Knight or 3 Pawns?
Sort:
1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 (Alapin Opening (i play this rarely)) Nf6 3.d4 (if black tries to win an extra pawn it would result in a fast draw) Nxe4 f3 4.Qh4+!? g3 5.Nxg3 Nxg3 6.exd4 (and it's knight vs 3 pawns, but the thing is white is winning with best play (maybe))
Bramblyspam wrote:
Generally speaking, a minor piece is better than three pawns unless the pawns are fairly advanced.
You can always find exceptions, but that's a pretty reliable general rule.
If you sac the knight for three pawns you have to get compensation. I am playing right now a Daily game where I will get some initiative, giving the knight for two or three pawns. If my opponent doesn’t defend well he will lose material.
Knights in the earlier game, pawns in the later game.
Sometimes I just trade my knight for two pawns and it works, so three, worth it.
When I trade knight for two pawns it’s normally to expose the opponent’s king
Pawns are potential queens
I prefer 3 pawns.Its because they work together well.In the opening,Using the c,d,and e pawn is enough to control the center.In the middle game,You can use them to pawnstorm and attack the king,In the endgame,you can use them to turn into queens
3 ♟ are better
I would rather be K with two pawns against K and knight. The reason is, the king and knight cannot win, the best is a draw. But if you have king and two pawns against king and knight you have at least a draw, maybe a win. Earlier, in the game, and/or with more material on the board it might be different, as others have pointed out.