Why is rook worth more points?

This is a question for those new to chess (so no, the question is not that difficult).

The rook is more powerful than the bishop as if there are not many pieces on the board it can often restrict the king to a particular area of the board (as it can control both horizontal and vertical squares unlike say the black bishop that cannot alone stop the king escaping to white squares).

The rook can also be “doubled-up”(one on top of each other) which can often be a part of a powerful attack against the opponent’s king (unlike say a white and black bishop that can not be “doubled up”).

But there is another basic reason why the rook is worth more points than a knight or a bishop. What is it?

There is a certain region in England, localized around just one player actually, where rook and knight and bishop are equal. I wouldn't worry about it though as the rest of the world has got it straight.

a rook and king can give checkmate while a bishop and king or knight and king cannot.  It covers all the squares of the board while one bishop only covers half the squares.  It is much faster around the board than a knight. It can support a passed pawn from behind however far the pawn advances and can also attack an enemy passed pawn from behind however far it advances.

But there are many positions possible where a knight or bishop beat a rook. Also two pawns side by side on the 7th rank (2 'points') beat a rook (5 'points') every time

[quote]Also two pawns side by side on the 7th rank (2 'points') beat a rook (5 'points') every time[/quote] Nearly every time.

quequeg you have almost given the answer I was looking for. But a knight can also support a passed pawn anywhere on the board. So what here makes the rook worth more than the knight - specifically why is a rook so good at supporting a passed pawn?

It is because a pawn generally moves along files (vertically) and so as a rook that can control vertical squares it can support a rook all the time unlike a bishop or knight. Being able to support a passed pawn so it can queen is obviously very valuable.

     I am not sure what you are looking for but although a single rook

     is 5pts., which can only be justified by horizontal and vertical span,

     two rooks are definitely worth 10pts., when used together.  Two

     rooks are far more powerful then two bishops or two knights.

who is stronger who is weak this is wrong question !!

it dependes on the positions ...

somtimes i give my queen for pawn to make check mate ,,,,

so think about it like egg and chiken

The rooks can touch every square on the board.  Each bishop can only touch half the squares on the board.  And the Knights are limited in the range they can travel.

The question was why is a rook worth more points. Obviously the "most valuable" piece can be said to be the piece that gives checkmate.

Chess puzzles often have a huge loss or difference in material but still force checkmate.

My question was to try to give beginners an idea of why a rook is worth more points than a bishop or knight.

Another key to the Rook's worth is its ability to control two colors.  Bishops only influence their own color.  Knights can only control one color at a time with much less range than the Rook.

It's because a rook can *always* access 14 more squares, regardless of its position on the board (not taking obstructions into account). The mobility of the bishop and the knight depends upon their position on the board.

Rooks are worth more because of:

1. their ability to support passed pawns

2. to attack pawn chains

3. and to control open files

...in addition to the other reasons mentioned.  There is a lot of support for these ideas in modern Chess theory, as detailed by Nimzowitsch in My System, and in the Chessmaster software titles.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I suggest we not refer to pieces being worth a certain number of "points." These average values are supposed to be expressions of a number (or fractions) of pawns.

Rooks are indee powerful, particularly for the end game. They arew generally far more powerful than knights but a combination of both knights and/or a knight and a pawn can also inflict a lot of damage and control

You can't castle to safety with a Bishop or Knight, though a few have tried OTB in blitz.

The diversity of the wisdom of you contributors is confusing, but thank you for your views which are helpful.

so is my answer (post #8) right?

I think "points" are useful for beginners so they don't needlessly give up a rook for say a knight.

The point I was making is that if say a pawn generally moved diagonally rather than "vertically" all the time then the rook would not be so useful in protecting a pawn. As it is, at the end game stage the rook often helps get a passed pawn to be promoted to a queen as it can control the vertical that on a pawn is on so winning the game.

As I mentioned a rook is very powerful and can be “doubled up”.

Some times until the end game the "scope" of a rook is very limited by other pieces blocking it, and is prone to be attacked by bishop or knight.

In the most basic sense, I think pieces are ranked according to how many squares they control, with a caveat made to flexibility:

Queen (obviously controls the most squares 20-something on average)

Rook (always controls 14 squares)

Bishop (doesn't control as many as the Rook, but waaaaay more on average than the Knight)

Knight (at max controls 8, but it can hop over pieces, so it's good)

King (also controls 8, very flexible movement, but vulnerable to check)

Pawn (only controls 2 squares)

Also, the major pieces can force mate (Queen and Rook) while the minor pieces cannot (Bishop and Knight).