why do I hate rooks the way I do...

Aug 23, 2008, 3:35 AM |

I think to much importance is placed on shoulders of the mighty Rook. Yeah, I was bold enough to actually say that. Before you go jumping off your end chairs, please let me explain why.

Now, don't get me wrong, two rooks together is an explicit affair, but wins can be garnished on the regular with only one. You have to understand that i am a tactical player, whose game revolves around gambits and sacrifices, so if I go into the endgame (which is rare!!! I said i'm a tactical player...lol) with two rooks on hand, then either you played crappy or I wasn't playing my tactical game. I believe in the power of the bishop first over the rook and then the knights.

They are quicker to develope, easier to manage and deceptively deadly. Plus, by giving up a rook for one, I eliminate a sneaky tactical weapon from my opponents army for one that is more up-front in nature.

There will be more on this topic in the near future, this is only part 1 people.


Another reason my feelings towards the Rook suffers is because they are blocky defenders, and tactical players love to pin blocky defenders. WHY??? Because it's harder for blocky defenders to protect themselves, because nine times out of ten they are usually protecting something else.

Rooks can not multi-task !!! They either protect or attack, it's very difficult for them to do both at once. They generally need help for them to accomplish this feat, whereas tactical enjoyment pieces (Bishops and Knights) are able to do so with relative ease.

Some may think that I'm being totally biased towards the Rook, but I'm only going against the conventional non-thinkers whose game can not be played outside of the textbook, dogmatic views of those before them. Can you tell that I love Tal and Morphy???

More to come....