A Bishop and Knight for a Rook and Pawn???
Sort:
GM_CharggieSparlove
Feb 12, 2019
0
#1
Are there people still making this exchange???
Every day. Of course it depends on the position...
Usually in middle game it is preferable to have a bishop and knight vs rook and a pawn. But in endgame, it is usually preferable to have a rook and pawn against bishop and knight.
Feb 13, 2019
0
#4
In the endgame the rook often is as good as B and N. B and N need a further heavy piece as „coordinator“, protecting. So middlegame positions are preferable as well as RR-RBN. The two pieces are better in that cases. Beware: the pure endgame has to be avoided, the R outweighs B an N together.
Feb 13, 2019
0
#5
eheadsfan wrote:
I agree
Usually in middle game it is preferable to have a bishop and knight vs rook and a pawn. But in endgame, it is usually preferable to have a rook and pawn against bishop and knight.
BL4D3RUNN3R wrote:
In the endgame the rook often is as good as B and N. B and N need a further heavy piece as „coordinator“, protecting. So middlegame positions are preferable as well as RR-RBN. The two pieces are better in that cases. Beware: the pure endgame has to be avoided, the R outweighs B an N together.
I disagree. I think B + N usually have an advantage over the R + P. The pair of bishop and knight is weaker than the rook and the additional pawn in the only few situations such as:
1) One has a pass pawn or connected pass pawns or just a better pawn structure against an opponents weak one;
2) Rook is extremely active and is going to collect opponents pawns;
3) The bishop is blocked by its own pawns or an opponent's ones.
Also if a position has a "closed" pawn structure the advantage of the B + N is going to significantly increase because of the "sneaky" knight which can sneak through the opponent's pawns and capture the weakest ones. And opponent's rook can't do anything useful because there aren't any opened files or a few which are controlled by the king and the bishop.
Feb 13, 2019
0
#10
So, what‘s with #5?
A great show of force of the rook in a position where many expect the two minor pieces to prevail. Even GM Beliavsky... 
Feb 13, 2019
0
#11
BN > RP usually. BB ~ RPP more often than not. RP is often on par NN (remember the knights can be clumsy pieces and their coordination is often inadequate.
In the endgame the rook plus a pawn is often equal against two knights.
In the game which you have provided by posting a link to it, I can't see the advantage of Black. Honestly I think that the White move 40. Bd3 is a silly move which no one in his sane mind wouldn't do - White is simply making an invitation to Black's rook to go to the back rank and create a pass pawn.
After studying games like this I'm starting to believe in Robert Fischer's words that Soviet Grand Masters used to do match fixing. Basically I don't believe that GM could be that ignorant, if even I with my low 1900 FIDE rating can immediately find unforced blunder in his game.
Feb 13, 2019
0
#14
By the way, Jussupow and Dvoretzky analysed the given game in great detail in their highly recommended books. A pleasure!
Anyway moving the king from the queen's side and letting the breakthrough happen sounds strange.
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
Also if a position has a "closed" pawn structure the advantage of the B + N is going to significantly increase because of the "sneaky" knight which can sneak through the opponent's pawns and capture the weakest ones. And opponent's rook can't do anything useful because there aren't any opened files or a few which are controlled by the king and the bishop.
Ah, but some people cant infiltrate with extra B+N in closed position!
I dropped B+N within 15 moves of opening in 3 mins blitz.
https://lichess.org/fb5E9xplKtU4
BL4D3RUNN3R, where did you find Dvoretzky's books? Are you reading dgt ones or is it just an analysis from the internet? I believe his books were written like 25-30 years ago... So I have some books from his series but I want to buy the missing ones. I didn't find his reissued (may be they were never reissued) books but the books from "the past" cost a lot and I'll need also to pay and wait for delivery.
ok