In chess, is it better to have a knight and rook vs. only a rook or only a rook vs. only a bishop?

Question

No other major pieces. Just pawns. You have a knight and rook versus just a rook or it is just your rook versus his just his bishop. Which is better?

Answer 1

Both are good! Here's why:

Knight and rook vs rook: The knight can attack the rook while not being in the line of fire himself. The two together can sweep up pawns while chasing the enemy rook around the board and hopefully end up forking the rook and king thereby winning the rook.

Rook vs Bishop: His bishop can only capture on 50% of the board while your rook can capture on 100% of the board. The bishop can only remain on one color while the rook can move to any color square.

I would rather have the Knight and Rook if I had to choose one. I love creating forks with the knight.

Good luck. I hope this helps.

Answer 2

Hi there,

A piece advantage is always better than not having an advantage so I'd take Kn+R anyday. Rook versus Bishop would be very interesting depending on the pawn structure and which bishop you have. A fianchettoed bishop (a bishop along the longest diagonal) that can protect the square (corner square where Rooks start the game) for a pawn promotion (assuming that you have a pawn on that file that could be promoted) really changes how the opponent uses his Rook. Likewise, in some cases with more pawns on the board, it is actually advantageous to have the bishops on opposite colors if one side has weak pawns. Remember, pawns are not "just pawns"; they play a far more important roll than many people realize and a person's pawn structure can really make or break their endgame.

Cheers.

Answer 3

A rook can cover all the squares on the chess board, where as only one bishop can only cover half the sqaures.

Having one major piece vs two will always give an advantage to the person with the two pieces.... so it really depends on which side you're playing. If you only control a rook, I'd be playing against the bishop only. But if I was playing against the rook, I'd want my own rook and at least a knight.

Answer 4

With Pawns around th Knight and Rook should be a win. The Rook vs. Bishop should also be a win, but the Bishop has more drawing potential depending on the pawns. and open files for the rook.

Answer 5

I love having the extra piece. Pawns being even or maybe one extra for the down player, the knight-rook to rook is a must.

Answer 6

both are fairly equal positions. I would rather have the rook versus just his bishop. If more peices were on the board I'd go knight and rook, but with such little material left I'd take the rook advantage.

Answer 7

I read most of the other answers (I'm lazy and don't want to be repetitive) and they pretty much all say what a decent chess book would say. In my opinion, the real factor of importance is the players not the pieces. Neither player has a lot to work with and the game will most likely end in a draw. I've played chess since I was a boy (longer than I like admitting) and I'm no master, but I'm alright and in my experience if a game gets to this point, neither player is going to set the world on fire so the chance of a mistake that could actually produce a winner before a draw is a realistic possibility. On paper, the bishop is stronger than the knight but I believe the determining factor will be the skill of the two players, and as I said if they're down to this point, either of them is quite capable of a fatal error.

Answer 8

Don't underestimate the power of the pawn. Each pawn has the potetial of becoming a queen. However, you can successfully mate some one using rook and bishop and king. You have to practice. There are many stratagy books at the local library. Check them out... NO PUN INTENDED>

Answer 9

A rook vs a bishop would be good, but slow

Answer 10

Knight and a rook. Definitely.