Author: Igor V. Korshunov
Date: 14:22:07 02/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2003 at 11:11:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 11, 2003 at 03:36:22, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 11, 2003 at 02:44:48, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>I'm not particularly great at chess, but I believe that whenever you trade two >>>pieces for one (and the total material value of the trade comes out even, or >>>close to even), it's a bad trade. The thinking is that if you trade two minor >>>pieces for a rook, and if you are trying to defend a passed pawn later, you only >>>have one piece to guard it, and the opponent has two to attack it, so you lose. >>>The same for two rooks for queen. I hope this is correct, because I always trade >>>my queen and pawn for two rooks, and a rook and pawn for two minor pieces :) >>> >>>I'm sure someone else can give a more thorough list. Maybe try searching >>>rec.games.chess.misc archives on http://groups.google.com and also the CCC >>>search engine might turn up something like this. >> >>bishop and knight are better than rook and pawn >>2 rooks are not better than queen and pawn. >> >>Uri > > >Also a queen is not as good as three minor pieces. Does Crafty know about it?
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.