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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 27 Oct '06 16:59 / 1 edit
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
  2. 27 Oct '06 17:06
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
    I think you should read some elementary chess books.
  3. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    27 Oct '06 17:14
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
    Maybe this is why new players like playing 1.a4 and 2.Ra3 only to have their Rook chopped off by the f8 Bishop.
  4. 27 Oct '06 17:15
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
    why aren't you called knighttakesqueen then?

  5. 27 Oct '06 17:21
    Originally posted by Turfmoor
    why aren't you called knighttakesqueen then?

    Because a knight is much better than a queen why would he want to give up a knight for a queen?
  6. 27 Oct '06 17:23
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
    Rooks have the potential to be the next most powerful piece after the queen. Not all players will use them to their full potential, but that is the fault of the player not the piece.
  7. 27 Oct '06 17:23
    LOL! I think the knight CAN be better then a rook, when it is allowed to show its finess... but all in all, when it comes down to brute strength, a rook is far superior... and doubled rooks, they are twice as nasty.
  8. Standard member leisurelysloth
    Man of Steel
    27 Oct '06 20:29
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    are rooks really as powerful as we give them credit for? most players, especially low rated players, will always sacrifce their knight or bishop for the rook; i think in an end game the knight outshines the rook...
    Game 1700115
    Game 2277265

    Generally the rook's brute force overwhelms the knight in the endgame.
  9. 27 Oct '06 21:14
    Originally posted by ChessJester
    LOL! I think the knight CAN be better then a rook, when it is allowed to show its finess... but all in all, when it comes down to brute strength, a rook is far superior... and doubled rooks, they are twice as nasty.
    Doubled rooks, in my opinion, are about four times more powerful than a normal rook, (that is, if they're active), especially on the seventh rank.
  10. 27 Oct '06 21:27 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by darkguy00000
    Doubled rooks, in my opinion, are about four times more powerful than a normal rook, (that is, if they're active), especially on the seventh rank.
    Yes, you are probably right! They fight with 'the ferocity of wild boars' (I'm currently reading the chapter on batteries and open-files in Serwains book, "winning chess tactics" )
  11. 27 Oct '06 21:59
    sorry if i upset anyone, i'm very new to the game but really love playing; i feel i still have a lot to learn though and thought maybe the rooks were not as powerful in the end game, i guess i was wrong - i'll keep learning; thank you for your comments
  12. 27 Oct '06 22:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
    sorry if i upset anyone, i'm very new to the game but really love playing; i feel i still have a lot to learn though and thought maybe the rooks were not as powerful in the end game, i guess i was wrong - i'll keep learning; thank you for your comments
    Its no problem at all, you just need to learn how to use your rooks effectively, they are good at supporting passed pawns as they advance up the board.
    This game shows how black used his rook, supported by bishops, to penetrate my encampment in 2 moves!(23+24) with devestating results (This is one from my early days before I knew alot about the game, I was a newbie in this game)
    Game 1530979
    My knights were powerless to stop it, and no knight could ever do that much damage so quickly.

    This isn't the best example, but it should show you how a rook can be used effectively.
  13. 28 Oct '06 06:53
    i wouldnt say a knight is better than a rook, but it is probably the most important piece; i use it the most. without a knight, i have no control of the middle, bishops come next in that sense.
  14. Standard member anthias
    ambitious player
    28 Oct '06 13:28
    Why do people keep "favoring" pieces? You should not play a knight move because you like the piece, you should play it because the position demands it and it improves your position!
  15. 28 Oct '06 14:20
    It totally depends on the position, a knight with a permanent advanced support point can outshine a rook in some cases, or lets say a knight is a key defender of the opponents position then it might be worth a rook sac but it many cases the rook will dominate the knight in the endgame if its active, since its a long range piece and has the ability to give mate with a lone king its simply worth more.