What do you guys prefer? I come across this situation a couple of times where I can either save my rook, and lose a knight, or a bishop, or.. I can give up the rook, and take the knight / bishop piece. I usually always take the swap, and lose the rook,but, what is it other people feel is better.. Swap Rook for lower piece? or lose the bishop or knight outright without gaining something in return
MIODude
I can't tell you how many games in which I've "won the exchange" , and then got cocky, licking my chops and imagining that I had a done deal, game over situation, only to get kicked around and beaten. Contrarywise, when I win a piece outright, it's generally a matter of exchanging off everything and mopping up. Winning the exchange is nice, but it's not a "won" game. Winning a piece is, usually.
Originally posted by Dodger11Your problem seems to be more relaxing in a won game.
I can't tell you how many games in which I've "won the exchange" , and then got cocky, licking my chops and imagining that I had a done deal, game over situation, only to get kicked around and beaten. Contrarywise, when I win a piece outright, it's generally a matter of exchanging off everything and mopping up. Winning the exchange is nice, but it's not a "won" game. Winning a piece is, usually.
Gaining the exchange cleanly should result in a won game. There's a reason why a Rook is worth 5 points and a minor piece (Knight or Bishop) is worth 3. It requires better technique, because the Rook can't usually capture things that are defended by the minor piece, whereas you can trade evenly with an extra piece.
I do agree that it's preferable to lose the exchange than a full piece - but the point system would also tell you that.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, bigdog, winning the exchange should result in a won game, all things being equal. Usually. But it ain't necessarily so. Losing two pawns should also result in a won game also.....but you can't count on that either.
Your problem seems to be more relaxing in a won game.
Gaining the exchange cleanly should result in a won game. There's a reason why a Rook is worth 5 points and a minor piece (Knight or Bishop) is worth 3. It requires better technique, because the Rook can't usually capture things that are defended by the minor piece, whereas you can trade evenl ...[text shortened]... eferable to lose the exchange than a full piece - but the point system would also tell you that.
Being exchange down is not often same as lost. In fact, sometimes it is not worse than equal (say, bishop pair against rook and knight in open position. Or kninght against rook in closed position) Pawn structures make differences. So without given structure, there certainly is not any "global" rule about "rook is better than knight" or "being piece down is worse than being exchange down". Thats my opinion. Feel free to disagree
Originally posted by JusuhSuch cases seem to be the exception, not the rule. If there was truly no global rule, the point system would have been thrown out a long time ago.
Being exchange down is not often same as lost. In fact, sometimes it is not worse than equal (say, bishop pair against rook and knight in open position. Or kninght against rook in closed position) Pawn structures make differences. So without given structure, there certainly is not any "global" rule about "rook is better than knight" or "being piece down is worse than being exchange down". Thats my opinion. Feel free to disagree
It is rare to get a position that is so closed that a Knight beats a Rook. All the Rook needs is one open file or rank to get in behind pawns.
The bishop pair, even in an open position, still needs targets. The side with the Rook and Knight has the luxury of playing for exchanges or giving back the exchange if necessary.
The skilled player knows when to break the rules, i.e., when to sacrifice the exchange for other advantages. But they are also very good at converting a 'clean' material advantage. ('Clean' meaning no compensation.)