A rook and king can give checkmate while a bishop and king or knight and king cannot.
Why is rook more powerful than bishop?
Sort:
JowinSathianesan wrote:
Why is rook more powerful than bishop because if we see the no of squares a rook can go to no of squares around it which a bishop can go is the same??
That's not true. A bishop can only reach half the squares. Which automatically explains why the rook is the stronger piece in most situations.
Also because Bishops only influence their own color.
In my opinion it is because a rook can control twice as many squares as a bishop as it has access to both black and white squares
"Half the squares" is not accurate: a rook can always reach 14 squares (without obstacles in the way) while a bishop can reach anywhere between 7 and 13 squares depending on its position. All other considerations here cited are accurate, though.
EDIT: "Anywhere between" meaning 7, 9, 11, or 13.
Jun 2, 2011
0
#7
Azukikuru wrote:
"Half the squares" is not accurate: a rook can always reach 14 squares (without obstacles in the way) while a bishop can reach anywhere between 7 and 13 squares depending on its position. All other considerations here cited are accurate, though.
EDIT: "Anywhere between" meaning 7, 9, 11, or 13.
What is meant by "Half the squares" is that a bishop only ever has access to 32 squares, where as the rook can reach any of the 64 squares on the board.
Ah, I see. I thought we were talking about the reach on one move. Both are important considerations, I guess.
Rooks ain't always more powerfull though 
Sorry, I just had to do this... 
Artsew wrote:
Rooks ain't always more powerfull though
Sorry, I just had to do this...
+1
I must be missing something here.
It seems that if white had 2 rooks instead of 2 bishops, mate would be much easier/quicker and if black had a rook instead of that bishop, that piece would not be trapped. So yes, rook > bishop in most cases (except in extreme circumstances just like one can argue that pawn > rook or bishop on the 7th rank)
DrSeRRoD wrote:
I must be missing something here.
It seems that if white had 2 rooks instead of 2 bishops, mate would be much easier/quicker and if black had a rook instead of that bishop, that piece would not be trapped. So yes, rook > bishop in most cases (except in extreme circumstances just like one can argue that pawn > rook or bishop on the 7th rank)
Following your logic. The following diagram proofs a Bishop is much stronger then a rook. 
In that scenario, indeed it would be (heck a PAWN would be better than a rook in that scenario). Move the rook one space left or up to the dark squares (something a bishop could not do) and once again, the rook proves to be mightier.
Regardless, I'm sure we know in general what pieces are more valuable due to their power and mobility and in which scenario they are not. At least the OP's question was answered in the process of the thread as well.
Basicaly, Rooks rule!
Bishops or Rooks?
Imagine that u only got ur King & Rook/Bishop.. who could Chekmated?
I'll go for my Rooks.
Honestly, I think it has a lot to do with endgame ability.
Mar 24, 2022
0
#17
Have you seen rooks go full pac-man mode on pieces? A bishop can only access 32 squares but rooks can access 64. And rooks are almighty in endgames( I think that is because rooks are located in corners and most people don't bother to develop them so they survive till the endgame). However, bishops can be better in some circumstances. For eg- your opponent is castled and you wanna mate them, so you line up your bishop and your queen on the same diagonal. This can be done with a rook but its harder.
Hey fellow Players! My question is:: Why do chess engines/reviews usually recommend Exchanging Queens??
Because rooks can go anywhere,but the bishop can’t.
Why is rook more powerful than bishop because if we see the no of squares a rook can go to no of squares around it which a bishop can go is the same??