7 ms·
Yes. You do not need to choose a queen when the pawn reaches the opposite side.
by syoc 5y ago
Yes. You do not need to choose a queen when the pawn reaches the opposite side.
- ctdonath 5y agoWere redundant choices culled? No point in tracking all variations of pawn > queen/rook/bishop when one includes the moves of the others.
- tromp 5y agoThere is sometimes a point when you need to avoid giving stalement, like in the famous Savedraa study [1] or the vastly more intricate Babson task [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babson_task https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babson_task
- CrazyStat 5y agoSometimes the queen having both rook and bishop moves is a liability. There are positions (real positions from real games, not merely hypothetical ones) where promoting to a queen results in immediate stalemate, while promoting to a rook wins the game. So those choices are not redundant.
- retrac 5y agoThere are even times when this is the right move. Sometimes you can put them in check by promoting to a knight, for example, where a queen would not. Common in beginner puzzles.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoThis is a very nice illustration of this, where a player had to turn off autoconversion to queen on the last seconds to win the game: https://youtu.be/HFG8pCInJKw https://youtu.be/HFG8pCInJKw
- not1ofU 5y agoYour comment reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wCJalNkTEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wCJalNkTEI Text: https://en.chessbase.com/post/solution-to-a-truly-remarkable-study https://en.chessbase.com/post/solution-to-a-truly-remarkable...
- yoru-sulfur 5y agoAnother situation where you would want to convert to something other than a queen is when doing so would result in a stalemate.