Originally posted by 29inchlegsAlmost never - particularly in the opening. The reason is that rooks usually only become active towards the end of the middlegame while the minor pieces are active from very early on in the game. Thus, effectively you wind up playing nearly half the game down two active pieces. Of course, there are exceptions ....
I should really know this, but is it really worthwhile ever exchanging a bishop and knight for a rook in the opening gme? I would really appreciate some advice.
Originally posted by buffalobillOK, play it out, then take the benefit from the Rook!
Almost never - particularly in the opening. The reason is that rooks usually only become active towards the end of the middlegame while the minor pieces are active from very early on in the game. Thus, effectively you wind up playing nearly half the game down two active pieces. Of course, there are exceptions ....
the basic books say a pawn is 1, a bishop/knight is 3, and a rook is 5.
but 5+1 doesnt come close to equaling 3+3 due to range.
theres a book by andy soltis that only talks about different pieces combinations and the effects of trading to get there. its an interesting book
Originally posted by 29inchlegsIt is usually not worth giving 2 minor pieces for a rook, except sometimes in an endgame. Even a rook and a pawn for 2 minor pieces is usually a bad deal in the opening and middle game.
I should really know this, but is it really worthwhile ever exchanging a bishop and knight for a rook in the opening gme? I would really appreciate some advice.
Just asking on a hunch... are you referring to a knight on g5 and bishop on c4 against a castled King (or something similar) and asking if you should play "1. Nxf7 Rxf7 2. Bxf7 Kxf7" ?
If that's what you're asking, the answer is usually a resounding "NO." Whatever their value in the abstract, two well developed minor pieces are worth more than a rook and a pawn in the early game in the vast majority of cases.
In the first 10-15 moves the Knights and Bishops rule.
I would not swap one of these minor for a scaffy Rook in the first
quarter of a game.
There are many (and I mean many) opening traps where one player
wins the exchange (Bishop or Knight taking a Rook) and then
coming a cropper.
This is usually because the time wasted to capture the undeveloped Rook is critical.
I invented an opening trap/system based on saccing the exchange
in the Caro Khan.
The idea being my KB goes to d3 and now rules the white squares.
Keep the game closed like an advanced French.
Black has no f6 break.
The Knight goes from h3-f4 and sacs on e6. Had some interesting
games with it then one day played it against IM Mark Orr.
He exposed it by hitting my d-pawn with eveerything and the Knight
on h3 was sorely missed from f3. So that went into the bin.
Been looking at some modern GM games one sees the Petrosian
middle game sac. Rook takes Knight is becoming more and more
common. Petrosian was 20 years ahead of his time.
The three pts. for a Knight or Bishop and 5 pts for Rook is a simple
guidline. The higher up you go the more you find these numbers
mean nothing.
So simple answer: Knights and Bishop are better than Rooks in
the opening. And giving up both Knight & Bishop for a Rook is
90% of the time bad...very bad.
Originally posted by greenpawn34nice carokann idea 🙂
In the first 10-15 moves the Knights and Bishops rule.
I would not swap one of these minor for a scaffy Rook in the first
quarter of a game.
There are many (and I mean many) opening traps where one player
wins the exchange (Bishop or Knight taking a Rook) and then
coming a cropper.
This is usually because the time wasted to capture the undeve ...[text shortened]...
the opening. And giving up both Knight & Bishop for a Rook is
90% of the time bad...very bad.
got any other good exchange situations from the black side?
It is often a common beginner mistake to play moves like 1.Bxf7+ Rxf7 2.Nxf7 Kxf7 against the castled king, or the same on f2 with reversed colors. The reason this is done is that they feel it is easier to coordinate one rook and a pawn against two minors, but the truth is that it is not so good. I recently finished a game, and although my opponent made some blunders, he was lost due to doing a K+B v R+P Game 5714567
According to the normal material calculation method we should end up with two minor pieces for a rook and a pawn. This calculation method does not work here. The only exception that I know. You have to get a rook and two pawns for two minor pieces to preserve material balance.
The logic behind the additional pawn required that I can think about is the strenght of two minor pieces is balance. They can act independently. A rook and a pawn cannot act totally independent. If you have a rook and a pawn, most of the times you are busy to move your rook to defend your pawn. This eventually will reduce your attacking chance. A rook and two connected pawns have a fair fighting chance againts two minor pieces.
Thank you.
Originally posted by 29inchlegspeople, you should have checked out if he was actually ASKING FOR HELP, BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS LOSER DID.
I should really know this, but is it really worthwhile ever exchanging a bishop and knight for a rook in the opening gme? I would really appreciate some advice.
Game 5767752
Originally posted by diskamylInteresting dilemma, this is.
people, you should have checked out if he was actually [b]ASKING FOR HELP, BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS LOSER DID.
Game 5767752[/b]
He actually was asking in general, not in any game in particular.
Did he do anything wrong?
Did we do anything wrong?
That's the interesting question.
When we answer a question about a general matter, do we really have to go through all his games to see if he can exploit our answer in a particular game?
Interesting dilemma, indeed!
BTW, what do you think of Kings Gambit for white? No no, just joking, don't answer... 😉
Originally posted by diskamylWhat a stupid comment. The question was posed in a general form. If I asked if a particular openning was good and then chose to play that in my next game should I be banned? Of course not.
people, you should have checked out if he was actually [b]ASKING FOR HELP, BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS LOSER DID.
[/b]