Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Have you ever "under-promoted" in a real game?

Have you ever "under-promoted" in a real game?

  • No, I've always Queened.
  • Yes, but just to show off.
  • Yes. (My set doesn't have extra Queens!)
  • Yes, to avoid giving stalemate!
  • Yes, because a Knight was more effective!

Created on March 2, 2012 | 12200 Votes | 188 Comments

Comments


  • 3 weeks ago

    camberfoil

  • 3 weeks ago

    AllogenicMan

    Very good, camberfoil! ... I mean, 'sheesh!' - what would we do without your expertise?!

  • 3 weeks ago

    camberfoil

    Have you ever "under-promoted" in a real game?

    • No, I've always Queened. (36%)
       
    • Yes, but just to show off. (22%)
       
    • Yes. (My set doesn't have extra Queens!) (4%)
       
    • Yes, to avoid giving stalemate! (20%)
       
    • Yes, because a Knight was more effective! (18%)
       

    Thank you! 12122 votes cast

  • 3 weeks ago

    EnsignRamsey

    Why use a queen when a rook will do, right?

  • 3 weeks ago

    Incohatus

    Yes. Because I accidentally clicked the Knight due to time trouble (was clicking mindlessly and the cursor was pointing at Knight) although I still won the game by queening two other pawns and giving checkmate. Was quite hard since I only have a minute left.

  • 3 months ago

    Adilbala

    Keller ... Had you not promoted to a knight white would give a fork check and win the promoted piece ; so it would be a draw ....with the knight promotion the position you have reached is a stalemate ... So it is not clear to me what was achieved with the under promotion ?

  • 3 months ago

    ChessConure

    There needs to be an option for "Yes, because a rook was effective" And for "Yes, because a Bishop was more Effective"

    The reason any/either of these would be more effective is in case of stalemate

  • 3 months ago

    Viviplex

    Use an upside-down rook as a queen.

  • 4 months ago

    Adilbala

    Keller..I didn't get the purpose of the three knight game .....it still is a stalemate isn't it ?

  • 4 months ago

    Thehuntingwolf

    I just reverse the rook to pretend that it's a queen if I don't have extra queens... :))

  • 5 months ago

    chessweiqi

    They need to create one for "yes! because I was bored."

  • 5 months ago

    camberfoil

    I've heard of underpromotion to a knight being a key part of the Lasker Trap, but I have never used the trap in real life or online.

  • 5 months ago

    ChessConure

    I've underpromoted to a rook instead of a queen, just to show off (it would be checkmate anyway, whether queen or rook so i just promoted a rook XD)

  • 6 months ago

    JamesMichaelFaux

    Sorry, but I had to take down my blog

  • 7 months ago

    konstantino070

    yes. promoted it to knight and checkmated opponent

  • 7 months ago

    Pranjal588

    588 , me 588 ? :D

  • 8 months ago

    FM chesskingdreamer

    kellen chessman, that's a well known study by someguy, I think kubbel or troitsky.

  • 8 months ago

    JamesMichaelFaux

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 9 months ago

    JamesMichaelFaux

    My set doen't have extra queens. I guess most do then.

  • 10 months ago

    ModularGroupGamma

    Kellen, I don't understand, at the end of the game with 3 knights, you've stalemated White.  Tablebase shows the position is drawn after 1. Ng1.

Back to Top

Post your reply: