I've seen this scinerio over and over. But which is better a rook and a pawn or a bishop and a knight? How about three pawns for a knight? Two rooks for a queen? Can you clear this dispute for me? Thanks, Chessbob20.  

Position is all I can say...

Well in most cases, a bishop and a knight will beat a rook and a pawn in the middle game. I'm not good enough in endgame positions to say whether or not it's the same there, but I suspect the rook's ability to checkmate by itself would be of great help. The same goes for two rooks vs. a queen. In most cases, the two rooks will have a slight advantage because they can support each other while the queen must rely on other pieces for support. As for the knight or pawns, in most positions I'd prefer the pawns, but that one most definitely depends on the position in question.

Your going to get nowhere with this topic.... it's all relative chessbob.  Position...  You are basically throwing up an endless debate with no definitive answer.

It all depends on the position...

two rooks trump queen as long as their connected

OK. That helped clear things up. Thanks.

I mean that I understand it better

According to Capablanca in his book 'Chess fundamentals', 2 rooks are always better than a queen , unless there is an obvious tactical reason not to accept the exchange. but in an equal position the 2 rooks are better. Capablanca also stated that normally a bishop is worth at least 3 pawns, but that a knight isnt, and in fact a knight might not even be worth 2 pawns approaching an endgame.....who am i to argue??

---

 that makes me feel better.