4 ms·
I dont get it. Queen can do everything a knight can, and then some. How can electing a knight instead of queen can be of any usefulness? Or do you mean it avoi
by MaxikCZ 3y ago
I dont get it. Queen can do everything a knight can, and then some. How can electing a knight instead of queen can be of any usefulness?
Or do you mean it avoids stalemate by making it harder for the elector to defend/attack, and loose? I dont see any advantage there, isnt stalemate always preffered to loosing?
- have_faith 3y agoA knight can attack squares the queen cannot. There are positions that promoting to a knight is checkmate, but a queen would lose.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoSometimes it's tactically crucial that the promotion is a check, and in these cases you might need a knight. Making a knight to avoid stalemate is actually extremely rare, because very often a knight isn't enough to win. Making a rook is more common there, but even that's rare.
- PeterisP 3y agoPromotion generally happens when there are very few pieces on the board, and often the opponent's king is the only piece they can move, and it often is close to the promotion square since it was likely trying to block it. If the promoting piece can't check but immediately blocks the last movement squares for that king, as a queen may easily accidentally do, the player who has only the king gets a stalemate draw out of a technically lost position.