anybody agree?
pawn promotions should be removed
Sort:
Though your thoughts was quite reasonable, I think if there is no pawn promotion, pawn will be completely useless as they do nothing after reaching the a rank or h rank. In the matches between top players they could keep
their position were roughly equal and it doesn’t discourage real checkmate. Moreover, as u mentioned, a player played a perfect game like the top players might lost on pawn path, they shouldn’t make that mistake or if they can play the game perfectly, they won’t lost on such thing
People with lower elo have unstable performance and one blunder can cost your game. As a result , it is easy for them to have a large advantage in material and expand their advantage by the pawn promotion. If you really think opponents having 9 queen is so unfair, it is either the opponent is too strong that u have nothing to do with and you can report it sandbagging. However, it is not the major reason that cause many queens in a game , it is mainly your fault or blunder that you didn’t avoid them promoting well.
Lastly if you really thing pawn promotion should be removed, you can set a rules with playing with friends! The modern chess rules have been followed for a long time and its presence means it doesn’t cause big problem or the most ideal set of rules
Lastly if you really thing pawn promotion should be removed, you can set a rules with playing with friends! The modern chess rules have been followed for a long time and its presence means it doesn’t cause big problem or the most ideal set of rules
The real question is which AI did you use to make this?
smartboy2390 wrote:
1. It Can Feel Like "Lazy" Game Design
Critics argue that the endgame becomes too focused on a "pawn race." Instead of using complex maneuvers with existing pieces, the goal shifts entirely to running a pawn across the board. This can make the final stage of the game feel repetitive or like a completely different game from the middle stage.
2. The "Overpowered" Queen
Because players almost always promote to a queen, the sudden appearance of the most powerful piece can instantly erase a skill advantage. Someone who played a "perfect" game for 40 moves can lose in an instant just because they missed a single pawn's path, which some find frustrating rather than strategic.
3. It Discourages "Real" Checkmates
In lower-level play, players often stop trying to find clever checkmates and instead just try to get two or three queens. This "brute force" ending is sometimes seen as "tasteless" or unsporting, especially if a player promotes multiple queens just to taunt an opponent who hasn't resigned yet.
4. Historically "Simplified" Strategy
Some historical variants had restricted promotion—for example, you could only promote to a piece that had already been captured. Modern rules allow for multiple queens (up to nine!), which some purists feel is less strategic than having to manage a limited pool of resources.
Is this what Skynet thinks?
smartboy2390 hat geschrieben:
1. It Can Feel Like "Lazy" Game Design
Critics argue that the endgame becomes too focused on a "pawn race." Instead of using complex maneuvers with existing pieces, the goal shifts entirely to running a pawn across the board. This can make the final stage of the game feel repetitive or like a completely different game from the middle stage.
2. The "Overpowered" Queen
Because players almost always promote to a queen, the sudden appearance of the most powerful piece can instantly erase a skill advantage. Someone who played a "perfect" game for 40 moves can lose in an instant just because they missed a single pawn's path, which some find frustrating rather than strategic.
3. It Discourages "Real" Checkmates
In lower-level play, players often stop trying to find clever checkmates and instead just try to get two or three queens. This "brute force" ending is sometimes seen as "tasteless" or unsporting, especially if a player promotes multiple queens just to taunt an opponent who hasn't resigned yet.
4. Historically "Simplified" Strategy
Some historical variants had restricted promotion—for example, you could only promote to a piece that had already been captured. Modern rules allow for multiple queens (up to nine!), which some purists feel is less strategic than having to manage a limited pool of resources.
ChatGPT, is this written by AI?
if someone plays a perfect game for 40 moves then they are not missing pawn promotion? your argument isnt very well thought out. what is an endgame if not a race to the finish line? its about how well you position yourself in middlegame and the tactics you play. not only that, but this is clearly chatgpt written. you did not even give the effort to make your own argument. i really think you should consider changing your mind on this i cant really believe you thought many people would agree on this. not even trying to be mean! how many games did you lose during endgame to get this conclusion
I think it sounds reasonable, but I had never thought about it before, it never bothered me... I think if you learned more about endgame, it would be easier and you wouldn't be bothered, It's just practice 🙂
Hey White Rabbit I created a tournament the format is very interesting so you might wanna join :
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pl-2026-chess-version
It might last 5-6 months but since you have to play only 2 games at a time so there is no pressure. If you are sure that you wont time out in any of the 38 games and like the idea pick a team and march to glory ! Just 6 spots left.
GrindTo1500EloRapid wrote:
I created a tournament the format is very interesting
Do you allow pawn promotion there?
Nice ai rant, it’s not too much a good topic to rant about though, no offense
Yeah def
Hey @no_one_is_here110813 pls read #11 if you meet the conditions you may wanna join.
Are you guys gonna join my tournament (see post 11)
GrindTo1500EloRapid wrote:
Are you guys gonna join my tournament
Isn't it a bit irrelevant to advertise a tournament in this topic?
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
1. It Can Feel Like "Lazy" Game Design
Critics argue that the endgame becomes too focused on a "pawn race." Instead of using complex maneuvers with existing pieces, the goal shifts entirely to running a pawn across the board. This can make the final stage of the game feel repetitive or like a completely different game from the middle stage.
2. The "Overpowered" Queen
Because players almost always promote to a queen, the sudden appearance of the most powerful piece can instantly erase a skill advantage. Someone who played a "perfect" game for 40 moves can lose in an instant just because they missed a single pawn's path, which some find frustrating rather than strategic.
3. It Discourages "Real" Checkmates
In lower-level play, players often stop trying to find clever checkmates and instead just try to get two or three queens. This "brute force" ending is sometimes seen as "tasteless" or unsporting, especially if a player promotes multiple queens just to taunt an opponent who hasn't resigned yet.
4. Historically "Simplified" Strategy
Some historical variants had restricted promotion—for example, you could only promote to a piece that had already been captured. Modern rules allow for multiple queens (up to nine!), which some purists feel is less strategic than having to manage a limited pool of resources.