There is nothing wrong with pawn promotion even when your ahead in material. The only reason you would not want to promote is if in doing so you'd lose a positional advantage or mating opportunity. If you've gotten a pawn across the board unscathed, go for it!
Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?
Sort:
Promote as many as you want.
Jan 16, 2012
0
#24
I like the idea of practicing rarer piece mates (keeping an extra pawn on the board just in case).
If it makes for a quicker mate, yes. You should always give yourself the best chance to win. If you are up a rook, a knight and a bishop, and your opponent is still going for your throat, my guess is they prefer the practice against the best moves, as well as the greatest variety of moves an opponent can throw at them. This provides a better test. I think it actually is more rude pugilistically speaking, if you can knock your opponent out with your haymaker, but instead you'd rather beat on him for three more rounds, when you know you have him beaten.
Jan 16, 2012
0
#26
All of this has helped me. I guess I'm coming down to the idea that part of the game is stopping your opponent's pawn advances. If you can't do that then you have to expect what comes from following the rules : mate from extra pieces following pawn promotion. Anything else is saying the rules should be changed. Thanks again, guys. I'm out..
browni3141 wrote:
I like the idea of practicing rarer piece mates (keeping an extra pawn on the board just in case).
Practice the rarer piece mates if you like, but don't be a coward about it keeping your extra pawn in reserve.
Jan 16, 2012
0
#28
Loomis wrote:
browni3141 wrote:
I like the idea of practicing rarer piece mates (keeping an extra pawn on the board just in case).
Practice the rarer piece mates if you like, but don't be a coward about it keeping your extra pawn in reserve.
True, but I'd be a little nervous about K+N+B vs. K. I could probably do it, but still...
It is impressive how people might be offended by regular moves...
Some people would rather promote a couple of queens to defeat a single king instead of promoting just one, for exemple. It is not rude, they are just playing the way that demands less mental effort, even if the mate cames much later.
Anyway, if the one in a lost position really hates to be defeated by multiple queens he allways has the option to just resign and avoid it.
ee_engineer wrote:
why should your opponent resign when there is a chance you will make a mistake and stalemate? Last time i checked, chess didnt end when it looks like you might lose....
Ask Tracy Mcgrady and the Rockets, down 10(TEN) points with 35seconds left, against the Spurs(who won the NBA championship that year). They came back and won that game. DOWN 10 POINTS WITH 35SECONDS LEFT.
Sports analogies are popular in this argument. It's been pointed out however that when you're behind in chess you lose your ability to "score". An appropriate analogy would be in basketball if there became a difference in players, so a 10 on 1 or in the case of lone king vs other pieces a 10 on none.
Jan 16, 2012
0
#31
If I have enough time on the clock (live chess), I'll play out an elementary mate if there is one (K+Q, K+R ...) for practicing these. If I'm in time trouble, which is almost always the case if I'm in a winning position (see my avatar), I'll prefer promoting maybe another rook in addition to my queen which will be a quicker mate and/or with less risk of stalemate.
flatters1 wrote:
What does chess etiquette have to say about promoting pawns when I'm already ahead in material? Say a bishop and two pawns.. It seems safest and fastest for me (at my skill level.. about 1400 turn-based online) to win by doing that, but it seems like piling on. Would doing so irritate people? Is it insulting to keep your advanced pawns two ranks back deliberately? What am I missing here? Thanks guys!
In this case it is always correct.
I know how you feel though. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty when I already have 1 queen, but if my other pieces are far away and fastest mate really is to get another queen then that's exactly what I do (and what the best moves really are). Always play the best moves you can find :)
I think you mentioned that in a post before. It's an interesting observation.
Jan 17, 2012
0
#35
You are alllowed to have as many as nine Queens.
Id like to see a game like that. It would be a laugh!
DENVER
Is it rude if you have an obvious mate in 1 and the opponent doesn't resign
to hold back your move? isn't that the crux of mankind's dilemma?
your opponent just wants to torture you. don't let them have their fun and just resign.. LOL.
Jan 23, 2012
0
#38
waffllemaster wrote:
I think you mentioned that in a post before. It's an interesting observation.
Etiquette discussions on chess.com remind me of whitespace discussions in coding.
Go for Bishop and a Knight versus K and show him what you got!
no. it should be ur opponent's fault for not resigning if u r so ahead in material