled opponent I can pull off a W much easier by losing a rook in sacrifice to taking his/her bishop and knight, as opposed to trying to pull off a W when the tables have turned.

    How do you feel about this trade?
    I am not sure exactly what you are saying but if its that you feel a Rook is better than a Bishop and a Knight then, yes it is, I will make that exchange any time unless my opponent has significant compensation is exchange and, without significant compensation, I would never give up a Bishop and a Knight for a Rook.

    If you feel the Rook is worse than a Bishop or a Knight then I hope you give it to me if we ever play, because with open ranks and files a Rook is far stronger and this strength increases as the game progresses. I would never make such an exchange without significant compensation.

    I would certainly also think twice about given up a B & N for a R & P although a B & N for a R & 2P all other things being equal should be a good exchange.
  4. 16 Jun '08 18:30
    Here is an example where I ended up losing my rook so as to eventually take his bishop and knight. He is a little better than me I think, since he tossed me around the board like a rag doll and pushed me into that corner, until the the mistake toward the end.

    Actually I think it is a mistake unless I am totally blind and he has some sort of crazy design.

    Game 4941689
  5. 16 Jun '08 19:57
    game is in progress cant comment
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    16 Jun '08 20:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I found that with a somewhat equally skilled opponent I can pull off a W much easier by losing a rook in sacrifice to taking his/her bishop and knight, as opposed to trying to pull off a W when the tables have turned.

    How do you feel about this trade?
    Bishop = 3
    Knight = 3
    Rook = 5

    The Bishop and Knight combined are worth more than a Rook.
  7. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    16 Jun '08 20:29
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    Here is an example where I ended up losing my rook so as to eventually take his bishop and knight. He is a little better than me I think, since he tossed me around the board like a rag doll and pushed me into that corner, until the the mistake toward the end.

    Actually I think it is a mistake unless I am totally blind and he has some sort of crazy design.

    Game 4941689
    There is nothing even remotely forced or deliberate about the exchanges in this game and certainly no intended sacrifice of B & N for R. Such an exchange usually occurs on f7 as in Game 603158. I am sorry I cannot give an example of a game between stronger players but the reason is simple no strong player would dream of making this sacrifice without significant extra compensation and at this stage of the game it is not there.
  8. 16 Jun '08 21:31
    R v N & B.

    I think all strong players agree the B & N are better but they
    must co-ordinate well. I've seen games were the Rook
    dominates the two minor pieces but these are exceptions.

    There is a school of thought that think in the first 15 moves
    the Knight and Bishop are actually better than a Rook.

    How many games do you see where a player has swapped
    a well placed Knight/Bishop for a Rook
    (ie Nxc7+ and Nxa8 or Bg7xa1) only to end up being mated or
    having a terrible position.

    Opening theory has dozens of examples of this type of
    material gain that backfire. (Scotch & Grunfeld)

    Staying on the subject with a slight deviation.
    The exchange (R v N or R v B) is greatly overated.
    It is not always an automatic win. A glance at some of
    Petrosian's game will confirm this.

    So don't jump in to swap a good Knight/Bishop for a passive
    Rook. There is usually a better move. (the active piece is
    doing you more good than the passive piece doing you harm).

    A protected Knight free from pawn attack on d4,d5,e4 or e5
    is easily worth a Rook.
  9. 17 Jun '08 00:37 / 3 edits
    4952279
    me = noob, forgot the tag for linking a game.
    That's a game I played. Keep in mind I suck. But I was happy to have a knight and bishop for his rook. I had fun playing dangerously. It was one of those 1/0 tournaments where you have no time to think.
  10. 19 Jun '08 23:23
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    There is nothing even remotely forced or deliberate about the exchanges in this game and certainly no intended sacrifice of B & N for R. Such an exchange usually occurs on f7 as in Game 603158. I am sorry I cannot give an example of a game between stronger players but the reason is simple no strong player would dream of making this sacrifice without significant extra compensation and at this stage of the game it is not there.
    I think this is a decent example of the B & N for R sacrifice with adequate compensation: Game 3190514
  11. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    20 Jun '08 01:43
    Originally posted by Heroic Metool

    Game 3190514
  12. 21 Jun '08 15:59
    Thanks. Uh... how do you do that?
  13. 23 Jun '08 10:17
    Originally posted by Heroic Metool
    Thanks. Uh... how do you do that?
    Thread 95594