hi 

i hope u rite on this topic.

From

i guess it depnds on the postion of game

I would say that in most positions the bishop and knight are likely superior.

Does anyone have any insight into K+R vs K+B+N engames?

well can a bishop and knight and king checkmate. We all know that the rook and king can checkmate

I think you can checkmate with a bishop and knight but it is very hard to do so. If there are no pawns left on the board then that makes it even harder. However, there are books on these sort of endgames. I really must start reading some!

Yes.  I play an opening in which I purposely end up with this very imbalance.

The key, as always, is pawns.  Without pawns on the board, it is a draw.  With pawns, so many other questions arise, a book could be writen, and was:

Esben Lund, Rook vs Two Minor Pieces

FWIW, the Bishop pair is always superior to the rook.

Silman's Complete Endgame Course is a good one, unfortunately it does not include K+B+N vs K as he considers it too rare an occurrence to cover in detail in his book.

I suspect that K+R vs K+B+N is a drawn position, but in more complex positions, with all other things being equal I think I'd prefer B+N over R.  The simple fact is that unlike a lone rook they can support each other and they can also cover more squares than a Rook alone can.  In particularly cramped or closed positions I don't think there's any contest.

theGrobe, the B & N CANNOT mutually support each other and are prone to being skewered.

It is 100% postional.  In a raw endgame, the player with rook simply captures a minor piece and leaves the other side with King and minor for the draw.

B & N checkmate a lone king is very easy to learn and to do.  Also, very important to know, not because it will come up, but because you will learn square control with those pieces for other endgames and middle games.

Anyone 1600+ should absolutely know B & N as it is very easy.

 There are masters at my club that don't know KNB vs K, seems useless to know it crops up so rarely, I got it once in a blitz game.

Richie, I didn't mean mutally support each other -- that wasn't terribly clear, but that you have more flexibility with the possibility that one can support the other.

As for being prone to skewers, are Rook and King not equally prone to forks and pins/skewers and with more risk of them against B+N as a result of this flexibility (and simply because of the extra piece)?

I agree that K+R vs K+B+N seems to be an easy draw but the fact that you've described it in terms of the K+R side initiating the draw seems telling.  Of course, as you've said, and as is the case with any of these comparisons, position is key.

Seems useless, but is not. 

Very often in life things are counter intuitive, especially in complex things such as chess.  Not sure how having more knowldege and skill in a game that is about knowldege and skill could be argued against, but leave it to people on a message board to do so, I guess. 

theGrobe:  I have studied this contest between rook v 2 minors very deeply and I suggest you study or at least read the Lund book if this subject interests you, and I will leave it there after one more statement. 

I aim to play the side with the rook.

Fair enough -- I simply don't have the experience or expertise to argue otherwise so I'll take your word.

Ooofa.  I do not want anyone to take my word! 

Instead, I hope to provoke people to do the work to seek the indepth answers that have eluded and challenged people for a long time in chess.  These answers are not found on message boards, but in the build up of experiences and studies in the field. 

Sincerely,

richie_and_oprah

The time required for such research, the fact that I don't have it, and the fact that I believe you have built a certain level of credibility on this type of discussion is the reason I'm inclined to defer to your assessment.

I have wasted too much time on these silly pursuits and that is a nice way to point it out to me. 

Dear Haadi1,

A simple question at first glance, the answer may be less so, however I am going to give it a try.

Piece values applied by numbers

Knight 3 points, Bishop 3 points, Rook 5 points.

If the game started with one side minus a rook and the other minus a knight and bishop then the side with both knights and bishops would be expected to win.

Positions after the game starts and exchanges occur become more complex, the initiative being of importance, though the bishop and knight would usually be favoured

Guidance for the ending has been attempted, a worthy endgame publication states that;

no pawns a draw

even pawns usually a draw but the pieces win more often than the rook 

two pieces plus a pawn always a win

rook plus one pawn usually a draw, though either side may have winning chances

rook plus two pawns always win

Thank You

John Boy

Bishop and a Knight.

Bishop 3.2

Knight 3

rook 5

Those values are rough guidlines to give you a high level idea of the typical relative worth of the peices with no regard to position.  To follow them blindly is to invite disaster.

Incidentally, where did you get 3.2 for a Bishop?  I've seen +.5 if you still have the pair, but have never seen that number used for an individual Bishop.

A Bishop is point two more than a Knight.