JayThe8th wrote:
mate its the rules.. someone made it for a reason, and plus u cant change the rules just cause u want to or dont like it.
ok, so I'm not allowed to have my suggestions to make the game play better?
Pawn Promotion Is Ridiculous
Sort:
magipi wrote:
second_account wrote:
Are you saying that queening the pawns is just as strategic as limiting pawn promotion?
Yes.
Right now there is no problem that I can see, and I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.
you're laughable. Yeh ain't no way I'm gonna waste time arguing with you. You're probably one of those who just don't think too much about mating patterns with the available different pieces but instead you just push the pawns forward to get more and more queens.
second_account wrote:
magipi wrote:
second_account wrote:
Are you saying that queening the pawns is just as strategic as limiting pawn promotion?
Yes.
Right now there is no problem that I can see, and I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.
you're laughable. Yeh ain't no way I'm gonna waste time arguing with you. You're probably one of those who just don't think too much about mating patterns with the available different pieces but instead you just push the pawns forward to get more and more queens.
@*econd_*ccount
MHX-DON wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
second_account wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
My first response to this suggestion is this puzzle:
And this one:
Both of these the only winning moves are to promote to knights, whether 3 or 8 of them end up on the board. Feel free to check out my underpromotion thread for more examples of why sometimes multiple underpromotions are necessary, (one of which requires 5 consecutive bishop promotions!)
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/best-underpromotion-endgame-compilation
My 2nd response is what would you propose for the pawn instead? To stay as a stale pawn on the 8th/1st rank?
Uhmmm you do realise that that these are intended puzzles can be only solved if you have like 1000 bishops or something. It's just an exaggeration, so don't quote me on it. This particular puzzle will be invalid if the rule of the pawn promotion was restricted.
Well I propose, the pawns will just be sitting on the 7th or 2nd rank if all the pieces are still not captured. It will be another illegal move added to the game if the pawn promotes to the the pieces that exceeds the limit. I don't think you're quite getting what im saying. Let's say your one knight and two rooks get captured in the middle of the game, and then you have the pawn to promote. If you wish to promote, then you can only promote to either a knight or a rook because they are no longer present on the board. If none of your pieces get captured then you cannot legally promote. They sit on the 7th or 2nd rank until one of the pieces get captured then they can make a legal promotion.
Wait, what? So you are saying not only should there be a universal piece limit on the board, but that pawns should only be able to promote to pieces the position is lacking?? The 2nd position I posted is very realistic, and a 3 knights endgame is a basic chess endgame. Note that if white promotes to anything else, the queen comes down to the back rank forcing white to give up one of the knights to block the check. And a 1 knight advantage in a queen vs queen endgame is extremely drawish. I don't get the 2nd part about pawns "sitting" on the 7th rank? Are you saying those pawns can't move at all if too many other pieces are on the board? So those pawns can't capture on the 8th rank either? Piece movements should be contigent on the available movement of other pieces. Also, if I understand what you are saying correctly, white couldn't promote to another queen in this position:
Having multiple of the same piece on the board doesn't mean it's an advantage, the other side can have different pieces that more than compensate.
Well you're just picking the worst example positions to try to "disprove" my point. Yes, I'm saying white cannot promote to another queen if a queen is already on the board and yes pawns will just be sitting on the 2nd last rank and wont be able to capture pieces because all the pieces are still in the game. I think you're just a bit confused with this idea. If a queen is already on the board but some other pieces are captured, then the pawn can promote to only bring back captured pieces. It's not like pawns must wait until the queen gets captured. This is very rare that pawns reach the 7th rank and none of your pieces are captured yet. There would have been trade off's, you can bring back those pieces.
In this example, White will have to figure out a way to draw or win the game without promoting to another queen. If he can't, then he loses. The flaw to your point is that you're already assuming that pawns can promote to whatever and how many pieces they want by their nature. That's the very thing I'm arguing against. You keep saying, naturally almost everyone promotes to queens unless there's a very specific reason not to. This is the problem I'm trying to argue, and you're not getting it. What I'm saying is that with the restricted pawn promotion, then the players will be forced to under promote which makes it more difficult to checkmate the king. Therefore, you need more strategies. If you just have queens than it's very easy to checkmate unless if your opponent is very smart and counter play. Then that will just be your fault. It's on you. Don't blame the promotion.
My puzzle was to show why a player should be able to promote to a knight even if the 2 knights were still on the board , the solution was to underpromote to a knight, instant checkmate! Don't tell me you didn't see that solution. I think you are the one who's trolling, if you think positions involving underpromotion make the game less complex and strategic and interesting. Pieces should be independent of other pieces, pawns shouldn't be immobile because whatever they could promote to are "taken". That's beyond absurd. The other argument that having 2 or 3 queens makes the game too easy to win LOL well maybe if you play better you wouldn't facilitate the opponent getting 3 queens. So it's ok for a player to have 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 knights, and 7 pawns, but not 2 queens and a king? Alright, my turn to troll! Pawns should be able to promote to opposite color pieces as well:
B8 = black knight #
I agree
Saying I can't promote to a knight if I already have 2 knights on the board is lunacy.
Sep 10, 2023
0
#49
"Nah we ain't changing Chess rules just 'cus you don't jive with it, turkey."
LOL. That about sums up the proper response to this thread.
According to his logic I'd have to lose this endgame since I have 2 knights I have no right to promote a 3rd, despite the fact that my knights will taken in the next few moves if I dont.
I think your problem about your "more strategy" argument is that you're only referring to the strategy of the pawn promotion itself.
But the threat of powerful pain promotions cause pawn strategies that would be less prominent if the payoff was weakened.
Of course, I'm saying this to a small extent, in most cases it won't make much difference anyway (if you're getting a promotion that sticks, most of the time you've at least exchanged a rook)
But that's a problem in itself: if the effect would be fairly small, why make the break from tradition for only a small (if it exists) benefit.
Other varients like 960 and no-castling chess do try to address problems perceived by a lot of people in a big way; this is a fairly big change for little impact.
ACTUALLY white could probably force a draw in that endgame with perpetual check. Here's a better example where promoting to anything other than a knight would definitely lose:
Why shouldn't white be allowed to promote to a knight here (note he said no more than 2 of any piece, not just queens)
Sep 10, 2023
0
#54
Your idea could lead to a more controlled endgame, but it might also change the fundamental dynamics of chess in a way that some players may find less appealing.
Sep 10, 2023
0
#55
MHX-DON wrote:
I just want to start out with how the current rule for pawn promotion is just silly and ridiculous and it shouldbe changed. The truth is that there is no rule for how many pieces you can promote to. Hypothetically, you can promote the pawns to 8 queens, 8 rooks, 8 knights or 8 bishops. In my opinion, pawn promotion should be restricted. Pawns should only able to promote up to 1 queen, 2 rooks, 2 knights or 2 bishops, only if the pieces are taken out. For example, the pawn cannot promote to another queen if the first queen is still alive on the board. The pawn cannot promote to a third rook if both rooks are still alive. Etc. This creates more strategies as the pawn will just be sitting on the 7th rank, wanting to promote to the queen but can't because the queen is still present. So they must decide which of the other pieces they want to bring back. This will solve the problem how easy it is to win in the end game where both players are just pawns racing and one gets the queens and then Check, Check, Check, Check, Checkmate! What!? See this is not very strategic. If the pawn promotion was restricted to how I said, then the end game will be more strategic and more entertaining to watch. What do you guys think?
or you could just resign in such situations
Sep 10, 2023
0
#56
SriyogeshS wrote:
actually such a rule will reduce the trolls who promote to 5 bishops
i do this when my opponent is so badly outplayed that he has no chance to win, if hes not gonna resign then i dont have to play with eetttttteeeiiiiqueetttte either lol
Exactly, if my opponent has the right to prolong thr game as long as possible and use up all the time on his clock, then so do I.
There are many problems to note. If you cannot promote to any piece, it dramatically changes the whole game of chess and these are:
1. Pawns will be nerfed a lot which will render it not important anymore. It is because it loses a capability to become a very powerful piece which is its sole importance. People make pawn plays because all chess players are hoping that at the end of the board, it will become the greatest asset.
2. It will not make the game strategic rather it will make the game stale. Sacrificing a piece so that a pawn will have a chance to promote to that piece is very hard to make becauce there are many defenders on the backrank especially rooks which are the most powerful piece that always remain in the endgame and your sacrifice will be futile because at the end you will become powerless.
3. Third, it will make the game odd to all chess players. All players loves their pawns because they are moving it at the start of the game. Imagine that a game is mostly played by major pieces and they are moving them repetitively and they will only just move the pawn if they want to make a defense; it will make the game more drawish.
Sep 10, 2023
0
#59
MHX-DON wrote:
Vertwitch wrote:
Dude you don’t get chess there are 3 boards 2 of them are invisible and it’s filled with queens approaching the board the pawns represent them pls inform itself b4
Huh? Can you elaborate?
Yes 3 boards the physical and two invisible boards where queens play one for you and another for ur opponent the pawns represent the queens approaching the board
Are you saying that queening the pawns is just as strategic as limiting pawn promotion?
Yes.
Right now there is no problem that I can see, and I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.