Two Pawns for a Knight?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
neneko wrote:
counting points and generalizing wich trades are worth doing gets pointless in any real chess game since a positional advantage may be worth sacrificing even the queen for
It is important to count the points instead of just giving away material. A queen is too valuable to sacrifice for a positional advantage, and I would think that a rook is too. Generally it is only minor pieces and pawns which are sacrificed for a positional advantage.
You have to have a plan behind your sacrifice. Don't do it just for the sake of it. It seems to be a theme in some of my recent games where my opponent waits until I castle and then gives me a knight or bishop in exchange for 2 pawns and the gaping hole in my kings defence. All well and good. Aggressive play. However, with no well laid plan to back it up my king slinks to safety and I come out on top with a stronger position.
I would not recommend this tactic unless you are positive you can follow it up with checkmate.
On the other hand it does have the effect of making the other guy think a little harder. It might work in blitz as a way of putting your opponent under time pressure.
Too risky for me.
In general, a knight is Aworth 3.25 pawns, so this is a poor trade unless there is additional compensation such as exposing the enemy king. Have a look at some Petroff Defense / Cochrane Gambit games... you'll find those interesting. It's basically an opening line where White does exactly that and perhaps will give you some ideas.
A knight is worth three pawns, but yes without additional compensation it is definitely a poor trade.