First of all, why do you call pawns chessmans? It's kind of weird @.@.... But back to the topic, I usually promote my pawn into a Queen, just like most people do, unless I want to torture him till he lose all hope of actually getting a stalemate from me and resign.
When you have a queen and one chessman goes tothe last line what does he become?
Sort:
Just turn it into another queen, although you'll probably want a 3rd and 4th one too if you want to really make you're opponent squirm... Sympathy for your opponent is a weakness that must be eradicated! :-D
@quadriple
You tried it before? Or is it that you've been on the receiving end before? Which ever it is, I don't really would be so determined so through the end, especially if I have more than 1 Queen and he has nothing. A proof of this is, in most of my games, my opponent immediately resigns after they lose material ( about a minor piece or so ). This happens so often that check mating my opponent has become such a rare occurrence . So who are you to say that they wouldn't resign in an already lost endgame?
Queen of course, but also rarely knight.
Your kerida.
Chessmans? Just call them pawns. By the way i promote pawns to queens and rooks.
Often the chess man changes sex and becomes a queen. However sometimes some other chess piece.
It is a choice between a Queen or Knight, depending on the situation.
Mostly a Queen is the choice.
Zigwurst wrote:
It is a choice between a Queen or Knight, depending on the situation.
Mostly a Queen is the choice.
It is a choice between any piece except a King. You could promote to a Q or underpromote to a Knight, Bishop or Rook.
when im winning in endgame and I have at least 4 pawns and my opponent only has his king I promote them all to knights and checkmate him like that =)
Zigwurst wrote:
I know, but it is unrealistic to choose a Bishop or Rook.
Really? Plenty of reasons to not choose Q, plenty of reasons to coose a Rook instead.
It depends, usually a Queen, but it may be a Rook if i already have a Queen and the board is empty so i can avoid an stalemate.
zigwurst's point is probably that 99% of the time promoting to a queen is best, and maybe 0.9% promoting to a knight is necessary. Only 0.1% of the time (or less) will a rook or bishop be the logical choice and I would not say there are plenty of reasons. The only reason would be to avoid a stalemate.
chrislatvys wrote:
The only reason would be to avoid a stalemate.
As I said, PLENTY of reasons.
Rsava you crazy! I'm sorry, you can coose any piece for whatever reason you coose
In all the games I've played I've promoted once to a knight, and all of the other times i promoted to a queen
When you have a queen and one of your chessmen goes to the last line (opponent's line) and can become: a queen, a rook, a bishop or a knight what he will become???
When i do, i prefer to do my chessman a rook, because i think it's and a bit fair for the opponent. But when my opponent has many strong pieces then i do my chessman a second queen to have more probabilities to win.