Position, position and position!
Assess your position and remember the goal is checkmate not who has the most pieces left or who has the strongest pieces left or who had the better position. Imagine the burglar coming into your house with 2 guns a rifle and a knife. If you know how to disable him and do so and call the cops then you got the result you wanted in the end.
If your down pieces avoid trading pieces. Try to win as many pawns as possible without losing your pawns. If your up in pieces then you want to trade off pieces and keep your pawns.
Position, position and position!
Assess your position and remember the goal is checkmate not who has the most pieces left or who has the strongest pieces left or who had the better position. Imagine the burglar coming into your house with 2 guns a rifle and a knife. If you know how to disable him and do so and call the cops then you got the result you wanted in the end.
This sounds like one of those things chess players say when they don't really know the the answer to a question.
Of course you have to assess a position. But the real question is "Is the advantage 2 rooks have over one rook greater than the advantage 1 rook has over no rooks.".
Position, position and position!
Assess your position and remember the goal is checkmate not who has the most pieces left or who has the strongest pieces left or who had the better position. Imagine the burglar coming into your house with 2 guns a rifle and a knife. If you know how to disable him and do so and call the cops then you got the result you wanted in the end.
This sounds like one of those things chess players say when they don't really know the the answer to a question.
Of course you have to assess a position. But the real question is "Is the advantage 2 rooks have over one rook greater than the advantage 1 rook has over no rooks.".
It really is about position. Take a Passed Pawn and place it on either side within to squares of promotion and see how it changes things.
Yes my anwser was in general. For it to be 100% truth one has to see the situation on the board. But the theory i gave you has saved me countless games alone. It got me out of a couple tight jams where my opponent was trying to force trades that were bad for my side. It is time tested Chess Theory that GM's use. Now they have the advanced version of it.
kleelof wrote:
If you are down the exchange, is it generally a good idea to trade your last rook for one of your opponents?
_____________________
I have a few questions that your question does not specify.
Do you still have both Bs?
Is the pawn structure open or closed?
Does your opponent have 0, 1, or 2 Ns?
Do you still have 0,1, or 2 Ns?
Are the Qs still on the board or not?
If you are down the exchange, is it generally a good idea to trade your last rook for one of your opponents?
If you are down the exchange, you can look your game in one of two ways:
1) You aim to have your remaining pieces to be as (or more) effective than your opponents remaining pieces
2) You aim to have your minor piece to be as effective (or more) as your opponent's rook.
This means that you would aim to create the conditions for the above via pawn structure, initiative, creating weaknesses in your opponeny's position, mitigating your own weaknesses, etc.
The one disadvantage you will always have while down material is a smaller margin of error, but this is part of what you have to work with.
If you are down the exchange, is it generally a good idea to trade your last rook for one of your opponents?
Generally not at all. The advantage of rook versus minor piece makes itself much more felt when the minor piece side has no rook left, for example to protect back rank or seventh rank. Generally.
2 Rs are a mating force. They are also highly effective on an open file at invading the 2nd,7th and 1st,8th rank. You will get conflicting views as to whether generally it is a good idea to trade your last R for one of your opponent's. The main reason is because as has been posted here several times the decision to exchange or not is very dependent on the details of the position. For example if the pawn position is closed and there are no open files then exchanging is not a good idea and may not even be possible. Rs are meekly dependent on open files or pawn levers to create open files to penetrate and invade the enemy position.
Generally it's good to keep a rook, because without rook you will find it very difficult to compet on files and lines. Besides, the two rooks of your opponent are a bit redundant, they tend to do the same tasks.
Obviously this is not allways true.
If you are down the exchange, is it generally a good idea to trade your last rook for one of your opponents?
If you are down the exchange, you can look your game in one of two ways:
1) You aim to have your remaining pieces to be as (or more) effective than your opponents remaining pieces
2) You aim to have your minor piece to be as effective (or more) as your opponent's rook.
This means that you would aim to create the conditions for the above via pawn structure, initiative, creating weaknesses in your opponeny's position, mitigating your own weaknesses, etc.
The one disadvantage you will always have while down material is a smaller margin of error, but this is part of what you have to work with.
This Guy looks Religious! So again...
Position is Everything! Rules are for Religious!
If your saying that you have not used any Chess Theory to win a game then your either trying to play with memebers minds here or have been lucky in chess up to this point.
A famous rule of thumb: "When up in material, trade pieces not pawns".
This is because, lets say a person is up the exchange, or even a full minor piece, and all the pawns and other pieces come off equally (leaving one side with only the exchange up, or minor piece), it will be a draw. Or in an endgame with only a couple of pawns the exchange may not be enough in some cases.
Now, the reverse of this rule of thumb is true as well, if you are down material you should aim to keep pieces on the board, while trading as many pawns as possible.
Truth is, these are all just rules of thumb, and it is true it entirely depends on the specific position.
A famous rule of thumb: "When up in material, trade pieces not pawns".
This is because, lets say a person is up the exchange, or even a full minor piece, and all the pawns and other pieces come off equally (leaving one side with only the exchange up, or minor piece), it will be a draw. Or in an endgame with only a couple of pawns the exchange may not be enough in some cases.
Now, the reverse of this rule of thumb is true as well, if you are down material you should aim to keep pieces on the board, while trading as many pawns as possible.
Truth is, these are all just rules of thumb, and it is true it entirely depends on the specific position.
I have used this many times. And when behing in material my opponents tried to force trades to end the game. By that it allows one to stay in the game and a chance to win it.
When up in material it just makes sense to trade. Game Over.
If you are down the exchange, is it generally a good idea to trade your last rook for one of your opponents?