Exchange knight and bishop for rook?

In general, Good idea or bad?  Or, when is it a good idea or a bad idea?  Why?

Thanks!

In the middle game I think it would be bad to give up a knight and bishop for a rook. In the early stages of a game rooks generally aren't particularly active so you're giving up two strong attacking pieces for one less active piece. It should be possible to do a lot more damage with 2 pieces than just 1 while there are still lots of pieces and pawns on the board.

In the endgame it probably depends, if there's only a few pawns left on each side and the board is quite open then a rook could do lots of damage chasing the bishop and knight around the board, it would probably require very careful play from the owner of the knight/bishop not to loose material from double attacks by the rook. If the end game was quite closed with lots of pawns on the board then they would help shield the knight/bishop from rook attacks and also provide plenty of support points around the board for both pieces. If this is the case though all the owner of the rook has to do is swap off lots of pawns in the centre, open up the centre of the board and start causing havoc! (keep the pawns in the centre so you restrict the knight to the outskirts of the board and you should also be able to keep the opposing king tied to one side of the board too)

That's what I think anyway, hope it helps

More often than not I think you will be better off having a bishop + a knight than a rook. However it entirely depends on the position on the board. If you dont' have many weaknesses like just the base of 1 pawn chain on the same color is the bishop for example then I would go for having a the 2 minor pieces instead of the rook. Here is a position I would much prefer the 2 minor pieces in.

but in a position like this one it may be better having a rook.

In a position like this one the minor pieces are much better

personally I wouldn't exchange, I know you're getting a rook and a pawn (5+1=6) for a knight (3+3=6) but white has no other active pieces on the board, you exchange 2 active pieces for 1 of blacks inactive pieces, black is still left with 2 active knights on the board after the exchange...

if you had additional pieces to follow through on an attack on f7 then it might be worth the exchange, e.g. if white's f pawn was off the board and the white queen was at f3 or somewhere if could attack f7 then the exchange would be sound but in the position shown I think the exchange would be very detrimental to white

 maybe you do it - but i don't do it.

You shouldn't discuss ongoing games in the forums.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=46095586

Thanks for the responses - good insight.  This was a question I've had for a while and the situation just surfaced again in one of my games so I thought I'd ask.

@Russell: if you noticed, I posted the question "after-the-fact" and an opinion from another member was not going to change the outcome of anything.  Your comment is somewhat sanctimonious and makes it sound like I was trying to gain an advantage over my opponent; nothing was further from the truth.  Not cool on your part.

@Frankdawg:

Even in positions like the position you posted, I still prefer the two minor pieces for two reasons: 

1. The side with the two minor pieces is one point ahead in material.

2. The side with the two minors is a piece up.

The pawn weaknesses that the two minors have in this position are clearly outweighed by their material advantage and piece count advantage.

(P.S. More often than not, even in endgames, two minors are better than a rook and a pawn.)

But, I do agree with you that, in some positions, the rook is better. This usually happens when the side with the rook has tremendous compensation (i.e., strong attack on the opponent's king, strong and well-protected passed pawn on the seventh rank, connected passed pawns that are well-supported or otherwise very dangerous).