1.Usually 2pieces are better then rook+pawn however there are some cases where the rook can dominate. Some top level games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1361622 -rook 2pawns vs 2 bishops, rook wins
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431113 -rook + pawn vs 2 knights, rook loses
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411372 -rook + 2pawns vs bishop+knight rook wins
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1444764 -rook +pawn vs bishop+knight, rook loses.
2.Two knights and king can FORCE checkmate in some positions if the opponent also has a pawn besides his king. White loses this position in 49 moves.
Okay so here's one of my games against a very higher rated opponent. I am sorry this game is still going on.I had the black pieces:-
hmm i recently played a game somewhat like this: lots of pawns and a minor piece against a lone rook and pawn. i think if you trade your bishop for his pawn at the right time, you can win. if your three pawns weren't connected, id say youd lose.
@RazaadeelYou shouldn't post an ongoing position like that, you're just inviting inappropriate comments. Your opponent would have every right to protest.
Regarding the position prior to the exchanges. I think you had a very strong game when you had the two bishops and you misplayed it. 31....c5 i believe, was an error and you would have been better off with 31...Bd5 although the issue isn't really individual moves, but rather your overall approach to the ending. There's more to say, but some of it pertains to the current postion. Good luck with the remainder of your game.
I personally think you should delete your post before you get inappropriate advice. Just my opinion.
I know this is considered as true due to the asigned and widely accepted individual values of each piece. But I think it's more of a mathematical truth than a practical one. If you ask me I'd rather be on the 2 minor pieces side. I don't think a rook and a pawn can compensate the mobility and combined strenght of 2 pieces that can focus their attack or hit 2 oposite sides of the board at the same time. In adition, rooks have to keep running away from threats by minor pieces since loosing the exchange would be tragic.
I believe the only scenario where the rook and pawn can equalize is in an open board endgame with lots of space. What do you think of this? what's your game experience in this situation?
btw, sorry if this as allready been posted.
GM Andrew Soltis' book, "Rethinking the Chess Pieces" is exactly about this kind of question... when to trade R+P for two minors? when not?... learning what to consider when evaluating these 'imbalanced' trades is good for your game.
Regarding mating with N+B... It's worth studying because: it's not _that_ difficult. Practice it a few times and you'll have it. At the same time, it's very challenging to find over the board if you've never seen it before. It doesn't come up much though.
A really hard ending is Q v R, which is a theoretical win for the Q... but against perfect play you need to be a genius to get it OTB. I'll learn it someday ;).
It depends on type of position and phase of game. In middlegame 2 minor are better - especially 2 bishops, but in the endgame it's changing.
Did you known that Kotov was making fun of Najdorf by trying to mate him with 2 Knights (really, in 1953 Zurich tournament)?
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.