Rook and Queen should be slightly better than four minor pieces eitherway but I think the main reason stockfish hates your position so much is that you are also down a pawn and your pawn structure was worse you had a gap and folded pawns in your structure.
I had the same thought. There is one less pawn + 1 isolated pawn + a doubled pawn in white structure. I think 4 pieces are more valuable than a queen and a rook, but the overall position is in the advantage of black.
My guess was more about the location of the minor pieces rather than the material itself. If the pieces were a little bit more coordinated since the beginning, white might be able to set up a fortress in a much easier way. What I think was the issue is that the initial discoordination of the pieces plus the location of the king were the main factors of Stockfish's evaluation.
I once plugged a 4 minor pieces vs queen + rook position into a computer and it gave a evaluation of roughly -0.6. However you also had a pawn disadvantage and a relatively open king, both of which gives a queen and rook a big advantage
There is a specific line in the Saemisch Variation of the Kings Indian where the outcome is 4 minor pieces against Queen + Rook, check Martinovic-Kessler,2015. The position arises after move 20 and is about equal but a very good position for a Training game.
With an advantage like this. Keep all major pieces involved. As soon as one is gone. The position becomes weaker. By keeping a coordinated attack.. it keeps the opponent making forced, defensive moves.
initial thoughts before watching are that the minor pieces are better because of all of the squares they control, along with fork, pin and skewer threats
This is just my opinion as someone who's rated roughly 1400-1500 (haven't played in a while though), 4 minors pieces can be better than a queen + rook simply because it's just more pieces. more pieces can be versatile and an extremely useful point of leverage because it means they can't trade 1 piece for 1 piece- ever, and it also makes defending pieces much harder for the side with less pieces because the opposition will always have more pieces they can pile on to an attack.
I think your mistaken (as a considerably worse player that likes engines) because the inability to trade is an advantage that only works defensively. Since any advantages you do have are dependent on the king being safe. You are reliing on either a very lucky closed endgame, or using at least 2 pieces to defend your king. At which point you have no resources to mount any sort of attack, and the queen and rook player has the hole game to try and force your pieces out of position
@@TheUntamedNetwork these are also valid points that are based on a different kind of position than i was assuming, i emphasized that the 4 major pieces *can* be better because it's highly dependent on the position. i was assuming more of a closed position in a mid-game where the pawn's haven't been traded much and both kings were tucked safely away.
@@cleventinetheclementine195 If there is simply only the 4 minor pieces vs queen and rook (kings included) then it should be a draw. If there are equal pawns aswell then I would favour the queen and rook, quite simply because a queen with any other piece makes it extremely strong as you can immediately attack the enemy king. Not to mention that you have a +2 material gain. The core reason why a queen vs 3 minor pieces is better for the minor pieces is due to the fact that the queen literally cant do anything. The best the queen can do against an enemy king is a perpetual, there is absolutely no mating threat unless you somehow get a pawn to work perfectly in the position which is quite rare. A queen and a rook has way more versatility and the queen can threaten mating tactics whilst threatening to capture a free pawn.
@@phase0400 if you blunder a position where a queen and rook can threaten a free pawn and threaten mate than you either had a worse position anyways- or you're just not as good as your opponent/didn't play as good as your opponent did also knights are stupid good in closed positions which was the assumption i clarified i made in the position of this theoretical scenario.
@@cleventinetheclementine195 The eval gives +2 for the queen and rook with the normal starting position. Black has quite a bit of an advantage to start off with and in most positions black would have an edge. The queen with any other piece is really dangerous. You wont know how complicated it is until you play against it. Even if you are comfortable it will soak your time down as you have to look for every possible combination with the queen.
I was once down a queen, a rook, a bishop, a knight and three pawns, and won by getting a successful back rank checkmate with the one piece I had - a rook, due to my opponent leaving the three pawns on the rank in front of his king - his king was totally trapped. So, instead of trying to win by getting so far ahead in material value, it would have paid him to make sure his king would not get trapped!
4:21 -- I'm guessing about a slight advantage for either side or drawish...so +/-1 or thereabouts. Let's see... Edit: Excuse me, Stockfish says almost an equivalent of a rook and two pawns in Black's favor?! WHAT??!! 😱😱
Me: White is undeveloped and currently playing without a rook and a knight. The king is wide open, and Qh4 is coming to infiltrate the entire position. All of that ON TOP of a two-point material disadvantage. The position is hopeless - I'd lose this 9/10 with White in blitz, and probably already win 9/10 in blitz. Can't imagine this being less than -5. 4:30 - Oh, it's even worse than I thought. Fair enough.
Well first off a queen and a rook is worth +2 more material than the 4 minor pieces. White is severely underdeveloped. As there are other pieces in the position black can just overwhelm white.
Great vid Nelson, would be really cool to see what the best analysis was from stock fish starting from right before your game changing blunder with the rook sacrifice. awesome channel!
I love games like these, when you made the trade he also had an extra pawn, and your king had horrible protection. Would have like to have watched this, if you had that extra pawn, at the bottom with the king
would like to see this same position but evaluate from instead of blunder Kf3 if instead Nc2 it does give up the blockade on the pawn but it blocks the Rook Sacrifice unpins the knight by the king and protects the back pawn .
An interesting situation, & not one I have encountered. Essentially, the following values apply: Q = 9 + R = 5 = 14 points; 2 B = 6 + 2 N = 6 = 12 points; so Black is ahead by two points. However, all this is dependant on the position, but, on the basis of this game, I would side with Stockfish, though perhaps, with more time than is afforded in speed chess, there may well be something for white, at least a draw maybe. Thanks for this one.
I had a game where I traded rook, bishop and knight for a queen, but also took 2 pawns and exposed the king, so it was winning. Unfortunately, I missed the correct continuation and my opponent lost on time (in a 1 day/move game)
Wow funny so I said engine gives -3 when you asked around 4:30. But it's actually -6.something. :D At least I did see that black is way better. Bad King safety, no tangible threats, lacking development... Curious to see how it continues
I didn't like White's position for a couple of reasons. 1. His king seemed unsafe long-term. 2. White's pawn structue was horribe and his paens easy targets for Black's queen. 3. Black was a pawn up. 4. Black had two rooks which will be useful in an attack. If White's rook could assist in an attack I think it would have been the other way around. 5. This is the most important factor besides the first point: White's peices were poorly coordinated. Thus I concluded that Black must be winning. However, guessing the computer evalution is another story. If we turn all these negatives into strong points instead, I think the imbalance in question could easily be in the player with the minor peices' favour. Don't forget the power of the bishop pair! The strangest imbalance I have even had in a serious over-the-board slow game was three minor pieces each, but I had an extra rook. No pawns were left on the board. I should have won, of course, but the lack of pawns and the unusual situation made it extremey hard to play well and I only managed to get a draw. I was so dissapointed! :(
I don't mind. It's not a good level that I'm on so they blunder as much as I do and it's interesting to be down in that case. The better players see the traps coming.
Your pawn structure, piece coordination and King Safety were bad - the ladder being extra bsd when the opponent has a Queen. If that were not the case I would assume that the pieces have a potential to outperform the heavy pieces sometimes, but again that reqires good coordination
This was reaching a bit. Two rooks should be better than 3 minor pieces and a queen is obviously better than a rook and bishop. The point is that black would have always found a line where he could exchange a rook for two minor pieces.
After you captured the knight with the pawn and your opponent played Bb5, you really didn't have anything better than trading the queen and rook for the other 3 minor pieces. Stockfish's top two lines were just different ways to do that trade. After the trade, you're down 3 on material, three of your remaining pieces aren't developed, and your pawn structure is busted. Black's king is safer (now that the mate threat is gone) and he's only an easy queen move away from connecting the rooks and completing development. I should point out that I would not be able to perform this analysis without regularly watching your channel. So hopefully that takes a little bit of the sting out of the loss.
@@ChessVibesOfficial oh yeah i missed that move but cant u still take on d4 then? If Bxd4 Nxd4 and if he takes the rook its the same position one move slower
I think people place way to much attention to Stockfish evaluations. In complicated positions whtever Stockfish rates the position at is almost useless as it assumes that both players are going to play the moves it would. Having mate in 3 is useless if you don't see it.
I once gave up a queen and rook for one piece. I can attest that it wasn't nearly as interesting.
😂
Oof. Don't want to lose an exchange like that. 🤦🏾♂️😂 (Unless you have checkmate threats at the ready.)
@@johnathanpatrick6118 You won't believe how quick checkmate was on the board after that.
Thinking about it, yes, you will believe it.
That piece is a king?
@@thecakeredux Your opponent checkmating you, I assume
Rook and Queen should be slightly better than four minor pieces eitherway but I think the main reason stockfish hates your position so much is that you are also down a pawn and your pawn structure was worse you had a gap and folded pawns in your structure.
I had the same thought. There is one less pawn + 1 isolated pawn + a doubled pawn in white structure. I think 4 pieces are more valuable than a queen and a rook, but the overall position is in the advantage of black.
I would say that the queen, rook, and extra pawn clearly outperform the four pieces but it's far from resignable. :)
My guess was more about the location of the minor pieces rather than the material itself. If the pieces were a little bit more coordinated since the beginning, white might be able to set up a fortress in a much easier way. What I think was the issue is that the initial discoordination of the pieces plus the location of the king were the main factors of Stockfish's evaluation.
Yea, along with king safety. Eval wouldn't have been quite so bad if his king wasn't wide open.
Also most of his pieces are stuck at the bottom left corner, minimize the value of the 4 pieces
I once plugged a 4 minor pieces vs queen + rook position into a computer and it gave a evaluation of roughly -0.6. However you also had a pawn disadvantage and a relatively open king, both of which gives a queen and rook a big advantage
There is a specific line in the Saemisch Variation of the Kings Indian where the outcome is 4 minor pieces against Queen + Rook, check Martinovic-Kessler,2015. The position arises after move 20 and is about equal but a very good position for a Training game.
I checked the game out. It almost looks like a main line.
Good to see things didn't work out. Its good to learn from failures as well as successes.
With an advantage like this. Keep all major pieces involved. As soon as one is gone. The position becomes weaker. By keeping a coordinated attack.. it keeps the opponent making forced, defensive moves.
initial thoughts before watching are that the minor pieces are better because of all of the squares they control, along with fork, pin and skewer threats
This is just my opinion as someone who's rated roughly 1400-1500 (haven't played in a while though), 4 minors pieces can be better than a queen + rook simply because it's just more pieces. more pieces can be versatile and an extremely useful point of leverage because it means they can't trade 1 piece for 1 piece- ever, and it also makes defending pieces much harder for the side with less pieces because the opposition will always have more pieces they can pile on to an attack.
I think your mistaken (as a considerably worse player that likes engines) because the inability to trade is an advantage that only works defensively. Since any advantages you do have are dependent on the king being safe. You are reliing on either a very lucky closed endgame, or using at least 2 pieces to defend your king. At which point you have no resources to mount any sort of attack, and the queen and rook player has the hole game to try and force your pieces out of position
@@TheUntamedNetwork these are also valid points that are based on a different kind of position than i was assuming,
i emphasized that the 4 major pieces *can* be better because it's highly dependent on the position.
i was assuming more of a closed position in a mid-game where the pawn's haven't been traded much and both kings were tucked safely away.
@@cleventinetheclementine195 If there is simply only the 4 minor pieces vs queen and rook (kings included) then it should be a draw. If there are equal pawns aswell then I would favour the queen and rook, quite simply because a queen with any other piece makes it extremely strong as you can immediately attack the enemy king. Not to mention that you have a +2 material gain. The core reason why a queen vs 3 minor pieces is better for the minor pieces is due to the fact that the queen literally cant do anything. The best the queen can do against an enemy king is a perpetual, there is absolutely no mating threat unless you somehow get a pawn to work perfectly in the position which is quite rare. A queen and a rook has way more versatility and the queen can threaten mating tactics whilst threatening to capture a free pawn.
@@phase0400 if you blunder a position where a queen and rook can threaten a free pawn and threaten mate than you either had a worse position anyways- or you're just not as good as your opponent/didn't play as good as your opponent did
also knights are stupid good in closed positions which was the assumption i clarified i made in the position of this theoretical scenario.
@@cleventinetheclementine195 The eval gives +2 for the queen and rook with the normal starting position. Black has quite a bit of an advantage to start off with and in most positions black would have an edge. The queen with any other piece is really dangerous. You wont know how complicated it is until you play against it. Even if you are comfortable it will soak your time down as you have to look for every possible combination with the queen.
High level chess is just well thought out blunders
Nelson, your videos are AMAZING. I applaud the way you show your losses and wins. All that matters is the instructional content. Well done--again.
I appreciate that!
I was wondering at 3:20 why not play Qd1 but after Be2 you have to take the knight with the queen and get the same result, it’s just a one move delay.
I was once down a queen, a rook, a bishop, a knight and three pawns, and won by getting a successful back rank checkmate with the one piece I had - a rook, due to my opponent leaving the three pawns on the rank in front of his king - his king was totally trapped. So, instead of trying to win by getting so far ahead in material value, it would have paid him to make sure his king would not get trapped!
Now, I like the Chess Vibes platform. The lessons are absolutely in-depth and easy to learn.
4:21 -- I'm guessing about a slight advantage for either side or drawish...so +/-1 or thereabouts. Let's see...
Edit: Excuse me, Stockfish says almost an equivalent of a rook and two pawns in Black's favor?! WHAT??!! 😱😱
Me:
White is undeveloped and currently playing without a rook and a knight. The king is wide open, and Qh4 is coming to infiltrate the entire position. All of that ON TOP of a two-point material disadvantage. The position is hopeless - I'd lose this 9/10 with White in blitz, and probably already win 9/10 in blitz. Can't imagine this being less than -5.
4:30 - Oh, it's even worse than I thought. Fair enough.
Well first off a queen and a rook is worth +2 more material than the 4 minor pieces.
White is severely underdeveloped.
As there are other pieces in the position black can just overwhelm white.
I thought it was about -3.7 or -4.4, did not expect -6.8 lol
05:44 probably should've played Kf3 instead of Nf5 with potential checkmates in a few moves? It probably won't be easy though...
Sometimes seeing a loss like this is more instructive than if you had won. Although it would have been interesting either way
Great vid Nelson, would be really cool to see what the best analysis was from stock fish starting from right before your game changing blunder with the rook sacrifice. awesome channel!
Nelson, what am I missing...at 2:58 instead of gxn why not nxn? he can't take back with the n because of mate and you still have the night pinned.
the bishop will capture at 2:58 If Nxd4 was played then Bxd4
@@williamsmith8640 gxf5 looks strong there Bxa1 f6 g6 qe3 or after Bxa1 fxe6 g6 exd7 looks good or at least interesting
I love games like these, when you made the trade he also had an extra pawn, and your king had horrible protection. Would have like to have watched this, if you had that extra pawn, at the bottom with the king
Can you make a video where you take out all the 3 point pieces for 1 amazon.
He doesn’t really do that kind of video on his channel but that would be fun to see
I love your chess stories!! 😄
would like to see this same position but evaluate from instead of blunder Kf3 if instead Nc2 it does give up the blockade on the pawn but it blocks the Rook Sacrifice unpins the knight by the king and protects the back pawn .
im just a beginner at chess but ig queen to d1 at 3:39 would've been a good move?
An interesting situation, & not one I have encountered. Essentially, the following values apply: Q = 9 + R = 5 = 14 points; 2 B = 6 + 2 N = 6 = 12 points; so Black is ahead by two points. However, all this is dependant on the position, but, on the basis of this game, I would side with Stockfish, though perhaps, with more time than is afforded in speed chess, there may well be something for white, at least a draw maybe. Thanks for this one.
I had a game where I traded rook, bishop and knight for a queen, but also took 2 pawns and exposed the king, so it was winning. Unfortunately, I missed the correct continuation and my opponent lost on time (in a 1 day/move game)
Wow funny so I said engine gives -3 when you asked around 4:30. But it's actually -6.something. :D At least I did see that black is way better. Bad King safety, no tangible threats, lacking development... Curious to see how it continues
Could you Plz do a lesson on bishop pair. I have been following you since the beginning. Love your contents.
Good job!
I once also gave up 4 pieces for 2 pawns, it wasn’t as interesting though.
I didn't like White's position for a couple of reasons. 1. His king seemed unsafe long-term. 2. White's pawn structue was horribe and his paens easy targets for Black's queen. 3. Black was a pawn up. 4. Black had two rooks which will be useful in an attack. If White's rook could assist in an attack I think it would have been the other way around. 5. This is the most important factor besides the first point: White's peices were poorly coordinated. Thus I concluded that Black must be winning. However, guessing the computer evalution is another story.
If we turn all these negatives into strong points instead, I think the imbalance in question could easily be in the player with the minor peices' favour. Don't forget the power of the bishop pair!
The strangest imbalance I have even had in a serious over-the-board slow game was three minor pieces each, but I had an extra rook. No pawns were left on the board. I should have won, of course, but the lack of pawns and the unusual situation made it extremey hard to play well and I only managed to get a draw. I was so dissapointed! :(
I just did knight knight bishop bishop against queen and rook in practice and if played correctly it's a draw
I don't mind. It's not a good level that I'm on so they blunder as much as I do and it's interesting to be down in that case. The better players see the traps coming.
alpha zero would probably like this
I would think having more pieces on the board in general is better because they cover more squares
you better trade a queen and 2 rooks for a king
seems like 12 points vs. 14 points checks out.
What are you going to do? As the saying goes "you can't win them all."
I'd rather trust Komodo Dragon than Stockfish in this kind of unusual imbalance. Compare the evals.
Your pawn structure, piece coordination and King Safety were bad - the ladder being extra bsd when the opponent has a Queen. If that were not the case I would assume that the pieces have a potential to outperform the heavy pieces sometimes, but again that reqires good coordination
Damn, I was somewhat close with the evaluation. I thought it was around -4.8
When's the next livestream?
Very interesting game indeed! I don't remeber myself being in an interesting position like this although I might have, lol.
6:20 you could've moved the bishop to g5 that's a chick so he has to move the king then trade it with the rook
Please make a discord server so we can ask our questions,share our puzzles,memes etc.
This was reaching a bit. Two rooks should be better than 3 minor pieces and a queen is obviously better than a rook and bishop. The point is that black would have always found a line where he could exchange a rook for two minor pieces.
After you captured the knight with the pawn and your opponent played Bb5, you really didn't have anything better than trading the queen and rook for the other 3 minor pieces. Stockfish's top two lines were just different ways to do that trade.
After the trade, you're down 3 on material, three of your remaining pieces aren't developed, and your pawn structure is busted. Black's king is safer (now that the mate threat is gone) and he's only an easy queen move away from connecting the rooks and completing development.
I should point out that I would not be able to perform this analysis without regularly watching your channel. So hopefully that takes a little bit of the sting out of the loss.
Why didnt u just play queen d1 and took 2 pieces for the rook? Thats much better
It was a blitz game. No time.
Oh I forgot to mention on Qd1 black has Be2 and I think that's even worse for me.
@@ChessVibesOfficial oh yeah i missed that move but cant u still take on d4 then? If Bxd4 Nxd4 and if he takes the rook its the same position one move slower
12 points vs. 14 points 🤔
tldw: It's bad, don't do it
Coulda saved queen
3 minor pieces*
Hard luck!
good game
I think people place way to much attention to Stockfish evaluations. In complicated positions whtever Stockfish rates the position at is almost useless as it assumes that both players are going to play the moves it would.
Having mate in 3 is useless if you don't see it.
Old my god
damn
You could have gotten 3 pieces for the queen
pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop
Why do you keep saying a queen and a rook when black has 2 rooks? Not a good choice.
Pls Pin This
But why?
69th comment
Third comment!
First comment