Why is rook worth more points?

This is a silly way to put it. It is not as if the two pawns are more powerful than the rook, the rook is simply unable to stop one of them promoting. Also, remember two passed pawns only need to reach the sixth rank to make it past a rook.

The points are just a matter of convenience. Relative to time and placement, a pawn could be more valuable than either rook or queen. In the heat of an ongoing game, forget the points.. go for the heart.

I don't know what the talk of 'win' is all about. The whole point is that if the pawns have advanced to the sixth rank or further, the rook can not stop one of the pawns promoting. This does not mean that they 'win' the game automatically. No one said this was the case. Showing an example where a rook can draw an unfortunately placed King does nothing to refute this well known endgame principle.

There is no need for name calling, it's a simple discussion.  His comment may not be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be called an idiot.  Go to some other site if you feel like you must put people down. 

The rooks can be extremely strong if you duble them up on the central files. Even if you fianchatto both bishops, they won't be as strong.

As far as i learned it was because u can checkmate easier with the rook then the others. A lone rook can checkmate but a lone bishop or knight cannot....

force mate with rook and king is easier than even 2 bishops or bishop and knight and king against king, while one bishop itself is impossible even with king's help

Rainbowrising,

Davej123 said that 2 pawns on the 7th rank win "nearly every time". Do you agree with him now (and apologise), or do you want to stand by what you said:

"Idiot. 2 pawns on the 7th rank versus a rook win EVERY time, no matter whose move it is or where the rook is"

Camembert proved who the "idiot" is with his analysis - any chance of an apology for Dave rather than the pathetic attempt to worm your way out of what you said?

To claim the position (King and 2 pawns on the 7th rank versus King and a rook) isn't "2 pawns versus a rook" is quite bizarre. You yourself said it doesn't matter what the position is, it's a win every time for the person with the 2 pawns. You were wrong.

Then you try and claim a win is queening (again, why does Dave get called an "idiot" for not complying with your bizarre definition of a win). And even letting that go, did any of the pawns get to queen? They could have done, I guess, but you would "win" then get checkmated.

Yes I do.

I showed your definition of win on the board above. Black queened and "won", and was checkmated the next move.

Like to see you claim a point for black in a tournament from there.

PLEASE clarify that the board above illustrates a win for black.

Thanks for that, camembert! I had thought RR was right... but the curse of the rook pawn strikes again, I think. Is there a failure position for the connected pawns if neither is a rook pawn?

 win- to be successful in (a game, battle, etc.).

sorry texaspete

I have another position which defies the idea that two pawns on the 7th win every time no matter where the rook is or whose move it is:

And so how does this take away from the fact that Texaspete is right and Rainbow is wrong?

Sorry, that's not really a refutation IMO...  it's just too trivial, you might as well set up a White to mate in 1 (yes, I realize that technically these cases refute the "no matter where or what..." stipulation.)

At the risk of being called an idiot, I would say that the value of a rook lies in his compliment to a king.  Unlike a bishop or a knight, a rook and king can mate a lone king, as you all well know.  That would get my vote as to why the rook is worth more "points."

@jg27Pyth

Dave said that 2 pawns on the 7th rank win nearly every time.

Rainbow Rising disagreed strongly, saying Idiot. 2 pawns on the 7th rank Vs rook win EVERY TIME, no matter whose move it is, or where the rook is (capitalisation his own).

Thanks to Nytik, we now have 2 examples of how Dave was right and RR was wrong. And Nytik's is a better one - as no pawn even promotes so RR is wrong even on his own bizarre terms.

And yet, after being proved wrong, RR insists he is right as people should go in with his bizarre definition of a win (as I demonstrated - the aim of chess in RR's mind is apparently to promote pawns, not to checkmate the opponent's king, Dave should have realised this and he is an "idiot" for not doing so). Next he'll say that by "EVERY TIME" he meant "nearly every time". But Dave will still be an "idiot", I'm sure.

And then he creates threads complaining of other people's arrogance?

Even if queening one of the pawns is a "win" is the pawns aren't connected, then it doesn't matter if you have four pawns on the 7th rank

they can cover every square on an empty chess board