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 think you don't even know what you're talking about. You're lost of words. You keep saying oh, "if they didn't promote to a knight then there won't be an instant checkmate with 3 knights on board." You do realise that you just proved my point? You simply just disproved yourself, it's hilarious. Obviously, the game is easy to have many pieces of the same kind. What they have to do if they played my way, is to figure out a creative plan to checkmate without needing it to be an instant. Therefore, it's more strategic. You keep using made up puzzles to disprove me. It doesn't work, I'm not sure if you know.
no