Why are rooks always given more material advantage than bishops or knights?

@Bellendo said in #9:
> Rooks are awesome : Lethal on 7th rank. Deadly behind passed pawn. Raw power doubled. Can restrict kings mobility absolutely.
>
> Knights are short range weapons.
>
> Bishops are limited by colour and also look like a penis in some sets.
>
> Hence the valuations.
Look more like sperm tbh

@KrishnenduMaitra Giving pieces a "value" is just a kinda helpful general concept, to try to understand, how your army is doing.

Especially for beginners, this concept is very helpful, not to unintentionally give away too much material.

The more you progress in playing strength and chess understanding, the more you understand that the activity of your pieces may influence these numbers drastically.

Have fun!

@KrishnenduMaitra said in #1:
> Why are rooks said to be worth 5 points of material, while knights and bishops are worth just 3?

There is no fixed value on the pieces. The value goes up and down depending on diagonals, files, squares that they cover or cant reach etc.

The knights have less value because they can only cover 9 squares at a time (where they are, and where they can jump to).

There are 2 differences between the rooks and the bishops that make the rook more valuable.
The first one is that the rooks move vertically or diagonally. And most of the cases, you need to block pieces that way rather than in diagonal.

But the main strength and reason the rooks have that the bishops dont have is that the rooks are not fixed to a specific color. The rook can cover both light squares and dark squares. The bishops can only cover 1 color although they have more or less the same range of mobility. The rook simply can cover more board for that fact.

@KrishnenduMaitra said in #1:
> Why are rooks said to be worth 5 points of material, while knights and bishops are worth just 3?

A Rook can reach each square of the board while a Bishop can only reach half.

On an empty board, a Rook can go from any square to any other square in one or two moves -- a Knight needs more moves.

On an empty board, a Rook always covers 14 squares; a Bishop no more than 13, and less the nearer it's near the edge (only 7 in a corner); a Knight covers no more than 8 squares, and no more than 2 in a corner.

Two Rooks can support each other while attacking (that is, they can over each other, and still cover each other after moving). Two Bishops cannot (at least, not until a minor promotion), and while two Knights can cover each other, they don't have a move available which keeps them covering each other. And while a Bishop can cover a Knight, and a Knight can cover a Bishop, a Knight and a Bishop cannot both cover each other.

In short, a Rook is far more mobile than any of the minor pieces.

Rooks can cover the most squares without being limited to one colour. They are the best at end-games when the board is a lot more open and much easier to mate with.

@derkleineJo said in #13:
>

@derkleineJo Of course, your point is valid