Minor piece and two pawns

I say the minor piece and two pawns are better than having a rook, one reason is, more pieces, the better, you have more chances of taking the rook than it does of taking out the piece and the two pawns. The second reason is that if the choices were minor piece and two pawns or rook means that it is during the endgame which means you have a greater possibility of getting a QUEEN which is far more superior then a rook.However if there were no pawns and just three mionr pieces i would take the rook.

Definitely the minor piece and two pawns are worth more in the endgame. I'm not so sure about in the opening or middle game.

If the Pawns are connected and on at least the sixth rank and the minor piece (preferrably a Bishop) can hold the potential queening square, then the Rook may not be enough to stop it.

Usually i'll take the rook

Whats the correct answer????I don't really know.

It just depends on the position of the piecies.

Well, technically, they're equal. The further through the game you go, the better the piece and 2 pawns, but the earlier you go, it's a rook (unless the two pawns are e- and d- pawns that will survive)

speaking of material worth, here's a nice little joke:

The queen is worth less. Look at these two positions. They're both drawn. No matter if you put the queen on or off the board, it's a drawn position. So yes, a queen is worthless.

Minor pease and 2 pawns is deffenetly better!!!

Look at this position!!!

2 pieces > rook + pawn (that's a well-known fact)

2 pieces - pawn > rook

now let's compare (2 pieces - pawn) and (piece + 2 pawns)

it is the same as compare a piece and 3 pawns. This is about equal. Therefore, piece + 2 pawns is generally better than a rook.

rooks is good for just end game.

i think taking out a knight or bishop and two pawns will always be the better choice. you have more pieces on the board than the other oponent. although a rook is good in itself, you will need pawns toward the end of the game

In the opening or endgame, I would prefer a minor piece and 2 pawns, but in the middlegame I would prefer a rook.

years ago, minor pieces were worthing 3.25 and 3.5 , it it why I voted minor piece and 2 pawns ... it worth 5.25 and 5 for the rook !

In general, a minor piece plus two pawns is worth more than a rook. A minor piece plus one pawn is worth only slightly less than a rook-- not a full pawn less.

naughtybishop - They should at least add a 3rd choice of "It depends on the position" (which is actually the correct answer).

I voted minor and 2 pawns because I was imaging two connected pawns with a minor piece in an end game, which is hard for a king and rook to stop in my mind. Two sperate pawns, I would favor rook. As for midgame I would gerenally favor minor pieces and 2 pawn because I like the way minor piece move. if it was something like 6pawn and rook vs 8 pawn and minor piece, i would choose the rook.

i guess it work like this

lots of minor pieces/queen and pawn => favor 2 pawn minor because of the way minor pieces move

Lots of pawn and not much of other peices => favor rook because rook are good at taking pawn

Lots of minors/queen => not sure, maybe rook

nothing else => 2 pawn minor but only if they are connected. else rook

please note this is only my opinion and im not a great chess player so im sure im wrong in some case

PS. I think this is a good question and I like to see more post on the nature of this problem

piece and 2 pawns all the way!