In two of my recent games i was faced with some tough decisions for trades. Maybe they're more clear to you.
During the endgame(close to it) is it worth trading your rook for your opponents N/B?
And what about 2 Rooks for a Queen in the endgame when all the pieces that are left are rooks and queens? Basically is having one Queen vs. two rooks and equal pawns a favorable match?
This is all probably pretty obvious but I have been quite stormy lately and its gettin late here 4am!, any help is appreciated!
thanks
-Lord
Originally posted by LordofADownUsually depends on the position. If you can trade the rook for the piece (I'm assuming that all the other pieces besides pawns are gone, here) and gain some kind of other advantage (maybe position, maybe easy access to pick up a pawn) then it can be worth it (as long as you know what you're doing). 2 rooks vs a queen is usually considered better, but that depends a lot on position. If your rooks are connected and can cover a lot of space, they're usually better. But if the queen can pick up pawn(s) or force you into bad position (trapped king, pawn structure, potential repetitive check) then probably not.
In two of my recent games i was faced with some tough decisions for trades. Maybe they're more clear to you.
During the endgame(close to it) is it worth trading your rook for your opponents N/B?
And what about 2 Rooks for a Queen in the endgame when all the pieces that are left are rooks and queens? Basically is having one Queen vs. two rooks and equ ...[text shortened]... been quite stormy lately and its gettin late here 4am!, any help is appreciated!
thanks
-Lord
Originally posted by LordofADownAlthough like always it depends on the position, two rooks are generally better than a queen in the endgame. The side with the rooks can advance a pawn and still sac for piece promotion while the side with the queen does not have this luxury.
In two of my recent games i was faced with some tough decisions for trades. Maybe they're more clear to you.
During the endgame(close to it) is it worth trading your rook for your opponents N/B?
And what about 2 Rooks for a Queen in the endgame when all the pieces that are left are rooks and queens? Basically is having one Queen vs. two rooks and equ ...[text shortened]... been quite stormy lately and its gettin late here 4am!, any help is appreciated!
thanks
-Lord
And trading a rook for a knight or bishop in the endgame is also not a good idea. Rooks really shine in the endgame; unlike the bishops they have access to all the squares, and they are much faster than the knights. However, trading a rook for a bishop and a knight is generally a good idea in the endgame, for the same reason that two rooks are better than a queen. The side with more pieces can sac one for pawn promotion.
Imagine a Queen that also moves like a Knight.
Do you think its worth trading it fro 2 Rooks and a Knight?
^its a hard question to awnser, and so is working out the value of ALL the chess peices in relation to each other....particually pawns.
but here's a very simple "thought process" when trading
The Queen is powerful because she is very mobile, she's brilliant at snapping off weak pawns and peices, she's also a very good "checking peice"
The Rook Pair are powerful becuase they work well together, they can form powerful and deadly batteries along ranks & files, together they control lots of squares, and you always have the option of sacing one and still have one left!
In chess Terms, you should favour a Queen in postions with no open-files, where the enemy king is very exposed, where the enemy pawn structure has lots of weakpoints.
2 rooks are better in very open games, where they have lots of space to breathe, and where lots of the pawns on the board are passed ones.
Originally posted by LordofADownI think that maybe, just maybe, you should stop counting the values of pieces.
In two of my recent games i was faced with some tough decisions for trades. Maybe they're more clear to you.
During the endgame(close to it) is it worth trading your rook for your opponents N/B?
And what about 2 Rooks for a Queen in the endgame when all the pieces that are left are rooks and queens? Basically is having one Queen vs. two rooks and equ ...[text shortened]... been quite stormy lately and its gettin late here 4am!, any help is appreciated!
thanks
-Lord
Originally posted by HFRorbis10 rooks = 10 (points)
Are you sure that 2 Rooks are better than a Queen ?
Chess books generally claim that 2 Rooks = a Queen = 10 pawns
1 Queen = 9
to be more direct.
Consider your position. If you have 2 rooks vs a queen, you really have to observe every place that his queen can move as to avoid to be checked, and lose a rook at the same time. As for rook vs. bishop + knight DURING ENDGAME: again need to look at position, but rook might be better because rooks can mate
Everything depends upon concrete analysis of the position.
One rook is nearly always superior to one minor piece, and usually inferior to two minor pieces. In situations with a small number of pawns on one side, a knight can sometimes find equality with a rook, but a bishop is better than the knight with pawns on both sides.
Such imbalances are central to positional chess from the opening through the endgame. Guidelines for the evaluation of these imbalances (such as point value) always have exceptions.
If you have not looked at Andrew Soltis, Rethinking the Chess Pieces, you should. The first chapter has a exceptional review of several point schemes that have been proposed through the centuries, highlighting how and when each system fails. Subsequent chapters consider different imbalances and unique aspects of each of the pieces in battle.
Besides the Soltis book, other books which are relevant to the topic of this thread are:
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1999) by IM John Watson
and
Elements of Positional Chess Evaluation (1994) by NM Dan Heisman
The book by GM Soltis is the most recent (2005) of the three, though I believe most people would also find the other books to be interesting and useful.
Originally posted by LordofADownGame 3098780
In two of my recent games i was faced with some tough decisions for trades. Maybe they're more clear to you.
During the endgame(close to it) is it worth trading your rook for your opponents N/B?
And what about 2 Rooks for a Queen in the endgame when all the pieces that are left are rooks and queens? Basically is having one Queen vs. two rooks and equ ...[text shortened]... been quite stormy lately and its gettin late here 4am!, any help is appreciated!
thanks
-Lord
I exchanged my rook for his knight leaving me down a pawn in a bishop of opposite colors endgame which was then drawn.
Originally posted by JusuhI don't think that counting value is a bad idea all together. Take my son who is seven will often place his queen in the position where a pawn is guarding it. I'll attack it with a bishop or whatever and he'll say "But my piece is backed up by the pawn." He doesn't yet understand winning the exchange. I explain that the queen is worth 9 pawns and the bishop only 3 so I'm winning. At this point I don't think he understands. He still likes to just see how many pawns he can queen heh.
I think that maybe, just maybe, you should stop counting the values of pieces.