Answers.Body: <p>Material trumps positional factors, unless the positional factors are <em>extremely</em> pronounced.</p>
  
  <p>The advantage of the bishop pair is often estimated at half a pawn - enough to pressure the opponent, but not always force a win. Rook vs. knight is an advantage of roughly two pawns - clearly winning - so you're gaining a lot in terms of material.</p>
  
  <p>You should cash in the bishop for the rook and look forward to a clearly winning position. You're not likely to have a better opportunity.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-07T15:06:02.943Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-03-07T15:06:02.943Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nate
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Sure, but the rook doesn't have to stay on c8. After, say, ...Rd2 and ...Rcd8, Black's rooks start to look a lot more useful. Being up the exchange is a long-term advantage; Black's rook not being very useful on c8 is a short-term feature of the present position.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-07T18:26:25.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-03-07T18:26:25.733Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Body: <p>Usually chess puzzles at my level (beginner) have just one or two forced variations and a clear achievement, like a substantial material gain or checkmate. Once in a while, though, a puzzle leaves me wondering, why the solution is actually supposed to be such a good thing.</p>
  
  <p>The following puzzle is from Susan Polgar's and Paul Truong's book "Chess Tactics for Champions", #11 from the chapter on trapping. White to move:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[White "Puzzle by Susan Polgar"]
  [Black "Trapping: #11"]
  [Result "*"]
  [FEN "2rr2k1/p3bpp1/1p2pn1p/2p5/8/2P1PPB1/PP2B1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The solution is:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>This example demonstrates well the power of the pair of bishops 1.♗a6 ♖c6 (1...♖a8 2.♗b7) 2.♗b7.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>After 2...♖cd6 3.♗xd6 ♗xd6 (or 3...♖xd6?) White wins the exchange. So far, so good, numerical material gain. However, I'm trying to make my very first baby steps in understanding strategy: In an actual game, assuming I'd see the variation, I'd be hesitating to play it. My -- probably naive -- reasoning would go like this: "A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3."</p>
  
  <p>It's not that I don't trust Polgar/Truong, but I would like to understand. Is it, because after the exchange White is now able to control the d-file? Or am I completely off the track somewhere else?</p>
  
Tags: <strategy><beginner><puzzles>
Title: Strategic implications in this puzzle by S. Polgar/P. Truong
ThreadText: # Strategic implications in this puzzle by S. Polgar/P. Truong
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-07)
  
  Usually chess puzzles at my level (beginner) have just one or two forced variations and a clear achievement, like a substantial material gain or checkmate. Once in a while, though, a puzzle leaves me wondering, why the solution is actually supposed to be such a good thing.
  
  The following puzzle is from Susan Polgar's and Paul Truong's book "Chess Tactics for Champions", #11 from the chapter on trapping. White to move:
  
  ```
  [White "Puzzle by Susan Polgar"]
  [Black "Trapping: #11"]
  [Result "*"]
  [FEN "2rr2k1/p3bpp1/1p2pn1p/2p5/8/2P1PPB1/PP2B1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  The solution is:
  
  > This example demonstrates well the power of the pair of bishops 1.♗a6 ♖c6 (1...♖a8 2.♗b7) 2.♗b7.
  
  After 2...♖cd6 3.♗xd6 ♗xd6 (or 3...♖xd6?) White wins the exchange. So far, so good, numerical material gain. However, I'm trying to make my very first baby steps in understanding strategy: In an actual game, assuming I'd see the variation, I'd be hesitating to play it. My -- probably naive -- reasoning would go like this: "A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3."
  
  It's not that I don't trust Polgar/Truong, but I would like to understand. Is it, because after the exchange White is now able to control the d-file? Or am I completely off the track somewhere else?
  
  **Tags:** strategy, beginner, puzzles
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-03-07. Score: 9
  
  Material trumps positional factors, unless the positional factors are *extremely* pronounced.
  
  The advantage of the bishop pair is often estimated at half a pawn - enough to pressure the opponent, but not always force a win. Rook vs. knight is an advantage of roughly two pawns - clearly winning - so you're gaining a lot in terms of material.
  
  You should cash in the bishop for the rook and look forward to a clearly winning position. You're not likely to have a better opportunity.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-07. Score: 5
  
  > A rook is worth five pawns, a bishop three. But White has the bishop pair. Moreover, the rook on c8 doesn't do much, while the dark squared bishop has a nice diagonal. So, I'm not convinced that it's really 5 vs 3.
  
  Sure, but the rook doesn't have to stay on c8. After, say, ...Rd2 and ...Rcd8, Black's rooks start to look a lot more useful. Being up the exchange is a long-term advantage; Black's rook not being very useful on c8 is a short-term feature of the present position.
  
  
  ---
  
  