Was wondering why Rooks are more powerful than minors

Sure, they're better than bishops because they can control light and dark squares, but then so can knights.

Then, just now it hit me. Knights can control from 2 to 8 squares depending on where they are on the board. Bishops from 8 to 15. No matter where you put the rook it's always covering 16 squares.

I suppose the reason knights are "equal" to bishops (while covering less squares) because they can attack light and dark squares and can jump over other pieces and pawns.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Sure, they're better than bishops because they can control light and dark squares, but then so can knights.

Then, just now it hit me. Knights can control from 2 to 8 squares depending on where they are on the board. Bishops from 8 to 15. No matter where you put the rook it's always covering 16 squares.

I suppose the reason knights are "equal ...[text shortened]... es) because they can attack light and dark squares and can jump over other pieces and pawns.

Edward Lasker said "It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces, as so much depends on the peculiarities of the position...".

Nevertheless, he said that bishops and knights (minor pieces) were equal, rooks are worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns, and a queen is worth three minor pieces or two rooks (Lasker 1915:11).

Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening. Rooks are usually more powerful than bishops in the middlegame, and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the endgame (Seirawan 2003:ix).

You can deliver mate with K+R, this isn't possible with N or B. Also, Rooks can be used to cut the enemy King off from moving freely across the board. In pawn endings, this is often the difference between Queening a pawn or not..

Originally posted by Marinkatomb You can deliver mate with K+R, this isn't possible with N or B.

Rooks can pin and skewer, Knights cannot. The Knight fork is more famous and perhaps more common (where's greenpawn34 when you need him?), but the Rook can also fork enemy pieces.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Sure, they're better than bishops because they can control light and dark squares, but then so can knights.

Then, just now it hit me. Knights can control from 2 to 8 squares depending on where they are on the board. Bishops from 8 to 15. No matter where you put the rook it's always covering 16 squares.

I suppose the reason knights are "equal ...[text shortened]... es) because they can attack light and dark squares and can jump over other pieces and pawns.

And they can cut off an entire section of the board from the opponent's king in the endgame.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Rook covers 14 squares.

It is not limited to one color (like the Bishop) or to short-range (like the Knight). That's another reason why it is generally stronger.

Another reason is that the Rook can prevent something from moving, like if you have it on the seventh rank.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Before I said 16 squares, not thinking about the square they're on counts as rank and file simultaneously. So wouldn't it be 15 squares or do you not count the square they're on?

I've noticed against computers in particular - if you have 2 rooks on e1 and d1 and opponents king in the centre you can sacrifice up to 2 minor peaces in the centre and create a 'long pin' that wins the game - 2 rooks in the centre are very powerful

"(where's greenpawn34 when you need him.)"

I don't think you need any help in this one and anyway I enjoy looking
at some of the answers. RJ's is as obscure as ever.

"Rooks have power in castling...."
(The psychological power of castling is not to be underestimated.) 🙂
I've not yet castled with a Knight or Bishop, but I will one day.

Square counting.
It's 14 for a Rook anywhere on a clear board. You are never attacking
a square a piece or a pawn is on nor is it defending that square.

But in gerneral terms square counting is a good indicator and guidline.

Of course it always depends on the position on the board. Perhaps the thread title
should have been:
"Was wondering why Rooks are 'usually' more powerful than the minor pieces."

I could show you show you from actual games and no doubt you could show
me 100 positions where a Bishop or Knight is better than a Rook.
But for each one there will be 100 positions where the Rook is better.

All's I know is my castles are more better than my horsies

Here is a slightly silly 'killer rook' game 2 pieces down (one by accident 🙂 )
but the king is in the centre vs two rooks and it gets smashed!
look how week the minor pieces are in this game compared to the rooks.