Conflicting Rules of Thumb

Hello.  I have been running into a strategic "rule of thumb" conflict with pretty good frequency lately.

This is between the idea that on the one hand, you'd like to drop your rook on the 7th rank.  On the other hand, as you advance your own pawns, you want your rooks behind them.

I pretty consistently find my rooks in front of my pawns, due to their being on the 7th rank.

Of course every situation is different, but what's the general thinking on this?  Am I missing something?

A rook can only be in front of one pawn at a time (unless you have doubled pawns I suppose), so just advance a different pawn?

I'd say the rule of thumb is that Rooks want to be behind passed pawns, not just any pawn. 

The rook on the 7th is an attempt to trap the opponent king, or keep it from advancing. It's also to wreck havoc on the pawns that are back there. This is mostly in the middlegame, but can also be seen in the endgame.

Rook behind pawns is pretty much in the endgame, but can be seen in the middlegame as defense for the pawn.

They're different strategies which could depend on whether you have a pawn you think you can advance.

(It could also be behind your opponent's pawn, but that works with your rook being on the 7th.)

The general idea is that you want your rook behind a passed pawn, not just any pawn.  If your pawn is passed, or looks like it may become passed, that's a good indicator that you should consider putting your rook behind it and push.  Putting a rook on the 7th rank on the other hand, is good for attacking any pawns left on the 7th rank and restraining the king on the back rank.  Additionally, a rook on the 7th rank can easily get behind one of your opponent's pawns, attacking it from behind and sometimes even preventing it from queening. (This is a good application of both principles, rooks go behind passed pawns, even if the pawns aren't yours!)  If you can manage to get TWO rooks on the 7th, then you also have a powerful attacking force making it near impossible for your opponent to do anything about his king stuck on the back rank.

So in summary:  Rooks go behind passed pawns, as that's the place a rook can do its best job supporting/attacking it.  Rook/s go on the 7th rank when it restrains the king or moves it into a position to attack an enemy pawn, including swinging over behind your opponent's pawn.  If there aren't any dangerous/passed pawns on the board, you probably want to go for the rook or rooks on the 7th.  If the king is stuck on the back rank, you should also strongly consider the rook on the 7th.  If there are pawns that are passed or could become passed, you should strongly consider putting a rook behind the key pawn, as it can make the difference of a piece or a queen.  I hope that helps, and anyone should feel free to point out my errors/anything I missed.

From what I know, its not really conflicting. There are exceptions to everything. It depends on the position, and situation. Most rules of thumb (or general guidelines to go by) even tell you that at the beginning of what they are explaining.

Rooks on the opponents 7th rank usually is a death knell for your opponent, but not always. Queening a pawn is usually more probable if you have a rook behind it, unless he can block, or has the material to lose where it doesn't matter if you queen the pawn or not.

It depends on the opponents position, and resources, and his counterattacking chances, and defensive setup as well in both cases. Even if he can stop these, will he, or will he blunder. You have to calculate he isn't going to blunder, and those general guidelines steer you in the right direction only, they don't guarantee your opponent will not have the resources to counter you, or that he will or won't blunder.

In certain concrete positions you might memorize, it might be ok, otherwise it is going to depend on the position, and you will have to calculate your best moves out. Unless you have tons of positions memorized or have great experience playing those positions, and you already know the outcomes.

Just hope you don't overlook a simple move though. I hope this helps, and good luck.

When learning rules of thumb you absolutely must make sure you understand the logic behind them and the conditions under which they aply. This is very important as cases where one rule conflicts another arise frequently and you must decide which rule should be give priority. Indeed, decisions like that are what makes chess interesting.

As explained by others above, the usefullnes of occupying the 7th rank with a rook derives mostly from the fact that majority of our opponents pawns usually lie there and thus our rook gets lots of targets. However, if we have some sort of endgame position where opponent has already moved all his pawns and also advanced his king there may not be much value in occupying the 7th rank.

When our passed pawn needs protection we most of the time would prefer to protect it from back because: 

• this way the pawn remains protected even after advancing
• while the influence of rook is limited by our pawn, pushing the pawn increases that inluence (and passed pawns must be pushed!) which wouldn't be true with the rook in front of the pawn.

Conversely when attacking opponents passed pawn best way to do that is usually also from back.

OK, some good stuff here.  Thanks.  I actually just ran into it again.  Basically, the only two chess books I ever really read (as opposed to just sort of looked through) are Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and My System.  So, I'm getting all my strategy from My System.  So I want to get an open file, get a rook on it, and get the rook to the 7th...which I get to do quite often...then as the pawns start marching toward it, eventually I have the situation where I wish the rook was behind the pawn.  But so far it's been OK because the rook on the 7th is enough advantage that things work out anyway...  (I only mean in turn based games that I make this work...in blitz I make horrible blunders than render strategy secondary).  But I guess it's situational.  You'd like to control the enemy 7th to attack his pawns and trap his king and attack any of his passers from behind...you'd like to protect your own passers from behind, but it seems to me that if you've achieved all this you likely win anyway, so maybe the rook behind your own pawns strategy is for games where things are more even...  Anyway, it's pretty interesting...  And for anyone looking for a book, I think My System is great.  People complain the language is bad because it's a translation or that Nimzo ain't as funny as he thinks he is (he makes silly jokes) but overall it's really good.  Anyway, again thanks for helping me understand this.

My first chess book I read by Jeremy Silman explained how for every "rule" in chess, there is an exception. I am beginning to run into many of these "rules" and there exceptions as I get higher rated. I just drew a game the other day where I had 2 rooks on the seventh, full domination of the board, and somehow allowed him to squeeze out a draw. I know how you feel RC, hope you find your answers!

Yeah, as others said, rooks on the 7th are there to win pawns, not because the 7th rank is somehow mystically empowering for the rook.

Rooks behind passed pawns are there to help the pawn advance while staying active itself.  If these conditions aren't met then don't bother.

Another one:

Advanced pawns weaken you position, because you get holes in your position, enabling pesky knights and such to invade.

Advanced pawns are strong, because they pressurise the opponent and threaten to get promoted.

Here's another similar to the OP's problem:

(Assuming the opponent has only one bishop.) 

In the middlegame, have pawns on the same coloured squares as your opponent's bishop to restrict its movement.

In the endgame, have pawns on the opposite coloured squares as your opponent's bishop to avoid being attacked by that bishop.

Interesting!!