White to checkmate in (1) move:
Promoting to....A PAWN ? Can it Help ?
Sort:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
You couldn't come up with anything better!? Really?! REALLY????
White to checkmate in (1) move:
Maybe there is a situation where having the option to turn the pawn into an empty square could avoid a stalemate
Aug 12, 2017
0
#125
TremaniSunChild wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
White to checkmate in (1) move:
You couldn't come up with anything better!? Really?! REALLY????
I don't think so. Please play it out.
Aug 12, 2017
0
#127
In 1889, William Steinitz said in his epochal writing "The Modern Chess Instructor" that we should all adhere to the "Code of Laws of the British Chess Association". In there, Law XIII says that "When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has previously been lost or not, whose names and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a pawn".
****
That single statement above allows a player to make it a turncoat....if one so desires !
I mean he was the World Champion at the time.
Aug 12, 2017
0
#128
I wanna revisit the chess promotion change in 1862 & eventually try to rollback our rules on it. Namely, 'cuz there isn't a reasonable answer as to why it morphed into today's rules in the first place !!
Howard Staunton vigorously opposed the 'dead pawn' eradication. Sadly, Morphy & Anderssen WC's around 1862) were ambivalent about it....they say.
I surmise the people who understood chess just enough to be dangerous are the ones who overruled Howard.
....pathetic. Its' as tho' rules boards always seem to find a way to strip games of their richness.
Aug 13, 2017
0
#129
They say that a player promotes to a Queen almost 97% of the time. So that leaves a R or B or Kn promo about 3% of the time.
I say let players leave a pawn a pawn if they want AND allow a "turncoat promote"....exemption King. It would probably occur less than 1/10th of 1% a the time, so it won't be measureably disruptive.
I mean, think of the WOW !! factor. Wouldn't it be cool 
?....AND, it would set a fire under our subterranean composition world !!
Ask yourself. Would this hurt our game ?....your answer should be a resounding no. How would it help ?....one word - to enrich (okay that two).
I'm telling you. Howard Staunton has been right for over 150 years now !
Aug 13, 2017
0
#130
So. Now comes the grandmama of all searches. Since the organization of FIDE in 1948, of the gazillion of games, would promoting to a turncoat or letting your pawn stay a pawn change the result of any game ?
If no ?....then allow the rules change. If yes ?....then do a review of those games & how it impacted the careers of those players.
We're gonna get to the bottom a this....and I plan to see it thru all the way to the FIDE Rules Committee 'cuz it's a legitimate proposal that demands a verdict !
....there, I said it.
Ok, but how does it help?
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
We're gonna get to the bottom a this....and I plan to see it thru all the way to the FIDE Rules Committee 'cuz it's a legitimate proposal that demands a verdict !....there, I said it.
Everyone is entitled to their delusions... You abuse that entitlement.
So. Now comes the grandmama of all searches. Since the organization of FIDE in 1948, of the gazillion of games, would promoting to a turncoat or letting your pawn stay a pawn change the result of any game ?
If no ?....then allow the rules change. If yes ?....then do a review of those games & how it impacted the careers of those players.
We're gonna get to the bottom a this....and I plan to see it thru all the way to the FIDE Rules Committee 'cuz it's a legitimate proposal that demands a verdict !
....there, I said it.
Oct 26, 2017
0
#133
Two posters have provided positions where the only way to salvage a draw would be to "promote" to a pawn, forcing stalemate - bb_gum234 (#32) and MayCaesar (#75) - good jobs! This is a pretty interesting construction exercise, and here's my attempt to do it in the most economical way.
So 1.e8(P)! and Black cannot release the stalemate. Any other promotion would lose, e.g. 1.e8(Q)? g3 2.Qg6 g2+ 3.Qxg2+ fxg2 mate.
Oct 27, 2017
0
#134
Yes, thank you luv ! And taking some black pieces off (f3 & f5) gives a even more efficient finish.
maybe if you're in zugzwang and promoting to anything else creats a stailmate, kind of a way to "pass". your only move that didn't worsen your condition but need your opponent to move (also in zugzwang)?
Oct 27, 2017
0
#136
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Yes, thank you luv ! And taking some black pieces off (f3 & f5) gives a even more efficient finish.
No worries! The pawns on f3 and f5 are necessary for the problem to work, i.e. ensure that "promoting" to a pawn is best. Remove the f3-pawn then 1.e8(Q) g3 2.Qg6 wins (1...f4 2.Qe4 wins). Remove the f5-pawn then 1.e8(Q) g3 2.Qe6 mate (1...f2 2.Qe3+ wins).
Like I said earlier... Everyone is entitled to delusions. Lola abuses that power.
Eight pages of discussion devoted to a nonsensical question! "Promoting to a pawn" is not a promotion.
Oct 27, 2017
0
#139
If a pawn reaches the eighth rank and chooses not to promote, can it go back the other way?
Since a pawn can not move backwards, then it has no offensive value when it reaches the other end of the board. Suggestion....move your Q to the end of the board and underpromote it to a pawn...Happy now?
Why couldnt it just move as it normally does, straight forward. Any other promotion the pieces move as originally intended, a pawn should too. If a promotion is to a pawn, I think it should start moving the same direction as the opponents pawns. The rule say you cant promote to a pawn, but if it were allowed, why not allow it to start moving again and do all the things a pawn can do. Since that's what happens to any other promotion
If the pawns reverse in direction, imagine a White pawn going e6xd5. Your opponent will be thinking, 'How can pawns capture backwards???'. Or imagine the White pawn is allowed to move three squares from the first rank, e8 --> e5.
And how will we be able to distinguish a forward moving pawn from a reverse direction pawn if we have both kinds of pawns on the board? And imagine we have a pawn at e4 that previously moved two squares from e2, and another pawn from the d-file that made a capture on e6, moves to e8 and then to e5. So now we have a forward moving e4 pawn and a backward moving e5 pawn. Now both pawns cannot move without making captures of enemy pieces.
Exactly. I'm sure those same sentiments were expressed when early chess players learned of how a knight moves. It's a game of strange moves. Some are now allowed, and some are not.