FemdomFilmFan Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) On chapter 1 of a book called The Right Way to Play Chess by David Pritchard (revised and updated by Richard James). I'm confused by the following paragraph on pawn promotion, ""A pawn on reaching the end of the board (the last rank of eight squares) is promoted to any piece (other than a king) that the player chooses. A queen is the natural selection, in view of her being the strongest piece, but occasionally the peculiarity of the position demands promotion to knight, or even to bishop or rook." What I don't get about that is, of those three pieces, the knight is the least powerful, right? I mean, if you put a knight alone in the centre of an empty board, there are only 8 squares he can move to. But a bishop can move to 13 squares, and a rook to 14. So if a queen is the natural selection for pawn promotion, why isn't the rook the next most natural selection? Edited January 17, 2021 by FemdomFilmFan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philpy Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I know a guy in Prague. He's my Czech mate. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartsOfficialMoaner Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, FemdomFilmFan said: On chapter 1 of a book called The Right Way to Play Chess by David Pritchard (revised and updated by Richard James. I'm confused by the following paragraph on pawn promotion, ""A pawn on reaching the end of the board (the last rank of eight squares) is promoted to any piece (other than a king) that the player chooses. A queen is the natural selection, in view of her being the strongest piece, but occasionally the peculiarity of the position demands promotion to knight, or even to bishop or rook." What I don't get about that is, of those three pieces, the knight is the least powerful, right? I mean, if you put a knight alone in the centre of an empty board, there are only 8 squares he can move to. But a bishop can move to 13 squares, and a rook to 14. So if a queen is the natural selection for pawn promotion, why isn't the rook the next most natural selection? The Queen can't pull off the same moves as the Knight. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, FemdomFilmFan said: On chapter 1 of a book called The Right Way to Play Chess by David Pritchard (revised and updated by Richard James. I'm confused by the following paragraph on pawn promotion, ""A pawn on reaching the end of the board (the last rank of eight squares) is promoted to any piece (other than a king) that the player chooses. A queen is the natural selection, in view of her being the strongest piece, but occasionally the peculiarity of the position demands promotion to knight, or even to bishop or rook." What I don't get about that is, of those three pieces, the knight is the least powerful, right? I mean, if you put a knight alone in the centre of an empty board, there are only 8 squares he can move to. But a bishop can move to 13 squares, and a rook to 14. So if a queen is the natural selection for pawn promotion, why isn't the rook the next most natural selection? The rook is the most valuable piece after the queen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hercy Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I think it means when promoting to knight as it is the right thing to do in the situation. Such as when promoting to knight will put opponents king in check. Remember a knight is the only piece that can "jump" other pieces. It is the most likely other piece than a queen to promote to as you would get the moves of a bishop and rook combined in a queen (so why take one of them) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 14 minutes ago, FemdomFilmFan said: On chapter 1 of a book called The Right Way to Play Chess by David Pritchard (revised and updated by Richard James. I'm confused by the following paragraph on pawn promotion, " 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, philpy said: I know a guy in Prague. He's my Czech mate. I have a friend in Portland. He's my Maine man. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: The rook is the most valuable piece after the queen. Why would you ever choose to promote to either a rook or bishop, though, given a Queen can make the same moves? Edited January 17, 2021 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, Todd_is_God said: Why would you choose to promote to either a rook or bishop, though, given a Queen can make the same moves? You would take the queen obviously, but that wasn't what he was asking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FemdomFilmFan Posted January 17, 2021 Author Share Posted January 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: The rook is the most valuable piece after the queen. I don't understand. I asked if a queen is the most natural selection for pawn promotion, why isn't the rook the next most natural selection? What do you mean it's the most valuable piece after the queen? I understand it's the most valuable piece after the queen. What I don't understand is why it isn't the next most natural selection for pawn promotion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: You would take the queen obviously, but that wasn't what he was asking. No I know, but I thought i'd ask as it was being discussed. The knight makes sense, depending on board state, due to the way it moves. But I can't think of a scenario where a rook or bishop would be the best option, yet the book suggests such a scenario exists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Head to Wikipedia....search for Promotion (Chess)There's a great example there of "underpromotion" which is where you choose to become a piece other than a queen. The white pawn will take the black knight....then by choosing to become a white knight "forks" the black King and Queen. The white knight then takes the black queen and then the black rook. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: No I know, but I thought i'd ask as it was being discussed. The knight makes sense, depending on board state, due to the way it moves. But I can't think of a scenario where a rook or bishop would be the best option, yet the book suggests such a scenario exists. You're correct about the knight, now that I think about it. Edited January 17, 2021 by Bigmouth Strikes Again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 15 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Why would you ever choose to promote to either a rook or bishop, though, given a Queen can make the same moves? Showboating. I've done it before. Mind you, I'm a dick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Cardinal Richelieu said: Showboating. I've done it before. Mind you, I'm a dick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Rookie mistake ( pun intended) is looking like you are winning a game, promoting a pawn and then finding you have stalemated your opponent. Grrrr [emoji20] 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genuine Hibs Fan Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: No I know, but I thought i'd ask as it was being discussed. The knight makes sense, depending on board state, due to the way it moves. But I can't think of a scenario where a rook or bishop would be the best option, yet the book suggests such a scenario exists. If the board's pretty bare a rook would be more useful I'd have thought, which it's likely to be if a pawn has got to the other side of the board 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: If the board's pretty bare a rook would be more useful I'd have thought, which it's likely to be if a pawn has got to the other side of the board Why, though? A queen can make any move a rook can. Plus it can move diagonally too. I don't see how a rook could ever be more useful than a queen (apart from castling which obv doesn't apply here). Edited January 17, 2021 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 There are some positions where promoting to a queen will stalemate your opponent, so you take a rook instead. There are some positions where (under)promoting to a knight can be useful, you tend to see this kind of pattern when you want to promote with check for some reason. Underpromoting to a bishop is exceedingly rare but I could probably contrive a position where it would make sense. Google "underpromotion in chess" and you'll find many examples. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said: Rookie mistake ( pun intended) is looking like you are winning a game, promoting a pawn and then finding you have stalemated your opponent. Grrrr It's also similar to Zugzwang (not to be confused with numberwang). https://www.chess.com/article/view/what-is-zugzwang-chess-terms 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.