Because unlike bishop, rook can land to either white or black tile. He can castle. Can checkmate a lot easier. He is weak early game, but strong late game when the chess board is clean.
why is a rook worth so much?
Sort:
A single rook can checkmate a lone king, a single bishop or knight cannot. R > B > N
Two bishops easily checkmate a lone king; bishop and knight checkmate a lone king with more effort; two knights cannot checkmate a lone king. B > N
Aug 18, 2021
0
#4
Rooks are much stronger than bishops in the endgame. A rook can support a passed pawn from behind no matter what color square the pawn is on or wants to move to. A rook can keep the opposing king from approaching your pawns because it controls a rank or file while a bishop only blocks one color squares so a king can easily get through. A rook can join your king in threatening checkmate, forcing the other king to move away from an important area. And more.
You noted the advantage that the bishop has vs the knight, but the knight can control or threaten squares of either color, can leap past opposing pieces, and its attacks can't be blocked.
in chess, there are more cases in which being able to control ranks and files is better than controlling diagonals than vice versa. for example, a rook and king can mate a lone king, but a bishop and king can not. bishops can also only control half of the board.
Aug 18, 2021
0
#6
Other than the the things a bishop can’t possibly do(mate with one B or control both colors), it is easier to have a longer range for a rook by enacting pawn breaks but a bishop is unlikely to have vision of the whole diagonal he is on (or most of it).
E
Aug 18, 2021
0
#8
It can control more squares than bishop from any single square.
Rook can control 14 squares from any square on the board, provided it is not blocked by other pieces or pawns. As for the bishop, it can control 13 squares from the central of the board, but it controls only 7 squares from the edges (provided it is not blocked).
Along with that, rook can access every square of the board, bishop can't.
The word rookie comes from rooks, because they are last in line of attack.
Aug 18, 2021
0
#10
It is certainly the main one. It mostly comes down to how many squares can a piece control at any single time. Rooks are great in the endgames because there are less pawns and pieces to restrict their movement. The less pieces in the way, the more powerful rooks become because they can control more squares at the same time. They are pretty bad in the beginning of the game because they are restricted by rook pawns in front of them and knights that lies beside them.
For the same reason, bishop is more valuable in open positions than a knight. A knight in 4x4 square in the center of the board can control 8 squares regardless of the other pieces or pawns (less towards the rim), and bishop can potentially control 13 if it is not blocked by other pieces or pawns. If it is blocked its value is somewhat diminished. So bishops have higher potential than knights, but every piece except knights needs open lines or diagonals (or both in the case of a queen).
Rook can control 14 squares from any position and queen controls between 21 and 27 squares depending on where it is located. That is why it is the most powerful piece. It is the most maneuverable and the piece that covers the most squares at the same time.
but why is the rook still worth so much more but than a bishop?
also, why is the value of a knight close to the value of a bishop? Isn’t a piece that is able to travel all the way from one end to the other, much more valuable than one that can’t do the same?
So my confusion is basically why a rook is worth so much more than a bishop, although both having abilities to travel across the board, and why a knight has a similar value to a bishop.
Hope someone can help me understand :) Been playing chess matches (10mins) casually on chess.com, but I still can’t quite get the reasoning for value of pieces