Is the exchange of a rook for two minor pieces really worth it? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing a Pro Tempore electionAre two knights generally worth less than two bishops?Does GM Larry Kaufman's “principle of the redundancy of major pieces” truly exists? Or could this effect be caused by the number of Pawns instead?Is the bishop pair and a pawn equivalent to knight and a rook?Piece down vs rook for bishop exchangeTrying to locate a historical game in which the win involves sacrificing two rooksWhy sacrifice the rook?Can anyone explain the motives of this chess engine?Why is Rook worth 5 points but Bishop is worth 3?Is a loss of two pawns worth the negation of opponents castling?Would you exchange your queen for two rooks?

Typeface like Times New Roman but with "tied" percent sign

First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

How to grep and cut numbes from a file and sum them

Relations between two reciprocal partial derivatives?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?

How can I protect witches in combat who wear limited clothing?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?

What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails?

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Why does the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) not include telescopes from Africa, Asia or Australia?

Scientific Reports - Significant Figures

Simulating Exploding Dice

The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?

University's motivation for having tenure-track positions

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?



Is the exchange of a rook for two minor pieces really worth it?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Announcing a Pro Tempore electionAre two knights generally worth less than two bishops?Does GM Larry Kaufman's “principle of the redundancy of major pieces” truly exists? Or could this effect be caused by the number of Pawns instead?Is the bishop pair and a pawn equivalent to knight and a rook?Piece down vs rook for bishop exchangeTrying to locate a historical game in which the win involves sacrificing two rooksWhy sacrifice the rook?Can anyone explain the motives of this chess engine?Why is Rook worth 5 points but Bishop is worth 3?Is a loss of two pawns worth the negation of opponents castling?Would you exchange your queen for two rooks?










0















I recently played a game with my friend I wish I had memorized the entire game, but, unfortunately, my memory isn’t too good.



In summary, I was in a really tight position, and playing as black. I had a very active rook on the open f-file However my opponent was attacking my king. and it looked really bad. As a result, I sacrificed my very active rook for a bishop and a knight. I still lost the game, however.



Is that kind of exchange worth it? Once I lost my rook, my opponent was able to monopolize on the f-file by making a triple battery, and consequently I lost.



Also, when is it a good idea to make sacrifices concerning Rooks and minor pieces?






rooks sacrifice minor-pieces exchange







share|improve this question
























  • I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

    – Rewan Demontay
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

    – Qudit
    2 days ago















0















I recently played a game with my friend I wish I had memorized the entire game, but, unfortunately, my memory isn’t too good.



In summary, I was in a really tight position, and playing as black. I had a very active rook on the open f-file However my opponent was attacking my king. and it looked really bad. As a result, I sacrificed my very active rook for a bishop and a knight. I still lost the game, however.



Is that kind of exchange worth it? Once I lost my rook, my opponent was able to monopolize on the f-file by making a triple battery, and consequently I lost.



Also, when is it a good idea to make sacrifices concerning Rooks and minor pieces?






rooks sacrifice minor-pieces exchange







share|improve this question
























  • I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

    – Rewan Demontay
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

    – Qudit
    2 days ago













0












0








0








I recently played a game with my friend I wish I had memorized the entire game, but, unfortunately, my memory isn’t too good.



In summary, I was in a really tight position, and playing as black. I had a very active rook on the open f-file However my opponent was attacking my king. and it looked really bad. As a result, I sacrificed my very active rook for a bishop and a knight. I still lost the game, however.



Is that kind of exchange worth it? Once I lost my rook, my opponent was able to monopolize on the f-file by making a triple battery, and consequently I lost.



Also, when is it a good idea to make sacrifices concerning Rooks and minor pieces?






rooks sacrifice minor-pieces exchange







share|improve this question
















I recently played a game with my friend I wish I had memorized the entire game, but, unfortunately, my memory isn’t too good.



In summary, I was in a really tight position, and playing as black. I had a very active rook on the open f-file However my opponent was attacking my king. and it looked really bad. As a result, I sacrificed my very active rook for a bishop and a knight. I still lost the game, however.



Is that kind of exchange worth it? Once I lost my rook, my opponent was able to monopolize on the f-file by making a triple battery, and consequently I lost.



Also, when is it a good idea to make sacrifices concerning Rooks and minor pieces?






rooks sacrifice minor-pieces exchange




rooks sacrifice minor-pieces exchange






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Rewan Demontay

723221




723221










asked 2 days ago









Programming ChampionProgramming Champion

1364




1364












  • I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

    – Rewan Demontay
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

    – Qudit
    2 days ago

















  • I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

    – Rewan Demontay
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

    – Qudit
    2 days ago
















I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

– Rewan Demontay
2 days ago





I guess you say he shot you with an Alekhine gun model! :D

– Rewan Demontay
2 days ago




1




1





Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

– Qudit
2 days ago





Like everything in chess, it depends on the situation. Generally, two minor pieces are more powerful than a single rook.

– Qudit
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.



In general a rook and a pawn are roughly equivalent to two minor pieces. However in the middlegame this is usually not a good trade for the player losing the two minor pieces because two minor pieces are two pieces which can attack/defend whereas one rook is only one piece which can attack/defend and the number of pieces participating in the attack or defence is generally more significant than their precise power.






share|improve this answer






























    1














    Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately created a situation where the trade was good for them. Third, if they're a good player, then there's lots of times that they don't make the trade because it's not good. The fact that it worked out for them doesn't mean that the trade in general is good, it just means that it was good in this situation, so there's a selection bias, in that good players select the trade that's good in that particular situation.



    The value of a piece lies not just in what piece it is, but where it fits into the game as a whole. If you spent a lot of resources developing your rook, leaving your other pieces undeveloped, then trading minor pieces for your one active piece could very well be a good trade.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "435"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24179%2fis-the-exchange-of-a-rook-for-two-minor-pieces-really-worth-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6














      You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.



      In general a rook and a pawn are roughly equivalent to two minor pieces. However in the middlegame this is usually not a good trade for the player losing the two minor pieces because two minor pieces are two pieces which can attack/defend whereas one rook is only one piece which can attack/defend and the number of pieces participating in the attack or defence is generally more significant than their precise power.






      share|improve this answer



























        6














        You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.



        In general a rook and a pawn are roughly equivalent to two minor pieces. However in the middlegame this is usually not a good trade for the player losing the two minor pieces because two minor pieces are two pieces which can attack/defend whereas one rook is only one piece which can attack/defend and the number of pieces participating in the attack or defence is generally more significant than their precise power.






        share|improve this answer

























          6












          6








          6







          You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.



          In general a rook and a pawn are roughly equivalent to two minor pieces. However in the middlegame this is usually not a good trade for the player losing the two minor pieces because two minor pieces are two pieces which can attack/defend whereas one rook is only one piece which can attack/defend and the number of pieces participating in the attack or defence is generally more significant than their precise power.






          share|improve this answer













          You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.



          In general a rook and a pawn are roughly equivalent to two minor pieces. However in the middlegame this is usually not a good trade for the player losing the two minor pieces because two minor pieces are two pieces which can attack/defend whereas one rook is only one piece which can attack/defend and the number of pieces participating in the attack or defence is generally more significant than their precise power.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Brian TowersBrian Towers

          16.9k33173




          16.9k33173





















              1














              Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately created a situation where the trade was good for them. Third, if they're a good player, then there's lots of times that they don't make the trade because it's not good. The fact that it worked out for them doesn't mean that the trade in general is good, it just means that it was good in this situation, so there's a selection bias, in that good players select the trade that's good in that particular situation.



              The value of a piece lies not just in what piece it is, but where it fits into the game as a whole. If you spent a lot of resources developing your rook, leaving your other pieces undeveloped, then trading minor pieces for your one active piece could very well be a good trade.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately created a situation where the trade was good for them. Third, if they're a good player, then there's lots of times that they don't make the trade because it's not good. The fact that it worked out for them doesn't mean that the trade in general is good, it just means that it was good in this situation, so there's a selection bias, in that good players select the trade that's good in that particular situation.



                The value of a piece lies not just in what piece it is, but where it fits into the game as a whole. If you spent a lot of resources developing your rook, leaving your other pieces undeveloped, then trading minor pieces for your one active piece could very well be a good trade.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately created a situation where the trade was good for them. Third, if they're a good player, then there's lots of times that they don't make the trade because it's not good. The fact that it worked out for them doesn't mean that the trade in general is good, it just means that it was good in this situation, so there's a selection bias, in that good players select the trade that's good in that particular situation.



                  The value of a piece lies not just in what piece it is, but where it fits into the game as a whole. If you spent a lot of resources developing your rook, leaving your other pieces undeveloped, then trading minor pieces for your one active piece could very well be a good trade.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately created a situation where the trade was good for them. Third, if they're a good player, then there's lots of times that they don't make the trade because it's not good. The fact that it worked out for them doesn't mean that the trade in general is good, it just means that it was good in this situation, so there's a selection bias, in that good players select the trade that's good in that particular situation.



                  The value of a piece lies not just in what piece it is, but where it fits into the game as a whole. If you spent a lot of resources developing your rook, leaving your other pieces undeveloped, then trading minor pieces for your one active piece could very well be a good trade.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  AcccumulationAcccumulation

                  48115




                  48115



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24179%2fis-the-exchange-of-a-rook-for-two-minor-pieces-really-worth-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -