Promoting a Pawn to Knight for Checkmate

Does any one have any games were you promoted your pawn to a knight for check mate?

Please post the game.

Underpromotion is very common in endgame studies: see Troitsky, Kasparian, Kubbel, Mattison, etc.

I think I saw this one game where he promoted a pawn to a knight and forked the king and queen. That was cool.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Underpromotion is very common in endgame studies: see Troitsky, Kasparian, Kubbel, Mattison, etc.

Logically Speaking - the only peices you should promote to is a Knight, Or a Queen (will do the job of a Rook or bishop combined).....

*except in exceptionally rare circumstance, where promoting to a Queen = stalemate

In Real Games, Promoting To a knight isn't common - its only worthwile if it leaves a powerful Pin, or a check

Originally posted by Shinidoki
Logically Speaking - the only peices you should promote to is a Knight, Or a Queen (will do the job of a Rook or bishop combined).....

*except in exceptionally rare circumstance, where promoting to a Queen = stalemate

In Real Games, Promoting To a knight isn't common - its only worthwile if it leaves a powerful Pin, or a check

Please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position

Originally posted by Shinidoki
Logically Speaking - the only peices you should promote to is a Knight, Or a Queen (will do the job of a Rook or bishop combined).....

Although, sometimes promoting to a queen is unnecessary, as her additional power (over say, a rook) isn't required.

Game 1502169

As I said; -

"*except in exceptionally rare circumstance, where promoting to a Queen = stalemate"

Originally posted by Shinidoki
As I said; -

"*except in exceptionally rare circumstance, where promoting to a Queen = stalemate"

I think perhaps you missed the point of my post. In my game there was no "logical" reason to prefer the queen or rook. Both led to checkmate in exactly the same fashion. There was no threat of stalemate if the queen was chosen. But since the queen's additional power was unnecessary I chose the rook for purely aesthetic reasons. I thought it was kind of cool to have three rooks at once--you know, simple minds simple pleasures....

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
I think perhaps you missed the point of my post. In my game there was no "logical" reason to prefer the queen or rook. Both led to checkmate in exactly the same fashion. There was no threat of stalemate if the queen was chosen. But since the queen's additional power was unnecessary I chose the rook for purely aesthetic reasons. I thought it was kind of cool to have three rooks at once--you know, simple minds simple pleasures....

When you have lets say a back rank mate with pawn promotion a rook or queen will suffice.....

which means there is no logical reason to chose one OVER The other....

Originally posted by Shinidoki
When you have lets say a back rank mate with pawn promotion a rook or queen will suffice.....

which means there is no logical reason to chose one OVER The other....

Precisely.

EDIT: Sir Timothy, apologies for hijacking your thread. It's starting to look like underpromotion to a knight is quite unpopular. Here's a thread about a game where underpromotion to a knight would have been appropriate but wasn't played Thread 39829

Hopefully someone will come up with a better example.

sorry! when i restated my point i was actually refering to der schwarze Ritter's post with the wiki site....

I have only just seen the game you posted

It wasn't the mating move but it's probably the only time I'll under-promote for any reason other than aesthetics.

Game 1086815