Underpromotion

Originally posted by adam warlock
Very quoteworthy indeed. I was goig to look for that game but got lazy.

Didn't take me long. Just searched for "underpromotion" and found this thread. 😉

Thread 23871

Originally posted by lausey
Didn't take me long. Just searched for "underpromotion" and found this thread. 😉

Thread 23871

Yep... I'm that lazy... 😳

Originally posted by Drew L
I underpromoted by accident. I hit the space between the queen and the rook and it registered the rook.

You should have said this originally instead of saying that you "opted" for the rook (or did you do that on accident too 😀)

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Very ocasionally, you need to underpromote to a rook in the endgame, as promoting to a queen will allow a stalemate tactic, whereas promoting to the rook gives the enemy king escape squares for the time being until you are ready to mate it later.

That is the case of my only underpromotion. I didn't see it for a little bit, I thought I couldn't promote until I realized an underpromotion to a rook allowed an easy win.

Originally posted by UserChevy
That is the case of my only underpromotion. I didn't see it for a little bit, I thought I couldn't promote until I realized an underpromotion to a rook allowed an easy win.

Where is the game, UserChevy?

I think underpromotion to rook or bishop in actual play (as opposed to studies) is exceptionally rare. I've played a fair amount of chess in my time but can't remember having played or even seen such a move. Obviously the only motif can be to prevent stalemate. Underpromotion to a knight on the other hand is for obvious reasons much less rare.

Tim Krabbé has a nice overview of B/R promotions here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/minor.htm

Originally posted by Drew L
Where is the game, UserChevy?

It wasn't on here, it was a high school otb game

Originally posted by Drew L
I was wondering if there are any nice underpromotions out there that led to a victory.

Here is a curious game where I opted for a rook over a queen with 52. c8 = R. Interestingly, my opponent didn't take the rook. I thought he would. No complaints though, the additional rook led to an easier endgame. As you can see I had a little trouble deciding what I wa ...[text shortened]... mments or suggestions to improve my play are always gratefully recieved.

Game 4042274

24. c5

much better than the pointless bishop move...
you want your pawns on c5 (and eventually b4, after a3)
this goes with the theme that when there are iso-colored bishops on the board, you want your pawns OFF of the bishops color. Why? well, it prevents the Rd6 move, and if it were to simplify further, say, with the rook coming off the board, you would have advantage, since his pawn trapped on c6 can be attacked by your bishop, while his bishop must defend the stupid pawn, which somewhat limits blasck's bishop's mobility. Also, once the kingside pawns had been cleared, you should have simply doubled rook behind the b-pawn and demolished it. ALSO, black would not capture your rook (this is why you should have queened) since, even though you are winning, things are easier for the one rook in R+K vs. R+R+K than in Kvs. K+R+R, which is winning.
More accurate would have been to queen, forcing the ...Rxc8 Kxc8 trade. either way it wins, so bravo for making it look good!

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
24. c5

much better than the pointless bishop move...
you want your pawns on c5 (and eventually b4, after a3)
this goes with the theme that when there are iso-colored bishops on the board, you want your pawns OFF of the bishops color. Why? well, it prevents the Rd6 move, and if it were to simplify further, say, with the rook coming off the board, you ...[text shortened]... o queen, forcing the ...Rxc8 Kxc8 trade. either way it wins, so bravo for making it look good!

how are you only 1400?