NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose you just had a king and one unpassed pawn in a closely matched game--which of these would you rather have?

A rook is always better than a knight or bishop in my experience.

Suppose you just had a king and one unpassed pawn in a closely matched game--which of these would you rather have?
Were you planning on giving options?

Depends who I'm playing against. In most cases, two knights, because I know the people I usually play chess with have difficulty planning ahead against knights.

you really like polls, huh? not a problem either way, i find them enjoyable. unless they're the same old "should abortion be legal" kind of thing.

that aside, i havent a clue how to play chess.... so i voted for "A knight and a bishop"

I'd go with the rook. Or else two bishops. Bishop and knight is just asking to have to do a bishop-knight-king checkmate. Two knights is right out.

Suppose you just had a king and one unpassed pawn in a closely matched game--which of these would you rather have?

You mean I assume I'd have the pawn AND the poll-options offered (since I can't change a pawn into two other pieces ;)) ? Against someone who has.. what left ?
In general the rook is most useful, but if the opponent only has a king left I'd just concentrate on getting a queen. Meaning the two bishops will probably be of service slighly more - provided they are on different colours.

You mean I assume I'd have the pawn AND the poll-options offered (since I can't change a pawn into two other pieces ;)) ? Against someone who has.. what left ?
In general the rook is most useful, but if the opponent only has a king left I'd just concentrate on getting a queen. Meaning the two bishops will probably be of service slighly more - provided they are on different colours.
If he only had a king left, you'd just take any of the last three options, forget the pawn, and checkmate him.

I assumed that he would have a king, an unpassed pawn and one of the poll options.

I don't know much about chess but I'd say that the rook would be the best piece coas of its wide scope of movement and such.

P.S Death to all commies! :sniper: :mp5:

Yeah, I do love polls (today at least). When I said "closely matched" I meant that the opponent would have something similar--e.g., you have 2 bishops and your opponent has a rook.

And I must say, I'm surprised THIS is the poll that got some responses ...

Well i'd go for one of the options where i have 2 pieces because they are worth more points. Which two pieces is irrelevent, its their position on the board that is going to count more.

Eh, mobility is a lot more useful in the end-game. The rook is worth more than it is in the beginning.

a single rook is worth 4, two of the others are worth 3 each

a single rook is worth 4, two of the others are worth 3 each

I thought a rook was 5?

a single rook is worth 4, two of the others are worth 3 each
First of all, a rook is usually considered 5. Second, you completely ignored what I said. Points aren't everything.

No matter where a rook is on the board, it can move to two places to attack any given square. With a bishop and knight, you might not be able to do it at all. With two bishops, you will often only have one such space.

A rook's mobility is a big advantage in the end-game.

Bishops can cover more spaces on the board at any given time, but knights are a little more difficult to pin down. I knew a guy who would always tip his king over any time you took both of his knights.

Then you have to realize that most of the coverage that is done in chess is along diagonal lines (pawns, bishops, queens, kings). Very little is ever covered along horizontal or vertical lines. This makes the rook a very powerful piece once you actually get it out onto the field.

I really haven't played much since I was on the high school chess team and half of our team got kicked out of the hotel at the state tournament for being too rowdy.

I tend not to play according to established tactics, etc. I just make my move quite impulsively and see where it goes from there. A lot of people moan that I don't play it properly, but impulsive, aggressive playing is my tactic, damnit!

Oh yeah. rooks are the best. But I like knights, mainly because players I'm against underestimate them and I steal their queen. Rooks are especially the best right at the end, where you corner the king behind a few of his own pieces.

Indeed, the double bishops will cover more squares (note that it would have been my second choice, and a close one at that), but those squares are more difficult to use. The bishops have to be next to each other in order to trap the king, and that leaves them fairly vulnerable to a rook.

My mistake, rooks are worth 5, but that still makes 2 of the others worth more. But I'm still siding with the two piece option, because its going to be much easier to pin pieces down rather than a single rook. I agree rooks are more powerful in the endgame than beginning, but if this scenario was at the beginning or middle of a game, it is likily that your rook is going to be stuck behind a few other pieces.

My mistake, rooks are worth 5, but that still makes 2 of the others worth more. But I'm still siding with the two piece option, because its going to be much easier to pin pieces down rather than a single rook. I agree rooks are more powerful in the endgame than beginning, but if this scenario was at the beginning or middle of a game, it is likily that your rook is going to be stuck behind a few other pieces.
Indeed. Mid-game I'll take the knights, but I'll have a lot of other pieces, so it's hard to say what's going on. In the opening, I'd better have all of those pieces.

A rook, hands down. Knights are good at times but in a tie game that ends up being judged rather than played out in a tournament, 2 pawns is considered better than a knight, even though that's 2 points against 3. Knights have little potential in that situation because they lack direct mobility. It's very, very easy to checkmate with a rook and a king in under 20 moves. Bishops are preferable to knights but still not as good as rooks. In fact, imo for the most part the points system is not representative.

Yes, in my experience, the knight usually ends up getting traded for one of the pawns.

:mad: If this is all you do in your petty little lives, then i feel sorry for u. Infact why don't u just get your shot gun and aim the trigger at your head now, and end your pittiful life!!! :upyours: Hahahaaaaaa!

Queen: 9 or 10
Rook: 5
Bishop: 3.5
Knight: 3
Pawn: 1

Two Bishops = 7, best combination.

:mad: If this is all you do in your petty little lives, then i feel sorry for u. Infact why don't u just get your shot gun and aim the trigger at your head now, and end your pittiful life!!! :upyours: Hahahaaaaaa!

Lol, the fact that you feel the need to come to this thread and say that says alot about YOUR life.

Queen: 9 or 10
Rook: 5
Bishop: 3.5
Knight: 3
Pawn: 1

Two Bishops = 7, best combination.

That's interesting. Are you American? I was just wondering if they had a different points system because when I always played it was:
Queen: 8 or 9
Rook: 5
Bishop: 3
Knight: 3
Pawn: 1
But I don't really go by points :)

Awww, why'd you acknowledge him?

This really does depend on what your opponent has.
Assuming, s/he has:
two knights - I'd go for knight and bishop
two bishops - knight and bishop
knight and bishop - knight and bishop
rook - rook

A knight is always useful for pissing off your opponent by luring him/her into traps, and the bishop is useful for the coverage of the board you get with it. Against a rook, I'd want a rook myself, and hope to exchange them and get my pawn queened first.

Awww, why'd you acknowledge him?

Sorry. I say what I think. But you make a good point.

Suppose you just had a king and one unpassed pawn in a closely matched game--which of these would you rather have?

First of all, forget the points values. Games of chess are not decided by points.

If both players in this situation are fairly strong, the two bishops is most likely the best combination in an endgame (The way you put it makes it sound like an endgame, anyway).

Forget the two knights; Knights have zero mobility on an open board, and only very weak players have trouble spotting all their moves.

Likewise, forget the knight and bishop; the Knight and Bishop checkmate against a lone king is a complete nightmare when it comes down to it, while the 2 bishop checkmate is very easy.

In some situations, the Rook will be better, but unless the position is unbalanced in some other way, my money's on the two bishops.

Of course, if both players are fairly weak (<1300 Elo rating), it doesn't really matter what they have, because the game will most likely be decided by one of them making a stupid mistake.

3 day forumban for 'Thawk6'.

Oh, and I'd take the rook.

Two bishops. Knights are pretty useless. A rook and a bishop would be even better.

Notice...I'm only quessing that rooks: move horizontally and vertically, bishops diagonally?

I've heard lots of different point systems, but all of them put the Queen at 8 points. Rooks are 5, clearly, and Knights are 3. Pawns are 1, but they never said what a passed pawn was worth (if I pass a pawn and turn it into a queen, and my opponent takes it, do they get 8 points for a queen or 1 for a pawn? That's a 7-point difference there.)

Also, I will take the rook. I know you can mate with a king and a rook, and making with a king, rook, and a queened pawn is easier than getting my cat Cruiser to stop meowing.

A hammer and a small knife. Stab your opponent in the eyes and hit them on the head with the hammer until they're a vegetable.

You win.

I'd take two bishops: that covers every possible square, therefore a checkmate is easier. If it was 2 rooks, I would've voted for that, but I can hardly ever win with just one, a pawn and a king.

I'd take two bishops: that covers every possible square, therefore a checkmate is easier. If it was 2 rooks, I would've voted for that, but I can hardly ever win with just one, a pawn and a king.

But a rook covers every square too, and there is a foolproof methodical method to winning with just a rook and a king. But you're right, 2 rooks would rock.

That's interesting. Are you American? I was just wondering if they had a different points system because when I always played it was:
Queen: 8 or 9
Rook: 5
Bishop: 3
Knight: 3
Pawn: 1
But I don't really go by points :)

The idea is that since Bishops are usually more useful in the end game that they are *slightly* more valuable than Knights.
I count the Queen as 9, but most Americans count it as 10. My thinking is that I'd sacrifice a Queen for 2 Rooks, but not a Rook and a Bishop (usually!).

I've heard lots of different point systems, but all of them put the Queen at 8 points.

Er, no. The queen is always 9 points, equivalent to 3 minor pieces. That's certainly the value agreed upon by pretty much all master-level players for the last hundred years or so. The only debate at all over the points value of the pieces is whether the Bishop is worth more than the knight.

Rook. It gets around better in the end-game and is one of the "heavy pieces" one of two that can checkmate the opposing king with just itself and a king.

The rook. Knights are pain to use and bishops aren't that flexible to use either.

The idea is that since Bishops are usually more useful in the end game that they are *slightly* more valuable than Knights.
I count the Queen as 9, but most Americans count it as 10. My thinking is that I'd sacrifice a Queen for 2 Rooks, but not a Rook and a Bishop (usually!).
I'm american and have played competively and for fun and have never seen a queen counted as 10....

Even though the rook is a tempting offer, I would have to choose the two bishops for quite a few reasons. First of all is the obvious advantage of two seperate pieces. If the opponent is closely matched like the title implies, then the single rook has a chance of being pinned or otherwise unmaneuverable. In the case of two bishops, you can use one bishop to protect the pawn and the other is still available.

In fact, if you used the second bishop to cover the square the pawn is moving to, then you can create a straight path for the pawn to protect against the opposing king. Also, two bishops not only cover both square colours, but afford up to four different diagonals to exert influence over, and I find that diagonals are very important in the endgame. If I was in the end game with few pieces against two bishops, I would be constantly worrying over the possibilty of a pin or, even worse, a fork by the maneuverable bishops.

Finally, if the opponent has a decent amount of force or is very cunning, there always lies the chance of your piece being taken. In this case, it is better to lose a single bishop and realise the mistake than to lose a rook in a single move.

P.S. Also bishop + bishop = 6 points, although points aren't worth much in the endgame.

I always base my playing on the idea that horseys are worth 3 points each, but 7 points together. Bishops are worth 3 points each regardless. This is because you can have the knights protect each other and cover a quarter of the board. Bishops can't protect each other, so it doesn't matter whether you have 1 or 2. Also the Queen can do the same job as a Bishop (or rook for that matter), but not a Knight.
So if given the opportunity, I'll always trade a bishop for a knight initially, as it tips the balance in my favour slightly. I lose 3 points, but my opponent loses 4.

I suck at chess, but I voted "Knight and Bishop". So no-one else pick that one.

I'm american and have played competively and for fun and have never seen a queen counted as 10....

A goodly number of chess books, esp. from the early 80s counted the Queen as 10. I've always counted it as 9.

I always base my playing on the idea that horseys are worth 3 points each, but 7 points together. Bishops are worth 3 points each regardless. This is because you can have the knights protect each other and cover a quarter of the board. Bishops can't protect each other, so it doesn't matter whether you have 1 or 2. Also the Queen can do the same job as a Bishop (or rook for that matter), but not a Knight.
So if given the opportunity, I'll always trade a bishop for a knight initially, as it tips the balance in my favour slightly. I lose 3 points, but my opponent loses 4.

The ability of knights to protect each other is not widely considered an advantage.