Talk:Promotion (chess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Promotion (chess) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] remove stub

I think this is complete enough to remove "stub". I can't think of much else to say about it, except that I want to give one simple example of underpromption. Bubba73

Hmm, it should be checked but I heard that you could promote to any color, including the opponent. It can be useful to avoid stalemate for exemple. Can someone confirm ?

It could indeed be useful in rare positions (Raymond Smullyan gives a nice example in his book The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes]]), but it's not legal in standard chess to promote to a piece of the opposite colour. 213.249.135.36 20:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You can only promote to a queen, rook, knight, or bishop of the same color. Bubba73 (talk), 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of pawns that can be promoted

Is there a limit to the number of pawns that can be promoted? If not, perhaps someone could declare that in the article.--24.200.35.253 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In some variants of chess (older ones I was once told) the pawn is ransomed rather than promoted is it not? Meaning that the pawn is in fact limited to pieces that have been captured.

This was indeed the case in the original rules for chess. Additionally, pawns could only be ransomed for the piece that started on the square where it landed. - Kuzain 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a Top GM(Kamsky?) game against a computer where the GM promoted I think 4 Knights, making 6 Knights in total. Will post up link if found. ChessCreator (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Each side can promote up to eight pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop promotion

I found posted here of all places.

"if i were to promote my pawn to a bishop and i have landed on a black square whilst my other bishiop is also on a black square is it a legal move to have them both on the same colour???"

The answer is yes but perhaps that articles makes it clearer. ChessCreator (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diagram (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article)

In the first diagram under "Promotion to a knight," I worked out this analysis of the position following 1.e8(N)!, and originally put it in the article:

After 1...Bf7, White can also hold with 2.Bf6! sacrificing the knight to reach a drawn two bishops versus one bishop ending. Not 2.Nf6? Bd4! 3.Be7 Kg6 4.Bd8 Ba1 5.Be7 Kf7 6.Bd8 Bb1 zugzwang, but 2.Ng7 Kg6 (or 2...Bd4 3.Bf6! Bxf6 stalemate) 3.Nh5! (not 3.Bh4? Bd4 4.Bf6 Kxf6, with a theoretical win in the two bishops versus knight ending) Kxh5 4.Bf6! also draws.

I'm pretty sure this is accurate, but of course it's a pretty flagrant NOR violation, so I changed the text to (I think) deal with that problem. Krakatoa 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The second diagram can't be correct, 84.3.248.64 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Black Bishop is missing--Delirious prince 04:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed (see below)--Camembert 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First diagram on underpromotion to knight (1. e8=N+!) (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article)

1. e8=Q is not stalemate however Black can force a draw by the following sequence:

1. ... Qf7+ 2. Qxf7+ Kxf7 1/2-1/2

Delirious prince 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Good point. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Both this mistake, and the problem of the missing bishops referred to above, were introduced in an edit of March 31 (whether it was vandalism or well-meaning incompetence, I don't know). Anyway, all is well again now. --Camembert 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion of diagrams (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article)

When reading through this article, I was initially confused as to which diagram was being refered to in the first example under "Promotion to a Knight." Since I'd scrolled down and the diagram in the lead wasn't on my screen, I thought it was refering to the diagram to the right and slightly below that paragraph, leading to much confusion. Since I did this, there's a good chance someone else will, too. Is there a way we can clarify this somehow? For instance, describe it as "the diagram in the lead"? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Would it not make sense to merge this article with Promotion (chess)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawnkingthree (talk • contribs)

It probably would. This article is actually larger than Promotion, though. This article has been around a long time, but it probably could be merged. What do others think? Bubba73 (talk), 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion to Chess and the encyclopeia by Golombek both have artices on underpromotion, but I think it would be best to merge into Promotion. Bubba73 (talk), 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the proposed merge. The subject matters of the two articles overlap. Indeed, the articles have some of the exact same content, notably the graph on the incidence of queening/underpromotion. (What, no statistics on how many people took advantage of the former option of letting their pawn stay a pawn?!) The combined article would be of a reasonable size, by no means too long. Merging the two current articles makes sense. Krakatoa (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the option to leave it a pawn until earlier today. Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur with the merge. The sum of the current article sizes is still very reasonable for one article, and a simple redirect to a section would take care of all navigation and search issues. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's give it until about the 20th to see if anyone objects to the merger. If the articles are merged, I think it will clearly be "B" instead of "start" class. Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's merge it. Does anyone want to perform the small task? Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. By the way, I didn't know about the (old) non-promotion option either until I read about it in Steinitz's book. It sounds like a joke. I wonder if there have been any occasions in chess history when someone seriously wanted to exercise that option (i.e. for legitimate reasons, not just to be silly). It can't have happened often, if at all. I would be interested in knowing when, and why, the non-promotion rule was abolished. It could be that they just did it because they discovered that the rule has no practical significance -- one invariably wants to promote to something. Krakatoa (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird old promotion rules

Yes, there would be very little reason to move a pawn to the eighth rank and leave it a pawn. A pawn on the eighth is useless, except perhaps to block. Bubba73 (talk), 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Davidson's A Short History of Chess has several interesting pages on the history of promotion, but no mention of leaving it a pawn. I'll try to write some of that history into the article. (BTW, I agree with it being B class now.) Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
However, sometimes the rule was that the pawn could only promote to the piece of the file, so if a KP reached the 8th rank, it would stay a pawn. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's really bizarre. That might well make the e-pawn the weakest pawn. What if a pawn captured? If White played exd5 or exf5, could he later promote to a queen or bishop, or was the "promotion piece" for each pawn fixed for the whole game? If the former, the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5) would have been a great opening. Black gambits a stupid non-promotable e-pawn, and turns White's only queenable pawn into a stupid non-promotable e-pawn. What a brilliant strategic coup! Krakatoa (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion rule history

Davidson clearly states that Philidor did not like the possibility of having two queens, and all editions of his book (1749 to 1790) he stated that a promotion could only be to a piece previously captured. Was Davidson just wrong? Bubba73 (talk), 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. I looked again at my book (a reprint of an English translation of Philidor's book, originally published in 1777), and saw that the rules at the back of the book are given as the "following Rules, which the Society or Club of Chess ["Chefs" is how they wrote it] in England have adopted for their code." Presumably these are not the rules Philidor gave in his original book, written in France primarily for French players. I have accordingly reverted my edit. Krakatoa (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)