Depends on the end game.
TRADE: two knights for a rook
Sort:
would it be useful to make this trade during middle games?
I'd need to see a position to tell you anything. Sorry! 
Dec 3, 2011
0
#5
As a general rule a rook is worth 5 points.
A knight is worth 3 points.
So giving 6 points for 5 points is a bad deal. But it is really all about the position.
just talking about general trade cuz i always give up my knights for a rook
Dec 3, 2011
0
#7
ShaheerTahir wrote:
just talking about general trade cuz i always give up my knights for a rook
Well then the general answer is what I said.
A rook is worth 5 points and two knights are worth six points.
ShaheerTahir wrote:
just talking about general trade cuz i always give up my knights for a rook
Then I would certainly prefer to be the one giving up my rook for the two knights as a general trade. There can be positions which calls for a different approach, but as a general trade the two knights are stronger than one rook.
depends
It's like when someone trades their knight and bishop for the f7 pawn and a rook...
Two pieces are usually better than a rook. But the exact position is very important
Hallo everyone.
I know that this is an old conversation, but I am new to this site and would like to leave my opinion.
A King + 2 kNights cannot corner (checkmate) a rival lonely King, but a King with a Rook can.
Mathematically speaking, that means that K+2N<K+R ----> 2N<R, at least in some cases.
The knight has some unique features that no other piece has: jump over obstacles and threaten the rival Queen without fearing a counter-attack. R>2N may apply to special scenarios where the features of the knight lose importance: a final game with no obstacles and no Queens.
Nice discussion!
In the middlegame I prefer two knights because they control more squares than a lone rook.
Jan 9, 2018
0
#16
But in the endgame the position opens up more, and by then I usually want the rook.
hitthepin wrote:
But in the endgame the position opens up more, and by then I usually want the rook.
Yes. So in the middlegame, two knights are better, but in the endgame, a rook is better.
Jan 11, 2018
0
#18
In endgames where 2 Knights are up against a rook it's very difficult to avoid forks. Plus if the knights are protecting each other it's hard to win either of them, or even to make them separate. In the mean time, the Knights are controlling a whole field of squares, and I have even been in positions where no matter where my rook goes there's a fork of some sort.
Personally I'd agree due to the fact rooks can protect passed pawns and prevent pawns queening. But in some positions it can it dangerously fatal to trade as then if pawns and kings are left on the board only, the other might win. Depends, in the end.
i have always preffered to trade two of my knights for a rook. People keep telling me that i am at a disadvantage.... Just wanted to know if sacrificing two knighs for a rook is advantageous in end games