Pawn Promotion Is Ridiculous

So that's called strategy dude. We have defined something called a "dead" position. What we are proposing is why should it be that way.

When you say the rules are ridiculous and should be changed then most players will see that as trolling and your proposal will essentially drop dead in the first step out of the gate with the overwhelming majority seeing it as worthless.

If you say a variant (limited-pawn-promotions such as referenced in my original second paragragh) can be more interesting than the current rules and want to discuss the variant then many players will see that as trolling and many others will see that as a variant that might be interesting to play once or twice. If they do play it once or twice then they may play it more often or they may say it is not worth playing.

Recap:

Proposing a rules change to chess comes across to most people as ridiculous (petitioning FIDE for such a change would change the quality of ridiculous from being a blatant troll to being respectably quixotic).

Proposing a variant that might be interesting to play will have a mixed reception and some might play it (a lot more than if you are promoting it as a change to the standard game).

PS Your first sentence in the original post: "I just want to start out with how the current rule for pawn promotion is just silly and ridiculous and it should be changed" does come across as demanding a change.

No, a "dead position" is where checkmate is theoretically impossible, even by cooperation from the opponent. No sequence of legal moves can ever lead to a mate of either side. That position isn't dead as even without the pawn, one knight can checkmate a king with another knight:

Below on the other hand is a dead position:

Checkmate or stalemate is impossible by either side.

Mate, calm down! You're getting a little bit emotional. No need to be aggressive. You're just all over the place and getting personal. Let me break it down for you.

Firstly, it seems like you don't quite know the meaning of 'trolling'. Trolling is basically someone who just repeatedly says random stuff, especially when they don't even believe in what they're saying, to provoke others and bait them into getting emotional responses for drama purposes. Where is the part I did was "trolling"? Sure, you can say that my titling is a bit "trolly". But this isn't enough to determine that I'm just another troll to ignore. I only used such titling so that I get more responses and engagement. If that's trolling then you can say all YouTubers are "trolls". I'd say this guy @EndgameEnthusiast2357 is more of a troll than anyone in this thread because he kept going on and on about his 3 knights promotion where he doesn't really know what he's arguing for or against.

Secondly, you said that I said "rules" are ridiculous. When did I say I'm against "rules" but not a particular "rule" that I don't agree with? You're just pluralizing the word to make me look like some kind of an anti-chess troll on the forum to ruin people's mood for fun. Well, you're wrong here again.

Thirdly, you kept saying that I just needed to just go to FIDE and just speak to them casually to demand rule changes, just because I don't like the particular rule of chess, like bruh. I don't care about chess enough to the point that I'd make my time and effort to just travel and just casually walk in and just casually ask the president of FIDE, have a cup of tea with him, and just casually discuss how to improve chess rules. I see chess as a very strategic game only, that I enjoy playing in my spare time. I don't see it as a very important life-changing lesson that made me become a better and more successful person, so that made me deeply care about it. I honestly just want to read other people's opinions on the topic I have. So, who are you to say that I can't express my opinion about chess on, Wait For It, Chess.com/forum!!!??? The place is literally made to discuss ANYTHING about chess.

You're saying like as if someone needs to and has to just go out protesting and just go see people who control the system and demand them to change them just because you don't agree with them. But if you don't, then you're not serious and you're just a troll and your opinion will be dismissed and you will be ignored!

I rest my case!

LOL you are displaying every aspect of a troll that you are criticizing, in that last post. You asked multiple times "why in the hell would anyone want a 3rd knight" and "why should multiple promotions to the same piece ever be desired", and I gave you the examples. You can't take that your point has been defeated so you are claiming that my rebuttal of your ridiculous underpromotion rule change is "an obsession". Not only you are trolling but you are making it embarrassingly obvious. I have also destroyed your claim that such a change would make chess more strategic by showing how it would make chess less strategic. Here's another example of multiple knight underpromotions winning:

I don't know of this qualifies as "banned" underpromotions as there's only 1 knight on the board at a time, but it shows that your claim "multiple promotions are useless" to be utterly absurd.

yeah

And that's exactly what I'm doing whenever I play chess with a friend with a chess board.

There's no point to limiting the promotion. Once you promote to a queen, you typically overpower your opponent. That's why a single promotion wins the game in at least 90% of cases at GM level.

My proposal would be to include king promotion. Now if one king is checkmated, you still have another one to continue with. It's playable and adds more strategy - in case checkmate is inevitable, you can now save yourself with the king promotion tactic. A king can also nicely take away more escape squares for the opponent than either of the other pieces, which can be another reason to promote to a king.

short range queen?

You haven't destroyed sh*ts. You haven't made any rebuttals. You haven't made any points. Just sh&t up now, ffs! I think you failed maths as you clearly show the lack of understanding logical reasoning.

The current rules make the pawn valuable.

Where did math come into it LOL!

If you have more than one promotion it's usually checkmate anyway and to be honest if you get more than one promotion it's usually a race against time to finish the game and avoid stalemate. Getting two or more promotions should be pretty decisive. Additional promotions should be rewarded not penalised. Also a lot of promotions are immediately taken by the opponent anyway and what if the player still has all his rooks and queen still? Are you going to reward good play with poor promotions? Maybe just don't let your opponent get promoted to begin with?

This entire thread is ridiculous. I literally have a whole topic just on underpromotions and why in many cases multiple underpromotions are necessary. The site servers crashed 10 times in the last day, about time they start booting the trolls who aren't serious about chess.

Chess can't be fixed, it is an unfixable disaster of a game. Any game with fixed rules isn't a true game, its just another rubiks cube.