Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:06:02 01/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2003 at 10:44:49, Brian Thomas wrote: >Kind of a newbie question, but better to ask than to wonder: > >I was playing a game recently against someone whom I'd consider a reasonably >stronger player. I made a play where I exchanged a bishop and knight for a >rook. This was done fairly early in the game so I believe we each had the rest >of our armies. I think this surprised my opponent (we discussed it afterwards >and my general thought was he felt it was a mistake). > >Now, I was reading a book or article recently that actually mentioned a very >similar position. In the analysis white did the same exchange to maintain good >position, and the author was critical of this saying a bishop and knight for a >rook loses in the exchange. > >Each position is unique in its own right and there's no blanket answer, but I'm >a bit surprised by this. I would almost always take that exchange if it was >positionally favorable, and usually you can gain a tempo. If I were down >material, I'd look elsewhere. But is this generally thought to be a mistake? > >What do you all think? It is almost _always_ a mistake. B+N is _stronger_ than R+P, and this is typically covered in most every begging chess book. Two pieces can attack a square twice, while a rook can only attack it once... > >Brian
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.