Answers.Body: <p>I think these things should be regarded as rules of thumb or heuristics. All of the heuristics can be broken based on the particular position. With that said, rooks are powerful long range pieces that are also (generally) more valuable than knights, bishops, and pawns. Therefore, they can often be chased away if leading an attack (similar to queen chasing). Also, the soldiers on the front line usually don't make it :(</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-09-02T02:03:41.077Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-09-02T02:03:41.077Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nick
Answers.Body: <p>Generally speaking, I’d put a rook in advance of a queen if attacking along a file, because the rook is cheaper. A rook on the 7th or 8th rank is also very powerful.</p>
  <p>By contrast I’d put my queen in front of a bishop if attacking along a diagonal, because while the bishop is cheaper, it’s not impactful enough and is self-blocking my queen.</p>
  <p>I’m sure I read this advice as a boy, and  it’s always made sense to me, although sometimes there are exceptions.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-31T09:35:36.910Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-08-31T09:49:27.320Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-08-31T09:49:27.320Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Body: <p>I was watching a video of GothamChess, and in the video Levy said that <em><strong>rooks should not lead the attack</strong></em>. I was wondering why rooks should not lead the attack?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-31T09:09:56.537Z
Comments.Text: Can you link the video?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-31T10:47:50.030Z
Comments.Text: Rooks are long range pieces. Though there are exceptions it's common that they can achieve just as much safely at long range as they can less safely at short range. So why risk them?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Tags: <online-chess><rooks><attack>
Title: Why is it advised that rooks should not lead the attack?
ThreadText: # Why is it advised that rooks should not lead the attack?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-31)
  
  I was watching a video of GothamChess, and in the video Levy said that ***rooks should not lead the attack***. I was wondering why rooks should not lead the attack?
  
  **Tags:** online-chess, rooks, attack
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Can you link the video?  
  > **username_2**: Rooks are long range pieces. Though there are exceptions it's common that they can achieve just as much safely at long range as they can less safely at short range. So why risk them?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2024-09-02. Score: 2
  
  I think these things should be regarded as rules of thumb or heuristics. All of the heuristics can be broken based on the particular position. With that said, rooks are powerful long range pieces that are also (generally) more valuable than knights, bishops, and pawns. Therefore, they can often be chased away if leading an attack (similar to queen chasing). Also, the soldiers on the front line usually don't make it :(
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2024-08-31. Score: 1
  
  Generally speaking, I’d put a rook in advance of a queen if attacking along a file, because the rook is cheaper. A rook on the 7th or 8th rank is also very powerful.
  
  By contrast I’d put my queen in front of a bishop if attacking along a diagonal, because while the bishop is cheaper, it’s not impactful enough and is self-blocking my queen.
  
  I’m sure I read this advice as a boy, and it’s always made sense to me, although sometimes there are exceptions.
  
  
  ---
  
  