3 pieces vs. queen basically means that every subsequent trade is a loss to the other side. Can't trade pieces one for one because there's no minor pieces left to trade away. In that sense, his every remaining major piece is basically an "undefended" piece because everybody will gladly take a rook with a knight, even though it's defended. Never thought of it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.
@@FlameTaxi what he's saying is that even if you attack my pawn with two rooks, I can still defend it with only one knight. Despite you having more attackers, I am still defending the pawn because if you take the pawn with the rook I can take your rook with my knight and win the exchange.
In other words it means that you need to over trade opponent with 3 pieces by trade of rook for 2 minor pieces or queen for 2 rooks/4 m.p. to get advantage on the board and position, which is very very hard to do due to numerical superiority
What's interesting is that in an endgame with 4 minor pieces vs a queen, the side with the minor pieces can actually force checkmate, even with a whole queen there is no way to defend.
Great video. Not only saying it, but actually showing why. The board coverage was also great. Never actually seen the board like that. It makes sense why positioning and piece coordination give such an advantage. Maybe a Queen against 3 discoordinated pieces will be better.
on an open board it's very hard to maintain piece coordination, but in a middle game with pawns, it's very very hard for the queen to really use it's maneuverability
Added to that king safety is also equally important I feel, if our king is weak/exposed, this kind of a trade would obviously be catastrophic! The enemy queen can keep checking and at the right moment grab undefended pawns or pieces with some help from the enemy rooks. In the game, white's king was completely safe, so it worked out well.
Thought I'm just a 1200 a do wanna mention for all the beginners* out there that in a Queen vs 3 pieces situation out on open board with an exposed king, it's usually better for the player with the Queen because of possible check for the Q that could pick up isolated pawns and pieces.
If you have a material advantage you are supposed to consolidate and keep control of the game. If your king is exposed and you have all kinds of loose and uncoordinated pieces, that gives compensation for a material disadvantage, sure. But such a situation would give your opponent a positional advantage regardless of the material match-up. If your opponent also has an open king and loose pawns left and right your three pieces should have just as many opportunities for forks and tactics as the queen. You might as well say that a rook is better than three minor pieces if the guy with three minor pieces hangs backrank mate.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. You're right it can be tricky against a queen for weaker players but as long as they keep the pieces protected, it will be hard for the queen to do anything. But it's a good point to be aware of, thanks!
Remember this, in an endgame, Queens are monsters and you have to play cautiously because if those knights are far away, you best know you ain't seeing them again if you are a beginner or even intermediate player, but in middlegames they are usually better if your king is safe and they will harass the queen, you can draw three minor pieces vs queen, but remember this, they have to protect each other and the king so you have to know your endgame,
Yeah, I think if there are enough pawns/other pieces to shield/defend the minor pieces, the minor pieces can easily work together, but in the endgame, the queen usually can fork some minor pieces, so the queen is definitely better in most endgames. Depends on the situation. Though, from what I see, 3 pieces for a queen is quite an uncommon trade to occur, and usually only occurs after one side sacrifices one or two minor pieces, and the other has to give back their queen to defend.
two bishops in the centre of the board in an endgame scenario can easily outperform a queen, having a knight in addition tips the odds against the side with the queen. The queen's ability to fork isn't really a problem if you just..don't move your king or pieces to positions where they can get forked ie. you aren't a noob
Open games in general queen will overpower. If your pieces wander off on the edge, they are gone. If your king is open, your pieces are gone. If yur pawn structure is bad (Isolated or backwards pawns), they are gone. So many threats and with perfect play on both side, best the side with the minor pieces can get is a draw. If it’s a middle game though, 3 pieces will absolutely dominate. Best the side with the queen can do is try to open the position with pawn breaks, otherwise all you have to do is centralize your pieces and, like we saw here, you control almost the entire board with constant fork and pin threats.
@@potatoboy549 'with perfect play on both side, best the side with the minor pieces can get is a draw' - you're talking shit, this is not based on any analysis at all
If you sacrifice the king it will give you a huge advantage because you can no longer be mated. I find that most people forget about that and try to keep their king on the board.
I remember that one game where Vishy gave 3 pieces for the queen and was able to win, I didn't realise how non-standard and innovative that idea was until I saw this video.
@@ratioripbozo They wrote it as well as they could without having to waste time to place those special characters, and honestly english is way better, and the reason is the EXACT SAME ONE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You don't have to be bothering to put multiple of these special characters, which is way easier and comfortable for people using keyboards. Also no, I'm not saying this cuz it's the language I was born with or smth like that, my native language is actually spanish and it does use a lot of these special characters, which I HATE.
@@ratioripbozo "Salty" I was just defending Rutvij Tole, since they did nothing wrong and you were the one being actually a bit ew ngl. Come back when u have an actual argument Ig? Lets just end it here, before anyone of us starts getting toxic, and you come up with your little insults, bye.
No they don't actively think about that, at least most of them. Strong players just know how they move fast enough and that isn't really even an issue. Seeing them lit up is just too slow.
@@moatef1886 agreed. Cuz many moves are a-priori useless and shouldn’t really be considered aka wasted energy. Rather think about the most likely moves, but deep enough to win the fight
@@moatef1886 they don't literally light up in your head. But stronger players will always have a very clear idea of what squares are controlled and defended and which ones are weak without having to count the pieces and check which squares they attack with which piece.
4:06 was a brilliant move, both attacking black's queen and protecting the king. But after that, at 5:18, I guess you couldn't see the Ne7 where you fork the rooks. Or maybe pushing your pawn seemed a bit more advantageous, I don't know. But if you think Ne7 was unnecessary, why?
Id be SUPER interested if you continued this match from the point which you traded your queen off vs a GM. I would like to see what a GM would do vs a strong player such as yourself in this situation.
Awesomely enough if anyones curious, Magnus just played a game where this situation came up!! Heres the vid via Agadmator: ua-cam.com/video/T5I_fB-wNPA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=agadmator%27sChessChannel
GM would have easily won. After the trade, both white and black look about the same. Sure it's 3 pieces vs a queen but black has an extra pawn too. The problem is that black directly blundered with that b5-b4 move.
this is his response btw : 'It does look pretty good. It would be a little tricky after Ra8, Nxf5, Ra1+, Kd2, but I think you're right, still probably good for me. I missed it completely in the game though in time pressure!'
Just had this odd game right after seeing this, where I had two bishops and six pawns against a rook, a queen and three pawns. Mine were connected in two lumps of three but all his were isolated. A bit odd, but I won. He couldn't take anything without losing a rook or a queen vs a pawn, a bishop or one of each.
I mean if we count the materials he was basically up a rook so he shouldnt have lost that even against a solid structure of pawns, he couldve tried to make mate threats with this heavy pieces and that way he could force you to either sacrifice a piece, distract a piece to break your pawn chain and start gobbling up the pawns, or just zugswang you and start pushing his pawns to either make a new queen or break the pawn chains. Still good job to you for defending that position.
@@lightman9935 I guess that towards the endgame, passed pawns increase a lot in value if your opponent has nothing to sac to them. Anyhow I just wanted to share it because it was a fun coincidence.
Three pieces can coordinate with each other. A single queen attacking three pieces can't do anything if multiple pieces are both defending each other and attacking at the same time. It'd just be more efficient to have multiple pieces doing many things instead of just having a single piece running around trying not to get caught while attacking.
5:16 You missed a rook fork with the knight. u couldve moved ur knight to E7 which wins 2 material. thats why the eval bar dropped a few points and the pawn move was probably marked as a missed win.
If following the logic of nominal piece values, then bishops have been shown to be worth slightly more than 3 points (around 3.15 to 3.5 or so). And since 3 minor pieces will necessarily involve at least one bishop, together they will add up to slightly more than 9.
Then if 2 knights and 1 bishop against a queen or 2 rooks it'd be 9.8 against 9 or in the other category 10, but if it's 2 bishops&1 knight it'd be slightly above 2 rooks as well because it'd be 10.15 against pure 10
Really enjoyed this video, easier to follow as slightly less intensely paced than some of your others, and illustrated by a real-world game example that demonstrated the concept very well. Thank you.
It does look pretty good. It would be a little tricky after Ra8, Nxf5, Ra1+, Kd2, but I think you're right, still probably good for me. I missed it completely in the game though in time pressure!
@@ChessVibesOfficial knight on f5 still protects your bishop so he cannot checkmate by taking the bishop with his queen after Kd2, though he could fork your knight and you bishop with qf3 but that would be a good trade for you a minor peace for a rook
I think the key things that got you a win instead of a draw was the material count before making the trade. If there are less pawns playing for a win gets a lot harder as there often are scenarios where your opponent can just sack the queen in a way that leaves you with two knights and any type of forward and aggressive piece moves get a lot more dangerous on a open board so you might almost be forced to set up a fortress to not risk loosing.
3 minor pieces are better than a queen as long as you know how to properly coordinate them. It would be easier for a weaker player to maneuver with only a queen.
I'd like to add that if you find yourself in the position where you have the queen against 3 pieces, the best way to play it is to try to open up the position as much as possible. There are no absolutes in chess, but most of the time you will be looking for a draw rather than a win, so always check if you can make a perpetual check which is often possible if your opponent is not carefull. Sometimes you can even sacrifice a rook or even two to get a perpetual.
This is definitely true for more experienced players. Beginner/intermediate players might have trouble coordinating the pieces to get the most out of them.
@@toowiggly yea but if you are at the level where you frequently blunder a queen, there’s no way you’re gonna be able to coordinate 2 knights and a bishop to win the game.
@@animaniacs538 That's assuming the only pieces you have are those pieces. Usually you have a rook or something to help with the checkmates. Even if you just have two knights and a bishop and the other side has nothing, you don't have much opportunity to blunder them or a queen, so what I said isn't applicable to that.
a very nice example , actually showing how the 3 pieces covering the whole board and how all of them are targeting that queen while the queen cant target anyone of them cuz its a very important piece , *Thanks :D*
Stellar video! Very very informative. My only editing complaint is that the intro and outro music was quite loud compared to the rest of the video. Otherwise, extremely well done!
Min 6:27. Best move for the black queen was to move to d6, when the knight captures on d8 the queen captures the rook on e5. After that; the white knight on d8 will definitely move to c6 forking the queen and rook again but the queen easily moves to f5 checking the king and rescuing the rook after that.
Great video from you Chess Vibes, your videos are very informational and help me with my chess. Was introduced to you through the Chess Rating Climb video series, and have been watching ever since. Thank you.
I remember in my first year of OTB chess, i was 1500 or so and had to play someone 2000+. I was doing quite well in the opening an early middlegame, I felt like there had to be something in the position, but i couldn't manage and eventually a lot of trades happenened and i got crushed in the endgame. Computer analysis later turned out that there was indeed something, I could give the queen for 3 pieces and have a significant advantage. Me and my opponent both didn't even consider it.
One thing someone notices at the sub 1200 level is that people that play the Italian always go for the bishop+knight battery at the f7 pawn, after black has successfuly castled, they still go for the exchange of bishop+knight for rook+pawn, which is catastrophic for white because 2 minor pieces are almsot always better than a rook with a pawn, in the endgame the pawn becomes a liability and the rook has to watch over it, while the minor pieces attack both of them.
Man this video came into my reccomended right on time! In one of my daily games there is currently a possible line where I can get 3 pieces for a queen, all I have to do is wait for my opponent's move and see if it's possible.
looks like the strongest move to me, can't see any reason not to play it. Must have just been the time pressure. I believe black's next move moving the rook back to f8 was b/c he saw white could play Ne7 and fork the two rooks (disclaimer: am 'only' 1700)
i learned so much!!! just one question i'm 1200 in chess and not really understanding too much but why on minute 5:17 you did not fork the rooks? with Ne7? just asking the explanation, i want to learn more, thanks. P.S sorry for bad english
fantastic example, line that really sold it for me was how if you keep attacking the queen, she has to keep moving cuz thats the whole gameplan, while you can lose pieces of your "gameplan" and still be in a good spot w trades
I wold have liked to hear some general rules how the sides should play. Who wants to trade pawns in this situation? Who wants to trade pieces? Who wants to open up the position, who wants to close it? Stuff like that would be quite helpful
The dude with the small pieces wants the endgame. Its a bit hard to play, but in the endgame its winning for the 3 pieces bc your pawns can promote since you got more control of squares. Dude with the queen wants to infiltrate and pick off weak pieces or pawns.
I won a game once where my opponent had a queen and I had three minor pieces and a rook. Rook stated with king for safety. While minor pieces harassed queen relentlessly. I had pawns to support em too and eventually I captured it
2:25 pawn to b4 even I knew it was a mistake , as engine confirmed, because the knight was already about to go and attack the queen, why force him to do it and get your pawn forked with the queen in the process? How can I see this and him not and I am 1400 rated o.o
I think in an endgame 2 knights and a bishop might not be as good as a queen because it is very hard to checkmate with those pieces especially if they have their queen on the board. Also 5:17 why did you not go Ne7 forking the rooks
The most entertaining kind of position for me. I love having multiple little pieces against one big piece (such as bishop and knight vs rook) and slowly strangling my opponent.
Great video, never noticed that. Anyway when you showed the coverage of the board (which is very interesting point), after he continued with queen one square, you could have easily fork his rooks with knight.... Why didnt you do that? Is that something hidden or you just havent noticed that?
I know this video is a year old but I had a similar situation where I got 2 pieces and a rook against a queen and they just couldn’t get any counterplay. This helped me understand that piece coordination is key. Can you make a video about 2 rooks vs queen?
Positioning is also very important when it comes to whether or not you would value the three pieces over your pawn. If you can take 3 developed pieces in a similar exchange that would be huge
The thing about assigning values to the pieces is that it's a general guild not a thing set in stone or written into the laws of the universe. In some situations the knight is more valuable than the bishop, in others the bishop is more valuable. Depending on the situation, a pawn can be more valuable than a queen. The only piece whose value is set and never changes is the king. But a brilliant display, drove the point home there without question.
Excellent video! But even after watching this video I think I would weigh the Queen equal to 3 pieces (especially 2 knights and a bishop..maybe two bishops and a knight are stronger). I feel in your case having the 2 rooks developed (and many pawns) played a key role in restricting the queen's mobility. Say for eg starting from 3:38 , imagine there were no rooks on the board...i think it would be an equal game.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Stuck at 1000 elo? Not anymore: chessvibescourses.thinkific.com/
“Stuck at 1000 elo?”
Stockfish:
how do you only have like 1 comment
Stuck at 1 elo? Get good!
stuck at 150💩
😂
"The good thing about losing a queen is that you dont have a queen to blunder anymore"
what if you blundered every other piece
@@havitar3950 then you need to blunder 3 times, not one. Its much better
Works irl
-Said Eric just before blundering a bishop
You can always promote a pawn to a queen and blunder it anyway 😆😆
3 pieces vs. queen basically means that every subsequent trade is a loss to the other side. Can't trade pieces one for one because there's no minor pieces left to trade away. In that sense, his every remaining major piece is basically an "undefended" piece because everybody will gladly take a rook with a knight, even though it's defended. Never thought of it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.
I don't get what you are saying. Non native speaker here.
@@FlameTaxi what he's saying is that even if you attack my pawn with two rooks, I can still defend it with only one knight. Despite you having more attackers, I am still defending the pawn because if you take the pawn with the rook I can take your rook with my knight and win the exchange.
@@FlameTaxi Relax and drink Orange Juice, you might get it
In other words it means that you need to over trade opponent with 3 pieces by trade of rook for 2 minor pieces or queen for 2 rooks/4 m.p. to get advantage on the board and position, which is very very hard to do due to numerical superiority
What's interesting is that in an endgame with 4 minor pieces vs a queen, the side with the minor pieces can actually force checkmate, even with a whole queen there is no way to defend.
Great video. Not only saying it, but actually showing why.
The board coverage was also great. Never actually seen the board like that. It makes sense why positioning and piece coordination give such an advantage.
Maybe a Queen against 3 discoordinated pieces will be better.
In the hands of a master the coordination of the three pieces, to get maximum effect, is more likely!
on an open board it's very hard to maintain piece coordination, but in a middle game with pawns, it's very very hard for the queen to really use it's maneuverability
it's really depend on how big brain you are. I saw some Alpha Zero map which one pawn literally lock the whole left side of the board of the enemy
He even has those 3 pawns in the bottom left covered, which he didn't show! Seriously good coverage!
Added to that king safety is also equally important I feel, if our king is weak/exposed, this kind of a trade would obviously be catastrophic! The enemy queen can keep checking and at the right moment grab undefended pawns or pieces with some help from the enemy rooks.
In the game, white's king was completely safe, so it worked out well.
The graphic with the squares lit up, really drives the point home. Great video 👍
Thought I'm just a 1200 a do wanna mention for all the beginners* out there that in a Queen vs 3 pieces situation out on open board with an exposed king, it's usually better for the player with the Queen because of possible check for the Q that could pick up isolated pawns and pieces.
If you have a material advantage you are supposed to consolidate and keep control of the game. If your king is exposed and you have all kinds of loose and uncoordinated pieces, that gives compensation for a material disadvantage, sure. But such a situation would give your opponent a positional advantage regardless of the material match-up. If your opponent also has an open king and loose pawns left and right your three pieces should have just as many opportunities for forks and tactics as the queen. You might as well say that a rook is better than three minor pieces if the guy with three minor pieces hangs backrank mate.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. You're right it can be tricky against a queen for weaker players but as long as they keep the pieces protected, it will be hard for the queen to do anything. But it's a good point to be aware of, thanks!
i agree the queen can always fork the king and isolated pieces
but in closed positions the queen is not too active
Yes, if they are beginner for sure because they don’t know how to defend or attack properly
@@ChessVibesOfficial Yeah, but if there are very little pawns left, then the task of defending your pieces gets even harder.
Remember this, in an endgame, Queens are monsters and you have to play cautiously because if those knights are far away, you best know you ain't seeing them again if you are a beginner or even intermediate player, but in middlegames they are usually better if your king is safe and they will harass the queen, you can draw three minor pieces vs queen, but remember this, they have to protect each other and the king so you have to know your endgame,
Queen in endgame absolutely overpower LoL
Yeah, I think if there are enough pawns/other pieces to shield/defend the minor pieces, the minor pieces can easily work together, but in the endgame, the queen usually can fork some minor pieces, so the queen is definitely better in most endgames. Depends on the situation. Though, from what I see, 3 pieces for a queen is quite an uncommon trade to occur, and usually only occurs after one side sacrifices one or two minor pieces, and the other has to give back their queen to defend.
two bishops in the centre of the board in an endgame scenario can easily outperform a queen, having a knight in addition tips the odds against the side with the queen. The queen's ability to fork isn't really a problem if you just..don't move your king or pieces to positions where they can get forked ie. you aren't a noob
Open games in general queen will overpower. If your pieces wander off on the edge, they are gone. If your king is open, your pieces are gone. If yur pawn structure is bad (Isolated or backwards pawns), they are gone. So many threats and with perfect play on both side, best the side with the minor pieces can get is a draw.
If it’s a middle game though, 3 pieces will absolutely dominate. Best the side with the queen can do is try to open the position with pawn breaks, otherwise all you have to do is centralize your pieces and, like we saw here, you control almost the entire board with constant fork and pin threats.
@@potatoboy549 'with perfect play on both side, best the side with the minor pieces can get is a draw' - you're talking shit, this is not based on any analysis at all
*Note that you can always sacrifice a King with 2 Minor Pieces to help your position to be better.*
If you sacrifice the king it will give you a huge advantage because you can no longer be mated. I find that most people forget about that and try to keep their king on the board.
@@Makron5 *Anything for Family.*
This 💀
LMAO
I remember that one game where Vishy gave 3 pieces for the queen and was able to win, I didn't realise how non-standard and innovative that idea was until I saw this video.
Yes, that was world rapid championship match against peter leko!!
@@rutvijtole9264 It's Lékó Péter! English alphabet 🤮
@@ratioripbozo They wrote it as well as they could without having to waste time to place those special characters, and honestly english is way better, and the reason is the EXACT SAME ONE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You don't have to be bothering to put multiple of these special characters, which is way easier and comfortable for people using keyboards.
Also no, I'm not saying this cuz it's the language I was born with or smth like that, my native language is actually spanish and it does use a lot of these special characters, which I HATE.
@@julimos7301 Boohoo. Salty has arrived
@@ratioripbozo "Salty" I was just defending Rutvij Tole, since they did nothing wrong and you were the one being actually a bit ew ngl.
Come back when u have an actual argument Ig? Lets just end it here, before anyone of us starts getting toxic, and you come up with your little insults, bye.
I wish my brain just did that square light up thing, maybe that’s how GM’s see the board.
No they don't actively think about that, at least most of them. Strong players just know how they move fast enough and that isn't really even an issue. Seeing them lit up is just too slow.
@@moatef1886 agreed. Cuz many moves are a-priori useless and shouldn’t really be considered aka wasted energy. Rather think about the most likely moves, but deep enough to win the fight
I think their subconsciousness does the job here
@@moatef1886 they don't literally light up in your head. But stronger players will always have a very clear idea of what squares are controlled and defended and which ones are weak without having to count the pieces and check which squares they attack with which piece.
How do people not understand it’s just a joke
4:06 was a brilliant move, both attacking black's queen and protecting the king. But after that, at 5:18, I guess you couldn't see the Ne7 where you fork the rooks. Or maybe pushing your pawn seemed a bit more advantageous, I don't know. But if you think Ne7 was unnecessary, why?
Got reminded of this video while seeing recent Carlsen-Giri match. Former sacrificed queen for 3 pieces in move 8 and won.
Id be SUPER interested if you continued this match from the point which you traded your queen off vs a GM. I would like to see what a GM would do vs a strong player such as yourself in this situation.
Awesomely enough if anyones curious, Magnus just played a game where this situation came up!! Heres the vid via Agadmator: ua-cam.com/video/T5I_fB-wNPA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=agadmator%27sChessChannel
You can try this against engine from that point on
GM would have easily won. After the trade, both white and black look about the same. Sure it's 3 pieces vs a queen but black has an extra pawn too. The problem is that black directly blundered with that b5-b4 move.
5:17
The Knight e7 fork is avaliable, and yet so white plays another move
@@_AlQuran1 diffrent knight
computer likes it but maybe nelson missed it or thought there was some threat
this is his response btw : 'It does look pretty good. It would be a little tricky after Ra8, Nxf5, Ra1+, Kd2, but I think you're right, still probably good for me. I missed it completely in the game though in time pressure!'
@@_AlQuran1 ahh you are one more person to give false information
Just had this odd game right after seeing this, where I had two bishops and six pawns against a rook, a queen and three pawns. Mine were connected in two lumps of three but all his were isolated. A bit odd, but I won. He couldn't take anything without losing a rook or a queen vs a pawn, a bishop or one of each.
I mean if we count the materials he was basically up a rook so he shouldnt have lost that even against a solid structure of pawns, he couldve tried to make mate threats with this heavy pieces and that way he could force you to either sacrifice a piece, distract a piece to break your pawn chain and start gobbling up the pawns, or just zugswang you and start pushing his pawns to either make a new queen or break the pawn chains. Still good job to you for defending that position.
Kind of irrelevant if you can't mention your elo
@@lightman9935 according to the engine analysis i was at one point ahead more than 8 pawns.
@@lightman9935 I guess that towards the endgame, passed pawns increase a lot in value if your opponent has nothing to sac to them. Anyhow I just wanted to share it because it was a fun coincidence.
@@igorz4582 No, it's not irrelevant. wtf does his elo have to do with anything. Stop gatekeeping.
Three pieces can coordinate with each other. A single queen attacking three pieces can't do anything if multiple pieces are both defending each other and attacking at the same time. It'd just be more efficient to have multiple pieces doing many things instead of just having a single piece running around trying not to get caught while attacking.
5:16 You missed a rook fork with the knight. u couldve moved ur knight to E7 which wins 2 material. thats why the eval bar dropped a few points and the pawn move was probably marked as a missed win.
the visualization you did at 4:15 was super interesting!!
5:17
You already had a fork opportunity here.
Thanks for sharing.
If following the logic of nominal piece values, then bishops have been shown to be worth slightly more than 3 points (around 3.15 to 3.5 or so). And since 3 minor pieces will necessarily involve at least one bishop, together they will add up to slightly more than 9.
Then if 2 knights and 1 bishop against a queen or 2 rooks it'd be 9.8 against 9 or in the other category 10, but if it's 2 bishops&1 knight it'd be slightly above 2 rooks as well because it'd be 10.15 against pure 10
Really enjoyed this video, easier to follow as slightly less intensely paced than some of your others, and illustrated by a real-world game example that demonstrated the concept very well. Thank you.
Hi I’m new to chess, thanks for the amazing videos! Is Ne7 at 5:13 not a good fork?
Looks pretty good to me! He could have done it at 5:17 as well but I think he was running low on time and didn't quite see it.
It does look pretty good. It would be a little tricky after Ra8, Nxf5, Ra1+, Kd2, but I think you're right, still probably good for me. I missed it completely in the game though in time pressure!
@@ChessVibesOfficial knight on f5 still protects your bishop so he cannot checkmate by taking the bishop with his queen after Kd2, though he could fork your knight and you bishop with qf3 but that would be a good trade for you a minor peace for a rook
I think the key things that got you a win instead of a draw was the material count before making the trade. If there are less pawns playing for a win gets a lot harder as there often are scenarios where your opponent can just sack the queen in a way that leaves you with two knights and any type of forward and aggressive piece moves get a lot more dangerous on a open board so you might almost be forced to set up a fortress to not risk loosing.
3 minor pieces are better than a queen as long as you know how to properly coordinate them. It would be easier for a weaker player to maneuver with only a queen.
A weaker player's goal is to get better, though. If you'd rather have a queen, you'll never get better in this scenario.
@@DudeWatIsThis Every player's goal is to get better. If a weaker player is looking to win then they may want to have a queen instead.
@@nerpe9946 not true to be fair. Most player's goal is just to relax and have fun
@@olegtrophymenko7037 Yeah I do agree but the same applies to weaker players. I just didn't feel the comment I replied too was all that correct!
I'd like to add that if you find yourself in the position where you have the queen against 3 pieces, the best way to play it is to try to open up the position as much as possible. There are no absolutes in chess, but most of the time you will be looking for a draw rather than a win, so always check if you can make a perpetual check which is often possible if your opponent is not carefull. Sometimes you can even sacrifice a rook or even two to get a perpetual.
Opening up the position also makes the opponent's king more vulnerable, which makes it easier to win a piece back or create counterplay.
This is definitely true for more experienced players. Beginner/intermediate players might have trouble coordinating the pieces to get the most out of them.
But newer players have a higher chance to blunder a queen
@@toowiggly yea but if you are at the level where you frequently blunder a queen, there’s no way you’re gonna be able to coordinate 2 knights and a bishop to win the game.
@@animaniacs538 That's assuming the only pieces you have are those pieces. Usually you have a rook or something to help with the checkmates. Even if you just have two knights and a bishop and the other side has nothing, you don't have much opportunity to blunder them or a queen, so what I said isn't applicable to that.
This is one of the best explanations of the advantages three minor pieces can have over a queen I've seen.
Really solid work.
5:16 knight E7 would’ve been a beautiful fork
Thats really good example, I'm a begginer and I was wondering about this. Thank you!
Awesome vid. Explained concept in a short and easy to remember way. Showed exactly why it’s useful
I was wondering if the Ne7 fork does works at 5:16... could someone tell me ? (After ... Qf3)
a very nice example , actually showing how the 3 pieces covering the whole board and how all of them are targeting that queen while the queen cant target anyone of them cuz its a very important piece , *Thanks :D*
Stellar video! Very very informative. My only editing complaint is that the intro and outro music was quite loud compared to the rest of the video. Otherwise, extremely well done!
At 5:17 isn't Ne7 a viable fork too?
Min 6:27. Best move for the black queen was to move to d6, when the knight captures on d8 the queen captures the rook on e5. After that; the white knight on d8 will definitely move to c6 forking the queen and rook again but the queen easily moves to f5 checking the king and rescuing the rook after that.
Great video from you Chess Vibes, your videos are very informational and help me with my chess. Was introduced to you through the Chess Rating Climb video series, and have been watching ever since. Thank you.
Thanks a lot, glad you're learning!
I remember in my first year of OTB chess, i was 1500 or so and had to play someone 2000+.
I was doing quite well in the opening an early middlegame, I felt like there had to be something in the position, but i couldn't manage and eventually a lot of trades happenened and i got crushed in the endgame.
Computer analysis later turned out that there was indeed something, I could give the queen for 3 pieces and have a significant advantage.
Me and my opponent both didn't even consider it.
At 5:15 after the Queen move, do you miss a fork on the rooks or there something else I’ve not seen there?
Did you have a fork with Ne7 at 5:18? Or am I missing something?
5:18 White missed a knight fork here. (Ne7) This shows that with more pieces, you have more tactical possibilities as well.
One thing someone notices at the sub 1200 level is that people that play the Italian always go for the bishop+knight battery at the f7 pawn, after black has successfuly castled, they still go for the exchange of bishop+knight for rook+pawn, which is catastrophic for white because 2 minor pieces are almsot always better than a rook with a pawn, in the endgame the pawn becomes a liability and the rook has to watch over it, while the minor pieces attack both of them.
At 5:17, is E7 not a better move in stead of B4?
5:17 ...did he miss the rook fork by the knight?
Yeah you are right that was missed! Although its a little tricky after Ra8 with Ra1+ ideas but still looks better for white
Man this video came into my reccomended right on time! In one of my daily games there is currently a possible line where I can get 3 pieces for a queen, all I have to do is wait for my opponent's move and see if it's possible.
Legendary name and profile pic
am i missing something? at minute 5:17 in the video...instead of moving the pawn to B4, wouldnt KD-E7 be better? you attack both of his rooks
If it was three knights, then I'd favor the Queen.
5:18 ne7 forking the rooks ?
quick question, i’m only at 850, but is at 5:15 Ne7 a good move? I thought of taking the rooks. It surprised me that it wasn’t used. :)
looks like the strongest move to me, can't see any reason not to play it. Must have just been the time pressure. I believe black's next move moving the rook back to f8 was b/c he saw white could play Ne7 and fork the two rooks (disclaimer: am 'only' 1700)
Wasn't at 5:17 Knight to e7 a good move, forking both towers?
5:17 there is knight e7 fork why he didnt take it? my elo is only 1100 on lichess so please explain me
Great demonstration of this kind of situation and how to deal with it, thanks.
i learned so much!!! just one question i'm 1200 in chess and not really understanding too much but why on minute 5:17 you did not fork the rooks? with Ne7? just asking the explanation, i want to learn more, thanks. P.S sorry for bad english
Yeah, in the one comment, he said, he missed it
at 5:17 why did you not go for knight e7 to fork both rooks and connect your own rooks?
Very nice to see the concept demonstrated with a concrete example rather than someone just speaking in conceptual terms. Thanks Nelson.
Glad it was helpful!
Why at 5:17 he didn't forked his rook by moving the knight to e6?
at 5:16 why did you not play Ne7 forking the rooks?
5:17 "oh he missed the fork maybe black is winning if he traded it"
5:37 "oh..."
Your videos are so helpful. Thanks for sharing all the tips and tricks!
fantastic example, line that really sold it for me was how if you keep attacking the queen, she has to keep moving cuz thats the whole gameplan, while you can lose pieces of your "gameplan" and still be in a good spot w trades
4:30 knight to e7 is pretty poggy right?
I wold have liked to hear some general rules how the sides should play. Who wants to trade pawns in this situation? Who wants to trade pieces? Who wants to open up the position, who wants to close it? Stuff like that would be quite helpful
The dude with the small pieces wants the endgame. Its a bit hard to play, but in the endgame its winning for the 3 pieces bc your pawns can promote since you got more control of squares. Dude with the queen wants to infiltrate and pick off weak pieces or pawns.
You did a really nice job - thanks - much appreciated!
At 5:17, would Ne7 not be a good move?
5:18 shouldnt knight e7 be played?
One of the best chess vids so far on yt!
you played a great end game. Rarely someone under 1900 would have won that game. Your position was already good for the trade, and amazing end game.
I won a game once where my opponent had a queen and I had three minor pieces and a rook. Rook stated with king for safety. While minor pieces harassed queen relentlessly. I had pawns to support em too and eventually I captured it
You are absolutely one of the best chess teachers ever!!!!!
2:25 pawn to b4 even I knew it was a mistake , as engine confirmed, because the knight was already about to go and attack the queen, why force him to do it and get your pawn forked with the queen in the process? How can I see this and him not and I am 1400 rated o.o
Good video with explanations. Thank you
At 5:17 wasnt knight to e7 a fork?
At 3:12 how about Kh8 Nb6 Rd8 Na4
I think in an endgame 2 knights and a bishop might not be as good as a queen because it is very hard to checkmate with those pieces especially if they have their queen on the board. Also 5:17 why did you not go Ne7 forking the rooks
i thought the same thing, he must have not seen it
05:15 why not Ne7 for the fork?
5:17 , why not fork the 2 rooks with the knight?
The most entertaining kind of position for me. I love having multiple little pieces against one big piece (such as bishop and knight vs rook) and slowly strangling my opponent.
At 5:17 why didn’t you play Nd5 to e7 forking both his rooks? 🤔
Great video, never noticed that. Anyway when you showed the coverage of the board (which is very interesting point), after he continued with queen one square, you could have easily fork his rooks with knight.... Why didnt you do that? Is that something hidden or you just havent noticed that?
Wow.. great video and explanation. Thanks
I know this video is a year old but I had a similar situation where I got 2 pieces and a rook against a queen and they just couldn’t get any counterplay. This helped me understand that piece coordination is key. Can you make a video about 2 rooks vs queen?
Could you fork the rooks by Ne7 at 2:18?
Great example
Thanks, Bob!
I love watching the 3 pieces for a Queen trade videos. Wish there were more of them
The tricky part is actually finding when you can make this trade.
Positioning is also very important when it comes to whether or not you would value the three pieces over your pawn. If you can take 3 developed pieces in a similar exchange that would be huge
The thing about assigning values to the pieces is that it's a general guild not a thing set in stone or written into the laws of the universe. In some situations the knight is more valuable than the bishop, in others the bishop is more valuable. Depending on the situation, a pawn can be more valuable than a queen. The only piece whose value is set and never changes is the king.
But a brilliant display, drove the point home there without question.
5:15 why didn't he play Knight to E7 to fork those rooks?
Is Ne7 a fork at 5:16?
When it comes to the 3 pieces, is the dark squared bishop always best option, or can I go light squared bishop and two knights'?
Interesting that the computer flipped the score from -0.25 to 2.30 in 2:22 as soon as the black pushes b4.
5:17 why not Ne7?
5:15 you missed Ne7 :D
thanks for the video
5:17 Ne7?
5:16 why no knight e7?
5:18
Why not he went for Ne7?
Excellent video! But even after watching this video I think I would weigh the Queen equal to 3 pieces (especially 2 knights and a bishop..maybe two bishops and a knight are stronger). I feel in your case having the 2 rooks developed (and many pawns) played a key role in restricting the queen's mobility. Say for eg starting from 3:38 , imagine there were no rooks on the board...i think it would be an equal game.
5:18 ne7?
You had a chance to fork the rooks by your knight. Is there a combo by black after the fork that I am missing?
5:20, d5 to e7 fork the rooks?
Did he just don’t see knight e7 fork at 5:14 where his opponent would be forced to capture a knight on c2 and it would be just way easier to win?