a knight and a bishop for a rook

You spend your whole game developing your knight and bishop into a wonderful attacking position and you trade it all away for a rook... where does that leave the rest of your game? This is an important question.

Maybe if you can trade down into an endgame where you can form a battery with your extra rook or get your rooks active and aggressive, it may be worth it... but if you are simply looking for a slight material advantage by the trade, you should always think how much "value added" the position gives your pieces.

If you have a knight positioned in a hole in your enemies pawn structure, it can be extremely powerful. More-so than a rook. You should try to squeeze every ounce of advantage out of that knight. Trading it away will release the tension you have created and could free the other pieces in your opponents army.

It all depends on position, but usually, when you see a good move don't just take it... look for a better one.

Originally posted by chesskid001
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

Originally posted by diskamyl
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]

Here is a game with two bishops for a rook that shows that it is possible for the rook to be better if it has the initiative.

Game 3076745

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Here is a game with two bishops for a rook that shows that it is possible for the rook to be better if it has the initiative.

Game 3076745

In the case of Game 3076745 above, I don't thing white won because of winning the exchange. As far as the material is concern both sides have equal in "strength". I suggest white won because it had three connected passed pawns. If you don't consider the other two connected passed pawns, black can fight for a draw by given up one of its bishops for a passed pawn.

Here is another one I just noticed:

Game 5591887

Originally posted by diskamyl
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]

Originally posted by 29inchlegs
Im a loser??? You absolute tool. You dont know me. I was going to make that move anyway. If I was looking for help I would have heeded the advice I was given and not made the sac. You sound like an impotent little child who wants everyone else to bully me to compensate for your own pathetic shortcomings. The fact you actually looked at that game indicates you have nothing else to do with your life you flute..

Of course it depends on the position... but generally I'd rather a knight and bishop against rook, they're stronger if you know how to coordinate. Actually, that's what Josh Waitzkin says on Chessmaster:

"This kind of position is actually the type that beginners consistantly misevaluate, so we will take our time on it. When I was a kid, I also preferred a rook to two pieces, it was easier to coordinate and it could cover great distances. But the better you get, the more you like the bishop/Knight tandem.

(...)

Take to heart the Power of the bishop/Knight combination. In a similar way, three pieces against a queen can be very strong, or two rooks against a queen. A lot of beginners prefer the big piece to the little pieces, because they are easier to use. Easier to use a queen alone than to use three pieces together in coordination, but trust me, you put the three together and they can do a lot of damage."