Chessville Reviews - Rook vs Two Minor Pieces - by Esben Lund

Chessville
...by Chessplayers, for Chessplayers!

Today is

Site Map

If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

Rook vs Two Minor Pieces
Reviewed by Rick Kennedy

by Esben Lund

Quality Chess (2005)

ISBN: 9197524379

softcover, 174 pages

figurine algebraic notation

Chess players work on different things at different stages of their development. Beginners study the rules and the play of the pieces. They go on to learn the very basics of strategy and tactics. They learn chess notation, and play over some games, understanding (or not understanding) the accompanying notes.

Developing players learn “tactics, tactics, tactics”. They pick up some endgame skills, and try on different openings for size. They work on “attack” and “defense”. Their understanding of strategy grows. They develop chess “heroes” whose games they study. They use (and over-use) chess software.

The really serious players – those headed toward Expert, Master, and beyond – delve deeper into all of the above. They begin to study chess. Reinfeld and Chernev give way to Dvoretsky. It is one thing to grasp at Tarrasch’s or Nimzovich’s beliefs about isolated pawns, for example; it is another thing to devote a few months to working through Alex Baburin’s Winning Pawn Structures. Many people know the first four or five moves of the Sicilian Najdorf; few know well the next fifteen or twenty.

It is not for this first group of players, then, or perhaps even the second, that Danish FM Lund writes his Rook vs Two Minor Pieces. (A Class-B player myself, and thus a member of “group two,” I enjoyed Lund’s book, although parts of it were far enough over my head that I developed occasional nose bleeds.) The author presents a well-written and very well designed effort, and serious players should find it much to their liking. (Here’s another clue to the suitability of the book for the reader – are you more likely to complain “Do I have to eat these vegetables?” or exclaim “Wow! More nutrients! I’m gonna grow big and strong!”)

The question of which is “better,” the rook or the two knights/bishops (or knight & bishop) probably comes up soon after the beginning player learns the old equivalents “rook = 5 pawns, knight = 3 pawns, bishop = 3 pawns.” Hey – a rook and pawn balances out the two pieces, right? That’s why the following line pops up in novice games: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.Ng5 O-O 6.Nxf7 Rxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7. Alas, “as every Russian schoolboy knows,” things are more complicated than that.

Yet the topic has received little attention at length, at least if a quick tour through my bookshelf is any indication.* Lund’s Bibliography has more sources, of course. According to Silman when it comes to book-length treatments, there is only Mastering Rook vs. Minor Pieces (1999) by GM Andrei Maximenko, IM Jaroslav Srokovsky and Wit Braslawski, which he describes as “mostly languageless” with “good examples but little explanation.”

In his “Theoretical Foundation” chapter, Lund gives some history of the understanding of the rook vs minor pieces imbalance, as well as some valuable game examples, and the general conclusions that can be drawn from them, e.g.:

In these two games I mentioned three themes: the exchanging problem, the colour problem, and the domination of the bishop.

Here is the author, just getting warmed up about a position from one of his games, Lund – Ejsing, Copenhagen 2002. Please excuse the length of the quote, but it is a good example of how Lund delves into things.

"White is the side with the outnumbered piece (the rook), so in principle I would be glad to exchange pieces and go into the endgame. Black cannot avoid the exchange of queens as the bishop on d7 is hanging. The exchange of queens is always important, as the absence of the strongest piece changes the evaluation of the position considerably. The main reason for this is that the king can be a strong piece, especially in the endgame, and in general it can be a strong supporter of the minor pieces.

With the queens still on the board it is often difficult for the king to take an active part in the game, as the king is the ultimate goal to attack: annoying checks and the danger of checkmate often force the king to seek shelter when the queens are still present on the board.

Later White would like to exchange one pair of rooks as well. The queen as a supporter of the minor pieces can be a very dangerous weapon, but a rook is also a strong supporter, therefore I would be happy to exchange rooks here. Also, the exchange of light-squared bishops would be profitable for me.

Black should definitely avoid further piece exchanges. In an article in Schacknytt (a Swedish chess magazine), Mihail Marin wrote about this problem of exchanging as well. He writes that a rook is a “bra spelfördelare för de lätta pjäserna” – that is, the rook as a “ coordinator of play” for the minor pieces… I like this analogy (the expression is taken from Mihail Marin’s Secrets of Chess Defence, page 128). By themselves the minor pieces are restricted (compared to the rook), as they can only protect one colour at a time. But with more pieces on the board – and especially heavy pieces – the minor pieces cooperate well on both colours and the advantage of being one piece up can be felt. The subject of exchanging will be discussed intensively later.

Back to the game: Black has a dark-squared bishop and knight for a rook and two pawns. White should use his pawns to restrict or dominate the enemy forces, and as I miss my dark-squared bishop it is logical to place my pawns on dark squares. This reduces the scope of Glack’s dark-squared bishop considerably. After 20.e3 my pawn structure begins to restrict the bishop. The other role of the pawns that both Dvoretsky and Tisdall mentioned was that of passed pawns creating threats and thus making the opponent’s minor pieces passive.

Black still has a rook, and if he can exert pressure along the c-file my c-pawn could prove very weak. I really want to exchange this rook, but unfortunately this aim cannot be achieved in the near future. However, I saw that it was difficult for Black to organize pressure along the c-file…"

The second chapter, “Fundamental Engames,” contains studies and endgames chosen to provide the reader with some basic knowledge that will be useful in evaluating and playing rook vs minor piece positions. (Yes, Virginia, he does explain the K+B+N vs K mating plan.)

In chapter three Lund presents analysis of the Nc6 Catalan (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.Bg2 Nc6) which leads to a complex middle game with the familiar material imbalance. Chapter five has the same treatment for the Scotch, although in greater depth. Any serious student of either opening will find much to help their planning and play.

Chapter four presents “Evaluation Exercises” and chapter six, “General Exercises.” Lund uses them both to expand the readers knowledge, as well as test how well the reader is putting things together. For example:

Kiss – Boguslavsky
Szolnok 1987
Position after 24…Rxc1

"Question: On the basis of the endgame knowledge of the fundamental positions with two minor pieces for a rook, try to evaluate this position. Clue: Compare the more basic endgame position in exercise 2."

The last two chapters contain the answers to the exercises. As elsewhere, they are helpful and quite educational.

The production values of Rook vs Two Minor Pieces add to the value of the book: diagrams are well-placed, there is good use of italics, bold, and white space. Hats off to Lund and Quality Chess Books in this regard.

In summary, Rook vs Two Minor Pieces is a wonderful course of instruction, bound to be of help for stronger players, as well as a source of fascination for the not-yet-strong-but-getting-there player who is not scared off by the 4-letter word “work.” As for players still developing in strength, I can only repeat Perry the PawnPusher’s personal caution: much of this stuff is rocket surgery…

Since reading Lund's book, i have kept an eye out for rook vs minor piece struggles. The following game, although not in Rook vs Minor Pieces, has many exciting features to it, not the least of which is a similarly imbalanced endgame:

O'Hare,Ciaran (2358) - Brandhorst,Ted (2389) [D43]
USCF Absolute Championship, 2003

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.h4 b4 11.hxg5 bxc3 12.bxc3 Nxe4 13.Be5 Nxc3 14.Qc2 Nxe2 15.Kxe2 Rg8N 16.gxh6 Bxh6 17.Rxh6 Nd7 18.Qh7 Rxg2 19.Rb1 Nf8 20.Rxb7 Nxh7 21.Rxh7 Rg8 22.Rbxf7 c3 23.Bc7 c2 24.Kd2 Rg1 25.Re7+ Qxe7 26.Rxe7+ Kxe7 27.Nxg1 Rf8 28.Bg3 Rf5 29.Ne2 c5 30.Kxc2 c4 31.Nc3 Kd7 32.a4 Rf3 33.Nb5 Rb3 34.Nc3 Kc6 35.Bf4 Rb4 36.Be3 Rb7 37.a5 Rb3 38.d5+ exd5 39.Bxa7 Ra3 40.Bb6 Ra1 41.Kb2 Rh1 42.Ne2 Kb7 43.Nf4 Kc6 44.Ne6 Rh2 45.Nd4+ Kb7 46.Nc2 Rh3 47.Ne3 Kc6 48.f4 Rh4 49.f5 d4 50.Nc2 d3 51.Ne3 Rf4 52.Kc3 Kb5 53.Bd8 d2 54.f6 Ka6 55.Kc2 Kb5 56.Be7 Kxa5 57.Kxd2 Kb5 58.Kc2 Kc6 59.Kc3 Kd7

* "Yet the topic has received little attention at length, at least if a quick tour through my bookshelf is any indication..."