14610 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Do anyone think that a bishop and a knight is worth a rook at the begining of a game.
Historical chess wisdom has considered Bishop and Knight equals the Rook... they are probably better depending on the position. A Knight in the center on the sixth rank is probably worth more than a Rook. If you play the Sicilian Dragon then the exchange sacrifice of the Rook for the Knight (and a pawn) is generally acceptable.
Tarrasch argued that the difference between the Rook and a minor piece is not a winning advantage. Possibly that is if there is not a second advantage (or imbalance).
Bishop + Knight > Rook (at the beginning of the game)
Bishop + Knight > Rook (endgame)
Bishop + Knight >= Rook + Pawn (greater than or equal to, when the rook has a pawn)
Bishop + Knight < Rook + 2 Pawns
In the Dragon Sicilian:
Rook = Knight + Pawn
well for me yes!
Part of it is judging the position and possibilities. For instance, if you can gain a lasting initiative by giving up the Rook for a minor piece then it may be worth it. Typically the two minor pieces are better because they have the potential to cover more ground and control more space than the lone Rook.
Another way to understand this is "piece value." Traditionally the Rook is worth 5 points while the Knight is worth 3 (or 3.5) and the Bishop is worth 3 (or 3.5). Based strictly on value the Knight and Bishop are worth more than the lone Rook.
However, other things factor in to the game (initiative, pawn structure, superior minor piece, etc...) and you must understand what risks are involved in the transaction.
A book that might help you get a handle on this would be Jeremy Silman's "How to Reasses your chess." It's not infalable, but it's very good for understanding.
Ajfonty said it right
Of course it depends on the specific position -- but I'd usually rather have the bishop+knight.
Bishop+knight, I reckon, need not be sacrificed for a Rook. But, at times, it pays to sacrifice Bishop+Knight for a Rook+Pawn.
by michael350 a few minutes ago
by RonaldJosephCote 3 minutes ago
Any girls here play chess?
by theoreticalboy 3 minutes ago
Sometimes I can't move the chess peice I want to
by cdowis75 6 minutes ago
Chumps that don't police their public notes
by 7thSense 9 minutes ago
3/12/2014 - Forcing The Way Through
by craftmon123 10 minutes ago
What was I supposed to do?
by chessmicky 10 minutes ago
*Mangus Carlsen's moves*
by CP6033 13 minutes ago
by Dr_Cris_Angel 16 minutes ago
by TurboFish 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!