The BIG Show - Simultaneous Exhibition is LIVE on Chess.com/TV with IM Rensch - Open to ALL! Come and watch! Click here to watch!
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 | 12499 Votes | 198 Comments

Comments


  • 4 weeks ago

    Ivill-Krushau

    Yes, in high school, the guy would not resign a hopeless game, so I promoted two pawns to knights, you can't mate with two knights, you can with four.

  • 5 weeks ago

    BenTen24075

    or knights

  • 5 weeks ago

    BenTen24075

    promote a queen thats better

  • 5 weeks ago

    AJMOHIO

    Sometimes, there is less risk of giving stalemate if you promote to a rook rather than a queen.

  • 6 weeks ago

    applemonkey3

    promoted to knight to avoid checkmate. only way

  • 7 weeks ago

    brantnuttall

    I regularly under promote for various reasons. The main one is that I always mate with one queen and one rook. easier to mate in time difficulties. Also when playing patzers I like getting loads of knights or bishops, just for a laugh.

  • 2 months ago

    BenTen24075

    i had promoted a knight before and it was really more effective

  • 2 months ago

    BenTen24075

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 2 months ago

    AnarchyBrian

    I've promoted to rooks before because I did not want to trade. I promoted to a knight once to lead to a forced mate quicker. But I've never promoted to a bishop before! (unless I'm being mean to my opponent)

  • 3 months ago

    LacksCreativity

    The funniest thing ever OTB is when your opponent won't resign and you underpromote as many times as possible. I once underpromoted 5 times and had to keep asking for bishops

  • 4 months ago

    camberfoil

  • 4 months ago

    AllogenicMan

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

  • 4 months 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

  • 4 months ago

    EnsignRamsey

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

  • 4 months 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.

  • 6 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 ?

  • 6 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

  • 7 months ago

    Viviplex

    Use an upside-down rook as a queen.

  • 7 months ago

    Adilbala

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

  • 7 months ago

    Thehuntingwolf

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

Back to Top

Post your reply: