Key Concepts About 2 Minor Pieces vs A Rook and Pawn
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2022
- ⚡ 229 Chess Skills Blueprint ⚡
chessvibescourses.thinkific.c...
✅ My Courses! ✅
chessvibescourses.thinkific.com/
The chess set behind me:
The Pieces: bit.ly/3zBJzlO
The Board: bit.ly/3b3B8pb
👕 New Shirts! 👕
Chessvibes.shop
☑️ Play Chess Here:
chess.com?ref_id=5885046
☑️ Support Nelson Here:
paypal.me/ChessVibes
Links are affiliate links and help support the Chess Vibes channel via a commission. - Jak na to + styl
2 bishops is a nightmare against a rook.
Even two knights are tbh. Forks and pins everywhere.
@@GMPranav how could a knight pin anything?
@@Crowsinger sorry the context was weird. In the second sentence I meant minor pieces in general.
Yeah. People blindly believe in material and really underestimate the position. I don't remember how many games I've lost when I had two bishops against a rook - which so many times just stood on a8/a1 - but I have won quite the number. Especially once when my opponent forgot how weak black's light squared bishop can be in the Dutch defense.
2 bishops CAN be a nightmare against a rook IF
the rook has little or no activity AND most pawns off the board so there's open diagonals.
Without having seen the explanation, my conclusion is mostly that the position is worse for white afterwards in the first position because you are foolishly trading two developed pieces for relatively undeveloped material. That's a big loss of tempo right there, which is important because pieces don't just have value in a vacuum. A pawn in the right position can be worth more than a rook that's out of position, and moves themselves also have value.
The first example is pretty extreme, mostly because you give away two well developed pieces (5 total moves with them) vs a rook and a pawn with only 1 total move between them (plus a king move to take the second piece). Tuck the king away again and it's 5 moves for white, 3 moves for black that were wasted (I don't count the O-O as a waste).
How is it extreme if lots of people are willing to play it
@@John-gz5mz it is just people not knowing what they're doing
@@sieger358 what I'm tryna say is it ain't ain extreme example, it's a good one
@@sieger358 so tat we don't repeat those shits
@@John-gz5mz maybe we have misunderstandings of the way the term "extreme" was used in DrZaius3141's comment.If I were to write that maybe we will get to know what I and you meant)
1:58
There is also another thing:
when the rook-pawn had a better rating than the knight-bishop it wasn't just that the rook had a clear path of infiltration, the knight and the bishop were also completely blocked from entering the other side.
In all subsequent positions when the rook-pawn was worse than the knight-bishop it was the opposite - not only was the rook blocked from infiltrating, the knight and the bishop also had nice open routes to the other side.
What I have heard is that the later in game, the more valuable the rook. At the start, it can't do much, only in the middle game they start to get important
Great video! You can really tell it's educational when you can actually notice your predictions of the engine evaluations getting more and more accurate as the video progresses.
The reason Bishop is never equal to Rook is because pawns always covers the board diagonal almost always to protect each others that chess 101. But as the pieces numbers dwindle and pawns still remain rooks gets more flexibility to move whereas bishop still struggle due to pawns cover the board diagonally. The negative factor we saw in the end game scenario was because Rook has flexibility to move whereas initially it does not hence Knight and bishop are good to start the game
This is very helpful for mid-level players. And I like the brevity.
And learned something again! Will add to your spreadsheet! TY 😊
Thanks, this is a really informative video
I was explaining about rook-pawn and knight-bishop trade to my friends yesterday and u made an entire video about it today. Thanks for enlighten me that this trade is not always bad😁
2 peices will mostly always be better because you just have more things to work with,
unless the rook is in the backrank then you're screwed
You sir are an extremely underrated
Just found your videos and they are better than any other creator
I appreciate that!
Great video, now time to watch the video
Great approach! I have learned that the side with the knight and bishop must use its advantage before the endgame when the opponent's rook can infiltrate (and their extra pawn turn into a queen!)
Amazing video I have always wondered this as I sometimes do this sacrifice, and so have my opponents. I love when they make it and take two of their minor pieces.
Thanks for the deep dive. I knew of this but not to this depth.
Great and simple explanation.
There should be perhaps more emphasis on enemy piece activity but it's fine.
This is kinda easy. If there are open lane(s) in the position then the rook dominates and often turns into a pawn eater but if not then the 2 minors often are atleast equal.
This was a nice video! Maybe continue with this with different settings of 2 minors vs a rook and pawn? My personal opinion is that a bishop pair against a rook and pawn is pretty much always better for the bishops, atleast equal. A bishop pair can control the whole board while a bishop + a knight really can't. I have had several endgames with a bishop pair against a rook and pawn and I have drawn or won pretty much all of them.
Very useful!
Bro, this was a great summary of rook vs two minors. I'm an advanced player and this concept has never been thought to me. I read 100 endgames and this is the kind of information I wanted. Instead, I got a bunch of heartless calculation which I'll never see in a real game. The hard stuff is the stuff you can't calculate and must understand before going into the position. Also, I would argue that rook endgames and pawn endgames likely cover 80-90% of endgames we're likely to see in practice. The other stuff can wait. Thanks for this lesson! Cheers!
Hi nelson thank you I really liked the first position
4:24 okay so I was way off base, but I wanna explain my reasoning.
Technically, if you average every possible move, the rooks can't just charge in right now. But, because their defense is evenly spread and the offense is condensed, white has the brilliant move of Knight to D6, cutting off the bishop's line of attack and trading down lesser pieces while maintaining a rook advantage. If they play defensively, you can push the B pawn and move the bishop to the A file for a quick push where they can't defend. So, I overthought and said +3.3 for white
Great video but it doesn't fully cover the topic you should address cases of 2 bishops or 2 knights for a rook and a pawn, and sometimes there is an imbalance of rook and 2 pawns for 2 minors that are unclear
Love the content and presentation, Nelson! I want to add some info that could benefit players, but it's maybe a bit of 'overkill'.
Larry Kaufman explains that the traditional values of the pieces [1, 3, 3, 5, 9] are only true in an endgame, where there are only a few pieces left. In the opening/middlegame, a better set of values is [1, 3.5, 3.5, 5.25, 10], with an extra 0.5 for the bishop pair.
So the trade in the first position is rook and pawn (5.25 + 1 = 6.25) for bishop, knight and loss of bishop pair (3.5 + 3.5 + 0.5 = 7.5). Looking only at material value, the trade is better for black by (7.5 - 6.25 = 1.25).
However, in the opening, each extra tempo is also worth something. In my opinion it's around 1 per extra tempo. Black has two extra minor pieces developed after the trade, so that's a pretty clean (1 + 1 = 2). The black king probably needs to move again at some point, so I won't count the castling as an extra tempo. This adds another 2 for a total of (1.25 + 2 = 3.25), which is close to the StockFish evaluation.
Edit: It's been pointed out that tempo is worth considerably less than 1 per extra tempo. I may edit this after I've learned more 😀
I think you're overvaluing tempo in the opening. It's more like 0.3-0.4 if you look at gambit lines and trading a pawn for development.
Thanks @Aaron Falcon! You could be right. I shall take a couple well-known gambits and have a quick look. I would do the King's gambit, but evaluation is too volatile.
Pre-Danish gambit 1. e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 : +0.06, depth 37.
Post-Danish gambit 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 : -0.65, depth 34.
Extra tempo is worth 0.29. You are right for this one.
Pre-Goering gambit 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 : +0.37 depth 35.
Post-Goering gambit 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 : -0.40, depth 37
Extra tempo is worth 0.23. Even less.
Pre-Evans gambit 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 : +0.36 depth 35
Post-Evans gambit 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 : -0.46 depth 34
Extra tempo is worth 0.18. Even less!
So it looks like you're on the right track. Do you have a hypothesis as to the extra evaluation in the first trade of the video?
@@ianhoward1518 well it also has to do with how developed your entire army is. The rook posed no threat and isn’t dynamic enough to pose any threat to a full army of pawns, bishops, knights, rooks, and a queen and king. I think bishops and knights are better able to capitalize on the weaknesses developed earlier on in the game (the forward march of pawns that leaves squares empty, two unprotected men). I think that in the endgame position, the knight and bishop don’t really have a place to attack any of the pawns because they will easily be recaptured, but the rook can threaten a row of pawns, two pawns on opposite sides on the second/seventh rank, or other areas.
Tempo and piece evaluation could theoretically explain the entirety of a position, so I would say that the rook is worth even less that early on in the game compared to the knight that can easily penetrate a position and attack multiple pieces that are stuck.
Good stuff!! See so many people trading when they aren't really sure whether it's good or not for them!
great topic
Usefull......Good Bro 👍👍😎
2:05 Oh man the Bishop being completely blocked off...
Bro just said a≠a for every a from any set.
Bro u make good vids
sometimes even in endgames the knight and bishop are better than rook and pawn, though the weaker side can still hold but can't say they're better. Like a rook, knight, bishop, and 4 pawns vs two rooks and five pawns in a semi-closed position.
Can you cover the Cochrane gambit please
Ye think it this way, the bishop is worth 3.5 points of material.
This is pretty helpful for many of us, thanks man!! Could you maybe do videos on similar cases (e.g. why the Bishop Pair is supposed to be much stronger than a Bishop and a Knight)?
Actually the simple answer is, a pair of bishops covers more squares than a pair of knights, more diagonals covered= more control and less squares covered= less control. Of course though, a pair of knights would be better as well but only in certain situations.
@@kamnasharma6143 Also: Two knights plus a king can't mate a lone king.
When it was showing the i guess mid-game position and black has a bishop and knight pair i guessed -1.4 as a joke not expecting it to be right
also keep up the good work
I wonder if it could be better (or an equal maybe?) for black if the knight is on f7 where the knight can defend the rook from attacking d8
I understand that on the second postion, the rook is powerful on d file, while the black doesn't protect its side line very well, giving white a good chance to attack the d8 cell
And I wonder if the knight and bishop could be not as powerful as one rook if they are simply blocked by pawns or far from the battle (I mean, could that give chances for the rook to attack?)
The first example should be a no-brainer. You're trading two fully developed pieces in central positions for blocked, underdeveloped pawn and rook, putting you at a disadvantage.
As for the rest, the general rule is that both rooks and pawns tend to increase in value as the game progresses. Rooks because of ranks and files being opened as pieces are removed, and pawns due to the chance of promotion.
Meanwhile, knights tend to decrease in value as the game progresses (because jumping ability is no longer such a big deal when there are few pieces on the board). Bishops tend to increase in value relative to knights, but decrease relative to rooks.
Obviously these are general statements, and the specifics of each position must be taken into account.
In some of these positions, I'd like to see some of the plans associated with the side that stockfish thinks is better. Especially in the one from 6:04, I can vaguely see why black should be better, but -2 is way more than I had expected. It probably means stockfish has some plans using the minor pieces black has, but it's not immediately clear to me how to make progress. (While also defending against white, presumably, trying to force open the d-file.)
5:10 Plus Black has the threat of Nb4.
6:48 Black might have an advantage, but I couldn't see any way to immediately use it, so I said this was even or slightly in favor of Black. (The others, I got qualitatively.)
1:58, this position is something White is better, yes. But to be honest, knights can be tricky bastards, so if we change from a knight to a 2nd bishop. The bishop pair will be stronger than the lonely rook, black will be better instead (not to mention the 2 bishops in that position are well coordinated), this one is something you forgot to mention.
Could we speculate that different pieces in different points (opening/mid/endgame) can change value throughout the game?
In the Meltwater Tour, either Simon-Ginger GM or David H, almost, word for word, explained that the Rook and pawn, were better with fewer pieces and worse with fewer pieces. Simply Amazing!!
helpful
The link to chess skills blueprints doesn't work for me. Maybe cause CZcams is illegal but not punishable in my country, which is a really funny thing.
How about a video of a rook and 2 to 3 pawns vs 3 minor pieces?
I'm always curious about 3 pieces vs two rooks or 3 pieces and a pawn vs two rooks.
Nailed the last two positions, said -1.0 and -2.2 :D
Had a guy make this trade against me, blew him off the board because he just couldn’t actually utilize enough material
Can somebody explain to me why exactly a bishop and a knight are worth 3 points, rooks 5 and queen 9 points? How is this calculated?
Just general guidelines to help guide your decisions during a game.
I guessed +2 cuz rook is too active :))
I don’t know how but you found all the games I’ve ever played
Dang I got the first two evaluations bars within .1 (I havent watched the rest yet)
no one is gonna believe this, but my guesses were: +2,-1.5,0,-2 which is only 1.3 off total. mainly the 3rd position I considered equal when it was -0.9
Rook and pawn are worth more than knight and bishop because it's easier to force checkmate with rook and pawn.
A rook and 2 or 3 pawns (or more) is better than 2 minor pieces. Three minor pieces is better than a rook and 2 or 3 pawns. It depends on the position
3 minor pieces for a queen is very difficult to pull off or else you go into blunders, especially the player who sacrifices the queen to eliminate 3 minor pieces.
2:00 in order to guess the evaluation, you kinda have to tell us whose move it is :D
Very active R is better than B And K
I sucessfully guessed wrong in every position.
In my games all the examples would be 50/50.
A rook is better than a bishop. It takes two bishops to chackmate with only a king. You only need 1 Rook to mate. If you trap a rook in a 2x2 space with a bishop who do you think is going to survive
Big fan
What if you get two pawns
The current value of material is practical, but not accurate. In any of these positions you could have made that extra pawn a passed rook pawn and the rook becomes heavily favored. Primarily due to how difficult it is to stop a rook pawn with minor pieces. The truth is that the value of a piece changes based on the dynamics of the position. Sometimes a rook and a pawn are favored vs two minor pieces. Sometimes 3 minor pieces lose to the queen or even a queen being better than two rooks. What changes is the pawn structure. The value of a pawn is not always 1.
This is a really weird way of explaining why that knight and bishop were better than a pawn and a rook.
The easiest way to understand is to know that a piece's value depends on how many squares it controls and will control.
In the first example, the knight and bishop play crucial rolls in developing and control many squares to form the opening. On the other hand, the rook and the pawn simply occupied 2 effective squares, which are g6 and e6, the end.
2:39 I guessed + 1.7
How is a knight 3pts? The way I learned it is against a lone king, you require a minimum of 5pts to force checkmate. So rook can, being 5pts. 2 bishops can, bishop and knight can. However, 2 knights can't. Therefore, 2 knights must be less than 5pts. The only this works is if a knight is 2pts.
These points are arbitrary. It's technically possible to checkmate your opponent with two knights if he has a pawn or with only one knight if he's trapped by his own pieces.
A knight for a bishop is generally a fine trade, as well as a knight for 3 pawns. A knight for 2 pawns, on the other hand? Not so good.
I guessed +2 for the example because the pieces are extremely bad and the rook is dominant, +1 for the second example because of the open file but no infiltration squares, -2 for the third one, and -2.5 for the last one
And watch out for free pawns
I guessed 2 haha
Thank you as always, Nelson! One of the most common mistakes by beginners is indeed being too obsessed to arbitrary piece values. If anyone's interested with the similar concept, I recommend Nelson's video. :)))
2.22 i thought 1.8 it was 1.9
I always have considered rook + pawn = 4½ + 1 = 5½ (and not 6), so I would not have traded bishop and knight for a pawn and a rook.
You should do 4 and 3/4, because if you do 4 1/2 means two rooks equal 9, and the queen is 9, but we all know that 2 rooks are better than a queen
@@morgancongedo4107 Thank you for explaining, but is it not better to set Queen = 8? So two rooks would be considered stronger than a queen?
Yes, of course it depends on the position.
@@hassanalihusseini1717 that would work too, true
Make a video where u play against ur subscribers please
The whole concept of points in chess has always irritated me. It is a vague guide with so many exceptions that it is unreliable at best.
There are no points in the rules of chess. You do not win a chess game by 7 points, it is not a draw if you add up the points and it is even on both sides.
Its a (very accurate) gage of which side is more likely to win. Its been refined and engines use points for evaluation because its a great method to show the relative strength or weakness of a position. The other cool this is its great for comparison. There are positions that an engine will say are +3 but the actual pieces are equal meaning that black is at a disadvantage similar to starting a game down a knight. If its +5 and pieces are equal, it means black is at a huge positional disadvantage and the odd of winning are similar to if two equal strength players started a game with black down a rook.
@@Ambi1618 You just say it is great and then, as this video did and then describe exactly what makes it close to useless. Position is all that matters. If you value an engine evaluation of pluss 3 on a position with equal material it is silly to compare that to starting a game with an advantage of one knight. It does not mean you should play as if you are up by a knight or the logical thing to do would be to start trading equal pieces and get to an end game up one piece.
Seems like you're just trying to have an argument. The point system is useful. A position with equal material, but a GM can say 'black is way better here' while an engine will say '-4.5'. Would you prefer a percentage system like 'black has a 88% chance to win this game'?
@@Ambi1618 You literally prove my point here. If there is equal material according points assigned to the pieces then the game must be even. Why would you need an engine to evaluate if it was good to take a knight for the cost of two pawns? It must be better It is "+1"
I never said it is useless just unreliable. Otherwise it would always be better to trade your knight and bishop for a rook and a pawn.
Perhaps you are the one looking for the argument.
Go do some research on how engines evaluate and the point system. You won't learn by arguing with a stranger in CZcams comments. Your last reply just shows you want to argue rather than actually understand.
How about rook and two pawns vs bishop and knight in thw middlegame
That would depend on the position. Usually the side with Rook and two pawns is favored over Bishop and Knight if the pawns are passed pawns, especially if they are healthy connected pawns (there may be exceptions to this but I am just speaking in general). That's my thought. I am also curious what Nelson thinks too.
don`t try this at home :))
Don't ask for a position's evaluation without telling us who's turn it is.
Cool videoelbowcough, rarely released brilliant move, but I always like it very much, by the way, I also shoot about chess😎♟
Really cool video, I subscribed)
And in my bullshit is boring.
@@RolanChess Why are you watching and scrolling through the comments then? 🤔