chess question for advanced chessnigs: 2 major pieces for 1 pawn + rook exchange?

Example:



So, black bishop takes pawn at f2 for check, rook takes, knight takes rook, king takes knight.

Bishop & knight = 6 points
Rook + pawn = 6 points

At what point does this sacrifice make more sense? At what point does depriving someone of the strength of 2 rooks become most advantageous? What texture board favors this sort of exchange?

Gut instinct is this makes sense if you feel the game is going to be decided by a passed pawn, aka the asymmetrical defensive strength of a pair of rooks vs a passed pawn threat might be worth mitigating early on, then slashing and burning through center control, mobilizing the kind, and marching.

I get the feeling this is one of those things that a lot of 19th century texts expounded on and computers eventually solved, but Ive never heard much said about it, and I have watched tons of high level games where this exchange is avoided...

:blackcock


:noose

The correct answer is to activate your bishops.

If you make this exchange in the above position, you now have no pieces developed, so white looks to be far ahead. There are probably instances in if you have more pieces developed and can develop a good threat on the king this exchange makes sense. This question is probably better asked on a chess forum though...

obv but we have a few chess types in the mix here.

the above jpg scenario simply demonstrates the F2 exchange dynamics, there is virtually no real development but hopefully the scenarios are elaborated on enough in text to provide some depth/variation.

There doesn't seem to be any advantage in this exchange. Plus they're called minor pieces, not major.

what about letting the bishop sit there and just moving your king over one? Let him have the pawn

then, depending on blacks next move either activate a pawn to get his knight out of there or come up with a new strategy.

it seems like you should just sacrifice a pawn rather than take some of his medium strength pieces away while losing one of your majors.



<edited due to gingerness> see below

nevermind...

I looked at it longer. He could move his knight and then take either your rook or queen and things get messy. If he takes the pawn with the bishop, one way or another, you are going to likely lose a rook. Lose it sooner by taking his bishop and preventing further carnage.

I absolutely suck at chess and if Sonatine has received proper coaching don't believe you are going to get any useful opinions here above what you already know. As a general rule don't sacrifice when you have a better position as that nearly always plays into the advantage of the defender. I could see doing this move if you expect to have a stronger endgame than opponent but at high levels that doesn't matter much.

He HAS to take the bishop at f2. If he doesnt, and moves his king to H1, black knight goes to e3, and now white is going to lose a bishop at c4 (not a good move for black), a rook at f1 (better) or the queen at d1 (white will move it to c1).

If black decides to take the rook with knight, queen now takes the knight at f1, and bishop moves to a safe position.

If white just takes the bishop at f2 with the rook, he will lose the rook by the black knight taking it, however, the white King cna then take the black knight.

Yeah Im not looking to debate the wisdom of the exchange in that exact position as much as Im wondering about when one would or would not want to make that exchange, eg what type of board might one want to deprive an opponent of the dual rooks, etc. Id imagine thats a huge plus but I never see that exchange made, just figured Id see if there was a Party Line regarding why that is.

Your calculation based on pawn units is correct.

But you wasted 3 tempi with the Knight (g8-f6-g4-f2) and 2 tempi with the Bishop (f8-c5-f2), and they disappeared from the board, after you moved them 5 times! Not a good Investment in my opinion.

And rooks tend to be better in endgames, so white can afford this in this middlegame.

The Benko Gambit is the way to go.

I really like that exchange.. Black can queen side castle.. with the extra pawn on black can mount a significant attack on whites king.
black can take control the F- file or E with both rooks. Excellent chess question Sonatine

prety sure its kings bishop to rooks anus

Giving up a bishop and knight for a rook and pawn like this isn't a great idea in general. Although material is roughly equal it takes a long time for the board to clear and the rooks to come into their own. In the early stages of the game the minor pieces are quicker to become active and you've wasted time moving them only to sacrifice them. In an ending though a rook can really hamstring a bishop and knight (or two knights, less so two bishops) especially when there's action on both sides of the board.

The Dilworth variation of the Spanish (Ruy Lopez) has a better form of that sacrifice: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb6 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 c3 Bc5 10 Bc2 O-O 11 Nbd2 Nxf2!? Here White has played rather passively and wasted some time with his bishop moves and the sacrifice just about works. After 12 Rxf2 f6 13 exf6 Bxf2+ 14 Kxf2 Qxf6 White's position is difficult to defend and GM Yusupov played this line successfully as Black in the 1980s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Example:



So, black bishop takes pawn at f2 for check, rook takes, knight takes rook, king takes knight.

Bishop & knight = 6 points
Rook + pawn = 6 points

At what point does this sacrifice make more sense? At what point does depriving someone of the strength of 2 rooks become most advantageous? What texture board favors this sort of exchange?

Gut instinct is this makes sense if you feel the game is going to be decided by a passed pawn, aka the asymmetrical defensive strength of a pair of rooks vs a passed pawn threat might be worth mitigating early on, then slashing and burning through center control, mobilizing the kind, and marching.

I get the feeling this is one of those things that a lot of 19th century texts expounded on and computers eventually solved, but Ive never heard much said about it, and I have watched tons of high level games where this exchange is avoided...

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xweiQukBM_k

no trade on f2...black trades two active pieces for a semi-developed rook and a undeveloped pawn plus opens a file for the remaining white rook to use; time loss results

anyway, to answer your question, if the pawn you were obtaining was advanced past the 4th rank + the rook out on the board + the bishop traded off was hemmed in by pawns, then such a trade makes sense...or perhaps if the trade created an isolated pawn or other pawn structure weakness, it's better

in the position given i believe it is better for black to finishing developing, and if he is spoiling for a fight, castle queen side to unbalance the position and advance pawns on the king side to create an attack, or even a fishing pole sortie with H5 right now