Is it a good to trade a rook for a knight and a bishop. The computer used it against me in hard mode, but I don't know if I would do it myself in a game. Thoughts?
Yes, in most positions 2 minor pieces are stronger than one rook .
Position, position and position.
But usually one if you trade your rook for an opponent's bishop and knight, I'd take the two minor pieces in general. But usually there's a pawn that comes with the rook, so if you add the pawn in the bargain it really depends on the position.
I would almost always give up a rook to win a bishop and knight.
Here's the points that pieces are worth
pawn=1, knight/bishop=3 rook=5 queen=9
2 knights are better than a rook in early game and middle game but it is better to have a rook in end game only if there are not a lot of pawns
In the case of Rook vs Bishop & Knight with equal pawns though, even in the endgame the minor pieces usually do better. Flear did a survey in "Practical Endgame Play" showing the rook winning 0, drawing 10, and losing 22 games.
I'm mixed. I feel it all depends on the position. Often times there's another factor in these trades...like strong attack/what have you.
The one game I did trade bishop and knight for rook, I ended up winning!(not saying that's a good enough reason why to do it)
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.
But how much do you know about the game - the history, the players, the rules, and more!? Take our quiz and compare your scores!
Mark all forum topics as READ