42 ( +1 | -1 ) Which one is better R+P or N+B? One situation I have not yet understood is where you have a chance to exchange your N+B with R+P. This is usually possible in the beginning of a game where you can take the pawn covering your opponent's King.
For the last many years, I have found 2 cases (GM games) where:
1. They don't take the pawn in above situation. 2. They don't exchange N+B for R+P in the middle game.
58 ( +1 | -1 ) i think the bishop and knight is better.since the pawn doesnt mean anything in the middlegame,the rook cant compete against two minor pieces.say the side with the two pieces organize an attack and the other side go defense.given that all the pieces was gathering around the king area.then the attacker won cause he has an extra piece. just a little note,even B+K win against R+P in endgame.cause when the two pieces focus to the pawns,then the rook is helpless. i think in chess they dont have any rules that work 100%.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) It all depends on the position, of course. I could trade my queen for a pawn, in some cases, and still win. Though in others having an extra pawn (and a rook) can make the difference. So I'd say that if you're going into an endgame, it's best to have the rook+p.
56 ( +1 | -1 ) anaxagoras,are u sure rook+pawn is better?just think about it,if both players have multiple pawns left,then the B+K just gonna eat your pawns.your rook cant possibly defend against it(talking about normal positions when there is no checkmate threat or pawn promoting situation) i dont think your given example was very convincing.u have 6 pawns vs.3!!.and u traded K+K for R+2P and a massive center structure.
59 ( +1 | -1 ) I understand those concerns. To my mind, there are two very important respects in which a rook is a great boon in the end game.
1. Rooks can support passed pawns down the whole file from far away, something neither bishops nor knights can do.
2. Rooks can restrain the opponents king within a certain boundary to keep it away from passed pawns.
Again, the position always has priority in our valuations of which pieces are better to have. I do believe that many positions could be shown where a knight and bishop is superior to a rook and a pawn.
42 ( +1 | -1 ) Two piecesare almost always (say, 90% of cases) superior to a rook + pawn, especially in the middlegame, primarily because they coordinate and attack targets better. In the endgame, there is generally less difference between the two and the side with the rook often has more drawing chances.
beside the topical N+B vs R+P, White has an isolated pawn and I thought I could at least exchange one of White's bishop. I was very tempted, but it was the tournament game so I didn't want to risk my position and took 6. ... d6 instead.
What do you think about the above position? Which one would any self-respecting GM prefer (please ignore any other better options)?
9 ( +1 | -1 ) AgainWhite has a clear advantage, but 8. h3 and 9... Bxf2+ are blunders because 9... Qb6 just wins an exchange.
20 ( +1 | -1 ) B + N!I prefer a bishop and knight over a rook and pawn in the end game, the pair can dominate over a rook... board #943890
15 ( +1 | -1 ) butthe pawn can always become any other piece, as long as it gets to the other end of the board. that's something to keep in mind as well, isn't it? greetings