21 ( +1 | -1 ) it dependson the game situation, but like invincible1 said, a knight and 2 pawns is better, u should be able to get at least a draw with that, unless u cant protect ur pawns??? i.e king and pawns far apart?
130 ( +1 | -1 ) It is no use to try to find a general rule about how much is some piece worth during the game. The value of the pieces very much depends on their position on the board. Sometimes can exchanging your king bishop for opponents kings bishop (they operate on fields of different color) can be a lethal mistake and very often masters exchange a bishop or a knight for two of opponents essential pawns to gain advantage.
You also probably know that the value of the pawns rises as they advance but still this rule is by far not applicable on every position. Maybe you have seen the match between Deep Junior and Kasparov where the machine was one pawn ahead and it was already advanced on 6th rank with no hostile pawns around it but still it was useless.
I just played a game where I had three pawns against a knight (and each of us had one rook and three aditional pawns). board #646153 Try to look at the position in the move 30. What do you think is better? I tried to analyze it but my skills are not enough for simply quoting who stands better - there were too many options and black chose the obviously wrong, greedy ones and so I didn't find the answer in the game.
48 ( +1 | -1 ) What if at move 38 moving rook to b8. Two reasons, going for queen side pawns is wastful, because it causes the knight to fight two pawns a rook and king. But more importantly this allows you time to bring in the king.
If 38. ... kc6 then 39. Nxe5! causing king to return
either he moves the rook to a7 or queen side pawn up allowing the king to move f3. making the king an attack piece and challenging your opponent to pick a side to fight.