Promoting to....A PAWN ? Can it Help ?

My argument is that it could occur in real (as u say) play. I'm torn whether compositions would suffice....as I'm keying on the FIDE rulebook. 

Hahaha... first you ask if a Scholar is a Smother, then you ask why you can't Uncastle, then you ask why you can't leave a pawn a pawn!

(God!)

What's next?

Don't start on me. I know what goes on, okay ?....and I'm not here to play ur fool. 

Wouldju let me question things as I see fit ?....am I breaking the law or breaking bad here ?....I'll tell u what, take ur pills & call me in the morning, okay ?...and I'll be here wondering if u improved thruout the nite.

...and if that doesn't work 4u ?....then watch a Simpson's episode.

Nice thread Lola. Really makes one think about the complications of Chess. 

After (God!) ?

Promoting a pawn to a pawn is an illegal move. Believe it or not, there are actually positions in which being able to promote a pawn to a pawn would be beneficial for you, so this rule is pretty important. For example:

No matter what legal promotion white performs, black can play Nc1-d3-f2 with checkmate. However, if white was able to promote a pawn to a pawn, it would be a draw: the stalemate on the next move cannot be prevented. In this case, not being able to promote a pawn to a pawn assures that black wins, while otherwise white would draw the game.

Probably not (or, if it could, the occurrence would be too rare to affect the actual ratings), but that goes for many other legal moves as well. How many times did any of us have to promote a pawn to a bishop or a rook, when a promotion to a queen or a knight wouldn't suffice? In my case, it is zero (after probably over a total of 30,000 games), yet it is theoretically possible, hence FIDE cares about this rule.

TY for #78 May........

I wanna know why I'm forced to take a piece when I just may want to keep it a pawn !....I mean I'm the one who got it down there.

Shouldn't I be able to leave it as such the way I want it ?....I mean, it's my pawn, right ?

See how unreasonable this all is ?....the rule book is controlling play to the point of stupidity !

A similar argument can be made to claim that a player should be able to pass a move, hence removing the possibility of zugzwang. Or that a stalemate should be considered mate. Or that castling right should not be removed when the king makes a move and then moves back...

In the end, chess rules are what they are, they aren't necessarily 100% reasonable and logical. Taking pawns en passant looks weird, but it is possible. Castling long-side when the b1/b8 square is attacked doesn't feel right, but it is possible. A situation in which one player has no legal moves left, hence it feels like he is completely cornered, and yet the game is considered a draw, is weird, but it is possible. I think we have to just accept the rules as they are: they aren't going to change any time soon.

Well Kxf4 is possibly a draw, but even so, it would not be a draw by stalemate.

A stalemate happens when the defending player, whom could otherwise get checkmated, keeps on playing actively and looks for opportunities to launch the stalemate. This includes sacrificing a piece to achieve the stalemate. The attacking player must not be too lax or careless in getting the win out, or the stalemate could possibly occur.

I have fallen into stalemate traps many times and I have carelessly stalemated other players before, after getting too overconfident. Similarly, in the same ways, I have been stalemated before. In a recent game within the last 2 weeks I was playing a terrible bullet game to a much lower rated player for some unknown reason before at one point of time noticing that my king could not move. If the enemy rook could attack my king next turn, it would be checkmate. I used this fact (that my king cannot move) to my advantage, sacrificed a g6 pawn by pushing it to g7 (to avoid Rh8#). He played some random Rg8 to attack the pawn. Two turns later I played Rxf5+ hoping for the stalemate. Declining the piece would likely cost me my game, but he got careless and captured the rook and I was stalemated immediately. Below is a simplified scenario of my above game with the important pieces (there are other pawns in the game but I ignore them here).

Yyyokay.

So what does the above hafta do w/ "promoting" to a pawn ?  

Any more brilliant threads?

Am I gonna get arrested for questioning the parts of the rulebook that are random ?

Kinda hard to understand the rules when some a them don't make rational sense. Now, that may not occur to you, tho' 4ur sake I hope it would. Only 'cuz we have enuf monkeys in the cage in #56....& five's plenty to prove my point.

In my opinion, I doubt it. After all, the rulebook may be modified or revised by FIDE from time to time.

My apologies, I went a bit too far off topic by posting the diagram in post #82.

And BTW, I will understand if u accept the rulebook as gospel. I would guess ur way a reasoning is that everyone hasta play by the same rules. I mean uv been doing it quite a long time, right (2200+ rating) ?

Maybe it's the players who started playing back in the 1900's (that BF so romantically endeared them to the game) are the ones who need a reality check. 

Which is EXACTLY my point !

It may take a age-younger group to fronta change. Alotta times advanced-aged overseers just end up getting old & in the way.....w/ rocking chairs for board seats & complimentary prune juice....fresh.

Maybe a good place to put some a them would be in the mud....stuck & wallowing about yesteryear & how PK use to move pieces w/ class & eloquence.