1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterLogically Speaking - the only peices you should promote to is a Knight, Or a Queen (will do the job of a Rook or bishop combined).....
Underpromotion is very common in endgame studies: see Troitsky, Kasparian, Kubbel, Mattison, etc.
*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 ShinidokiPlease see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position
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 ShinidokiAlthough, sometimes promoting to a queen is unnecessary, as her additional power (over say, a rook) isn't required.
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).....
Game 1502169
Originally posted by ShinidokiI 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....
As I said; -
"*except in exceptionally rare circumstance, where promoting to a Queen = stalemate"
Originally posted by leisurelyslothWhen you have lets say a back rank mate with pawn promotion a rook or queen will suffice.....
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....
which means there is no logical reason to chose one OVER The other....
1 edit
Originally posted by ShinidokiPrecisely.
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....
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.
1 edit
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