What is usually concidered best?

Jump to forum:
 
25th February 2009, 06:24am
#1
by pling
oslo Norway
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 589

A knight and a bishop, or a rook and a pawn?

25th February 2009, 06:35am
#2
by LTIUAFO
Indian Head, Maryland United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 68

In the endgame, I'd say the rook and pawn. You have better control in confining your opponent plus it's just simpler to work with...IMHO.

25th February 2009, 08:08am
#3
by pling
oslo Norway
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 589

Yes, I think you're right. In addition a pawn can be promoted to a queen.

25th February 2009, 09:25am
#4
by rich
My Home United Kingdom
Member Since: Jul 2007
Member Points: 23147

In the middle game a Knight and Bishop are better.

25th February 2009, 09:46am
#5
by Daniel3
Canada
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 612

In the Opening or Middlegame, a Bishop and a Knight are worth more than a rook and a pawn. Generally, a Rook is inferior to the Minor Piece in the Opening, and about equal to the Minor Piece in the Middlegame. In the Endgame, however, there is no question: Rooks dominate!

25th February 2009, 09:59am
#6
by HotFlow
KL, Malaysia Malaysia
Member Since: Sep 2007
Member Points: 2256

If it's in the end game and it is only Rook + pawn vs bishop + knight, then I believe the rook+pawn is geniunely better off as there are less chances to lose.  But in the middlegame/endgame with many other pieces id say the knight+bishop on average (not always) was better. 

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.