Originally posted by aethsilgneThere are cases that promoting to a queen may end up losing. Consider your opponent is a step away from forcing a checkmate. There is no way you can defend your position except that you have to make a very important check. If promoting to a queen does not follow with check, you are going to lose the game. It is wise to go for a night with check. You gain the most valuable tempo that you want to defend your king or to atack your opponent's one.
In some positions promoting to a Knight can checkmate your opponent on that very move, whereas a Queen can't.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Absolutely correct.
Sometimes promoting to a queen either causes a stalemate or allows the opponent to force a stalemate. Because a bishop covers less ground, it's less likely to give a stalemate.
The answer to the puzzle I posted above contains a necessary under promotion to a bishop.
It is much easier to contrive a scenerio with a Rook than a Bishop.
To me it is fascinating to see a Bishop promotion need come up in a real game. I'll try to recall where I saw this. It may have been Chess Life. Unfortunately I have 100s of old copies to search through. If I recall correctly, the underpromotion to a Bishop was necessary, but it was not evident until more than 3 or 4 moves after the promotion. Unfortunately, it would do no good to search databases because the player did not see the opportunity and settled for a draw.
