Мүбәреке айырбасы немесе қозғалыс айырбасы

Chess term for the exchange of a bishop or knight for a rook
the specific exchange of a minor piece for a rook

In chess, the exchange is the difference of a rook for a (i. e. a bishop or knight). Having a rook for a minor piece is generally advantageous, since the rook is usually more valuable. A player who has a rook for a minor piece is said to be up the exchange, and the other player is down the exchange. A player who wins a rook for a minor piece is said to have won the exchange, while the other player has lost the exchange. The opposing captures often happen on consecutive moves, but this is not strictly necessary. Although it is generally detrimental to lose the exchange, one may occasionally find reason to purposely do so; the result is an exchange sacrifice. "The exchange" differs from the more general "exchange" or "an exchange", which refers to the loss and subsequent gain of arbitrary pieces; for example, to "exchange queens" would mean that each side's queen is
The minor exchange is the exchange of a bishop for a knight. This term is rarely used.

The value of the exchange (i. e. the difference between a rook and a minor piece) has been considered for decades. Siegbert Tarrasch put its value as 1½ pawns in the endgame, but not for the opening or the first part of the middlegame. That is widely accepted today, but Jacob Sarratt, Howard Staunton, and José Capablanca felt that the exchange was worth two pawns. Tigran Petrosian thought that one pawn was the right value. Wilhelm Steinitz said that a rook is slightly better than a knight and two pawns but slightly worse than a bishop and two pawns. Cecil Purdy said that the value depends on the total number of pawns on the board. The reason is that when there are many pawns, the rooks will have limited mobility because there will not be open The exchange is barely worth 1½ points when there are 14 or more pawns on the board. Only when there are ten or fewer pawns may the exchange be worth 2 points Purdy gave the value as 1½ points in the opening and increasing to 2 points in the endgame. In the middlegame the value would be closer to 1½ than to 2. Edmar Mednis gave the value as 1½ in the endgame. Max Euwe put the value at 1½ in the middlegame and said that two pawns are more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. Larry Kaufman's computer research puts the value as 1¾ pawns, but only 1¼ pawns if the player with the minor piece has the Hans Berliner puts the difference between a rook and knight as 1.9 pawns and the difference between a rook and a bishop as 1.77 pawns. In practice, one pawn may be sufficient compensation for the loss of the exchange, whereas two pawns almost always is.

An exchange sacrifice occurs when one player gives up a rook for a minor piece. It is often used to destroy the enemy pawn structure (as in several variations of the Sicilian Defence where Black a knight on c3 with a rook), to establish a minor piece on a strong square (often threatening the enemy king), to improve one's own pawn structure (creating, for example, connected passed pawns such as in A Yurgis–Botvinnik, 1931), or to gain time for development. The exchange sacrifice contrasts with other sacrifices in that during the early middle to middle game the board is sufficiently crowded to where the rook is not as effective as an active knight or a good bishop; this is why such exchange sacrifices happen usually from moves 20 to 30, and rarely occur in the later moves. When they do occur in the endgame, it is usually to create and promote a passed pawn. Subsequently, the relative importance of the pieces might be different from the standardized Chess piece relative value system and takes advantage of the fluctuating values of the pieces during the progression of the game. The sacrifice might also be used to increase the influence of one's own minor pieces by eliminating opposition from their counterparts (such as in the Petrosian versus Spassky game below, where even a double exchange sacrifice was successful). A common example of this idea is the elimination an opponent's bishop, with the expectation that in doing so one's own bishop will increase in power from being unopposed on the color squares in which it resides. There is often more dynamic play and positional considerations such as pawn structure or piece placement compared to sacrifices due to a mating attack or a pawn sacrifice to gain the initiative. Sometimes the exchange can be sacrificed purely on long term positional objectives, as frequently demonstrated by former world champion Tigran Petrosian.

In this 2004 game between Ivan Sokolov and World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, White gave up the exchange for a pawn to create two strong connected passed pawns. The game continued:
33. Rxc7 Qxc7
34. Rxf6 Rxf6
35. Qxf6 Rf8
and White won on move 41.

Tigran Petrosian, the World Champion from 1963 to 1969, was well known for his especially creative use of this device. He once responded (only half jokingly), when asked what was his favourite piece, as saying "The rook, because I can sacrifice it for minor pieces!" In the game Reshevsky versus Petrosian at the 1953 Candidates Tournament in Zurich, he sacrificed the exchange on move 25, only for his opponent to sacrifice it in return on move 30. This game is perhaps the most famous and most frequently taught example of the exchange sacrifice. There are no open in this position for the rooks to exploit. Black sacrificed the exchange with
25 Re6
With the rook not on e7, the black knight will be able to get to a strong outpost on d5. From there the knight will be attacking the pawn on c3, and if the white bishop on b2 does not move to d2, it will be of little use. In addition, it will be practically impossible to break Black's defense on the white squares. The next few moves were:
26. a4 Ne7! 27. Bxe6 fxe6
28. Qf1! Nd5
29. Rf3 Bd3
30. Rxd3 cxd3
The game was drawn on move 41.

In a 1994 game between World Champion Garry Kasparov and Alexei Shirov, White sacrificed a pure exchange (rook for a bishop) with the move 17. Rxb7!!. As compensation for the sacrifice, Black became weak on the white squares, which were dominated by White's bishop. The exchange sacrifice also deprived Black of the and his remaining bishop was a During the game, many spectating grandmasters were sceptical whether White's compensation was enough. Black returned the exchange on move 28, making the equal, but White had a strong initiative. Black missed a better 28th move after which White could have forced a draw, but would have had no clear advantage. White won the game on move 38.

The minor exchange is the trade of the opponent's bishop for the player's knight (or, more recently, the stronger for the weaker). Bobby Fischer used the term, but it is rarely used. In most chess positions, a bishop is worth slightly more than a knight because of its longer range of movement. As a chess game progresses, pawns tend to get traded, removing support points from the knight and opening up lines for the bishop. This generally leads to the bishop's advantage increasing over time. In general, bishops have relatively higher value in an and knights have relatively higher value in a
Traditional chess theory espoused by masters such as Wilhelm Steinitz and Siegbert Tarrasch puts more value on the bishop than the knight. In contrast, the hypermodern school favored the knight over the bishop. Modern theory is that it depends on the position, but that there are more positions where the bishop is better than where the knight is better. Occasions when a knight can be worth more than a bishop are frequent, so this exchange is not necessarily made at every opportunity to do so. Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. Today, the view is that a pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but the rook and knight are still superior. A pair of active bishops is frequently adequate compensation for a pawn or even the exchange in a middlegame position. Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight. The modern consensus is that the side with the two bishops need at least a pawn when facing rook and knight, even then the side with the two bishops is underdog. William Steinitz reckoned that often two bishops and two pawns are superior against rook and knight. A rook and bishop usually work better together than a rook and knight in the endgame. José Raúl Capablanca stated that a queen and knight work better together than a queen and bishop in the endgame. More recently, John Watson has stated that from his study of this endgame that an unusually large proportion of queen and knight versus queen and bishop endings are drawn, and that most decisive games are characterized by the winning side having one or more obvious advantages (for example, having a knight against a in a position, or having a bishop in a position with pawns on both sides of the board, particularly if the knight has no natural outpost). Watson states that positions in this endgame in general "are very volatile, and often the winning side is simply the one who starts out being able to win material or launch an attack on the opposing king". Glenn Flear agrees with that assessment for endgames. He could not find an endgame by Capablanca that supported his statement. The statistics for queen and bishop versus queen and knight endgames are about even. Most decisive games were won because of a significant advantage from the middlegame and only a limited number of positions show an inherent superiority for one over the other.