Talk:Promotion (chess)

underpromotion avoiding stalemate explanation

There is currently no explanation for why underpromoting to a rook or bishop, with less abilities than a queen, which could simply emulate one or the other, would avoid a stalemate, even with the images given. 71.20.187.169 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much in the lead, but isn't that explained under "Promotion to a rook or bishop"? For instance, in the left diagram, promotion to a queen would be a draw by stalemate, but promotion to a rook wins. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say why it wins. What can a rook do that a queen can't that would make the rook win where the queen stalemates? This has to be explained in a way that someone who isn't a professional chess player could read it and understand right away that the rook, which has half the capability of a queen, is the definitive choice in that situation, and why. 71.20.187.169 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not really what a rook can do that a queen can't that's an issue here, but what a queen can do that a rook can't! If you have a white queen on a8 and the black king somewhere else on the board (where it's not in check), not only are the a-file and 8th rank impossible to reach for the black king (if the queen just sits there indefinitely), but so are any squares on the a8–h1 diagonal. But if you instead have a white rook on a8, the a8–h1 diagonal is open to the king. And if you have a white bishop on a8, the a8–h1 diagonal is still impossible for the black king to reach, but the a-file and 8th rank are open.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move; 1.f8(Q) is stalemate, but 1.f8(R) forces mate next move: 1...Kh6 2.Rh8#.

Consider a situation where Black has a lone king and the squares the black king could otherwise legally move to (but not the one the black king himself stands on) are all cut off by the white queen. Black is here in a stalemate, because the white queen is too powerful. She controls too many squares in this situation. However, if the queen had been brought about by the promotion of a pawn, a player might choose a weaker piece like the rook (but not too weak, so that he can still force checkmate). The rook cannot move diagonally, and so does not control as many squares. This may allow the black king to have some legal moves, so that he is no longer stalemated. King and rook vs. king is a basic checkmate, so here the underpromotion allows White to win instead of draw. Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it in the "Promotion to rook or bishop" - see if that is OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the fellow wanted something along the lines of this added to the introduction to the underpromotion discussion:

"There are rare endgame situations wherein a new queen would control too many squares. This might leave the opponent with no legal moves (while not delivering checkmate), or else permit the opponent to engineer such a situation. The result would be stalemate and the game would be drawn despite the material advantage created by the pawn promotion. In such cases, it may be necessary to “under-promote” to a less powerful piece to avoid the stalemate, but still eventually deliver a checkmate."

Would that be helpful . . . or too much? WHPratt (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I added an explanation to the section on promotion to rook and bishop. I thought that was too much detail for the introduction/lead section, but I'll look at it. Add what you think would be an improvement. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that isn't in the lead section at all (as I thought) - it is in the first subsection. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. 71.20.187.169 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Krakatoa: I'm aware that this is almost twelve years late, and there is now an example in the article already, but there are some nice problems involving this at the MatPlus forum. The idea is the same as promoting to R or B (on steroids!): either avoiding a stalemate to allow a win, or inducing one to save a draw.

Hauke Reddmann, 2017

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to play and draw

Sam Loyd, 1898

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White mates in 3

Left: Any promotion fails to 1...Qf3!, but 1.c8! (no promotion) is immediate dead position!

Right: A classic. 1.cxd8Q/R is stalemate. If 1.cxd8B then 1...Bf5+! and White is too late (mate in 4 only); if 1.cxd8N then 1...Bc6+! similarly delays the mate by a move. But on 1.cxd8! there are no such tricks, because White can now capture the bishop without causing stalemate!

Maybe indeed the situation is impractical, but so are bishop underpromotions in real play. ;) Now, is anyone up for composing a five-way Allumwandlung?! (Adding "defections", i.e. promotions to the wrong colour, would be too much to ask for, I think!) Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

An interesting variant which I just made up (à la Tamerlane chess) would make e-pawns promote to non-royal kings (commoners!), which move as kings but don't have to worry about check! (Though in the days of shatranj the pawn was thought to be worth about a fifth of a knight on average; now we think it is about a third. Betza therefore notes that this seems to imply that one third of today pawn's value comes from its ability to promote to the powerful queen instead of the pretty useless ferz.) Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And people would try 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6 wouldn't they? ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that's not very good: Black gets rid of a non-promotable e-pawn, but in so doing gets rid of his only queenable pawn for now. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (Protactinium-231 with a new username)

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)

Reshko-Kaminsky

Note to self and others, in the Reshko-Kaminski game, the reference book gives underpromotion to a N; chessgames gives to a B. Bubba73 (talk), 04:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And the game is not in the 2006 ChessBase database. Bubba73 (talk), 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, we have conflicting information here. If Chessgames is wrong, we'd better delete that citation.

I won't be playing historian on this matter (the only cited materials I have access to are websites), but it does seem possible that the game actually had a8=N, whereupon later down the line the suggested alternative move of a8=B (as well as the ensuing line) somehow ended up getting misinterpreted as how the game actually went. Out of curiosity, how does the book say the game went after a8=N?

As an aside, why do you bring up that the game does not exist in the 2006 ChessBase database? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Evans (1973) gives 1.Qe8 Qb7 2.a8=B Qb6 3.Qd7 Qb1 4.Bd5 and Black resigns. Evans has been known to be less than reliable however. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Larsen (1975, French language edition 1989) gives 1.a8=B Qb3 2.Qd7 Qg8 3.Bd5 and Black resigns. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Krabbe has 61.a8=B Qb3 62.Qd7 Qg8 63.Bd5 Qf8 64.Bf7 Kh8 65.Qe8 Qxe8 66.Bxe8 Kh7 67.Bf7 Kh8 68.Kg6 h5 69.Kxh5 Kh7 70.Be8 Kg8 71.Kg6 Black resigns. He's normally reliable so I'm inclined to trust this version. I'm curious if there are any other sources that claim white played 61.a8=N. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Muller and Pajeken, page 220, give 1. a8=N? as the actual move played. Followed by 1... Qa7 2. g6 hxg5 3. hxg5 fxg5 4. Qg6+ Kg8 5. Qc6 Qf7+? 6. Kg4 1-0. (5... Kh7! draws.) They say that 1. a8=B! is the only one that forces a win, and give a winning line. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

They are two fairly obscure Soviet masters, and presumably none of us have access to the original Soviet sources. This being the case, rather than saying the source "failed verification" (it didn't), just note that the sources disagree. Say something like "In most sources the remaining moves are given as 61.a8=B Qb3..... etc etc..... However Muller and Pajeken state that White actually played 61.a8=N?, and won only because of a subsequent blunder". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Found a Russian source that gives the same version as Krabbe and chessgames (in the PGN file); it looks self-published but there's stuff about Soviet tournaments here that's nowhere else on the net. http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub/1972/ch_len72.html MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think a note about sources disagree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Or just remove it all together. It's already an enormous article, and it's arguing over moves that aren't known mean it's an consequently an extremely poor example to use in this context. Unbh (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think a note about sources disagree. Bubba73 Normally if 6 sources say one thing and 1 source says something else, I'd say discount the 1 source, but in this case the 1 source is from a highly respected writer & publisher. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Five of the six sources may have gotten it from the same source. To me, the Muller and Pajeken version makes more sense, because they show what they say are the actual moves in the game and give an alternate line. The other sources may have been cleaned up to show the correct underpromotion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a tendency in Soviet writing to distort the truth, not so much to deceive as for illustrative or storytelling purposes. The famous "Kotov Syndrome" game in Think like a Grandmaster is based on the game Riumin-Belavenets. Kotov says White resigned after 28...h4, when in fact Black didn't play that move and allowed White to escape with a draw. There are other examples of distortions in the book. In the present example, it's brave of Muller/Pajeken to go against the grain and claim something different than every other source I've seen, but it's certainly possible that the Soviet sources distorted things. Is there any indication of where Muller/Pajeken got their information from? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a bibliography nearly two pages long. Most of them are books, but then it lists Chess Today, ChessBase Magazine, Endgame Corner, Informator, New in Chess, and databases: ChessBase Mega and The Week in Chess, but it doesn't indicate a particular source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Zurakhov-Koblents: 79. c8N+ not best

The article states White instead played 79.c8N+! (Here, there are other winning moves, such as 79.Kc5. According to the article on algebraic notation, the exclamation mark is used for a particularly good (and usually surprising) move, while !? indicates an interesting move that may not be best. So the following punctuation should be used: 79.c8N+!? vs. 79.Kc5! as Kc5 is much better than c8N+, in fact, Kc5 starts a mate in five whereas the mate starting with c8N+ takes twice as long according to tablebase. E.g. 79. Kc5 Ng3 80. c8Q Ne4+ 81. Kc6 Nc5 82. Nb6 (any) 83. Qa8#. Perhaps more importantly, Kc5 is basically foolproof, but after c8N+, careless play by White will likely give Black drawing opportunities. In fact, 80. Kb6 is not the best move either, a7+ wins more quickly White's follow-up move as played in the game

Some more analysis of 79. Kc5 was written by user MostlyAverageJoe at chessgames.com. Aragorn2 (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

underpromotion paragraph

Before underpromotion came into use, sometimes it was said that a Pawn promoted "to a Ferz, which has the power of a Queen". This is not connected with the change of the Queen's move from one square diagonally only to its modern move.

This doesn't make any sense. In fact it directly contradicts the first paragraph of that section, which is referenced.

Several centuries ago the piece now known as the queen was called the ferz (and variations). It had a limited movement and was the weakest piece other than a pawn. When a pawn reached its eighth rank it was promoted to a ferz/queen, the weakest piece, which was like a field promotion to the lowest officer. There wasn't any such thing as underpromotion then because all promotions were to that piece. When the queen got its current move it suddenly became the most powerful piece. Promotions were still allowed to the new queen, but then underpromotions were allowed. So underpromotion is directly related to the queen acquiring its current move. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

removed paragraph

I removed: Before underpromotion came into use, sometimes it was said that a Pawn promoted "to a Ferz, which has the power of a Queen". This is not connected with the change of the Queen's move from one square diagonally only to its modern move.

It doesn't really make sense. When the queen/Ferz had its old move, pawns were promoted to it and there was no underpromotion. Only when the queen got its current move did underpromotions come about. Bubba73 (talk), 19:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

repetition

can this move be used more than once in a game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.151.205 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - each pawn that reaches its eighth rank promotes. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Taunting opponent

Voluntary underpromotion (usually rook instead of queen) is sometimes used to slightly taunt the opponent and tell him that it is time to give up. (Of course professionals usually know when the game is hopeless.) --92.78.17.250 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've done that. Others I know have too. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the pawn promotion creates a back-rank checkmate, a rook might be just as good as a queen, and the underpromotion could be justified on the basis of economy. Queening would be "overkill." WHPratt (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotions and illegal moves

The article says: "If no queen is available, an upside-down rook is often used to designate a queen. Sometimes two pawns on the same square, or a pawn on its side, is used.[citation needed]"

Using an upside-down Rook, sideways pawn etc is an illegal move and will be penalised by the arbiter. The correct procedure is to stop the clocks and call the arbiter to provide the required piece. See FIDE rules of chess, articles 6.12 and 7.4.

Chess Fundi (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, if FIDE procedure is followed. But in casual play it is not.--131.159.76.155 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed and clarified that. I also moved it to the lead, since it is probably a common question. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering: do chess arbiters habitually carry extra black and white queens in their pockets? Or are there bins of extra pieces in easy reach at tournaments? Or do they just look for a habitual loser and raid his pieces? ("You won't be needing this ... !") (There's one famous [composed] ending wherein one side has to underpromote several times and deliver checkmate with five knights. That one would be fun to watch if it ever ocurred. (Board Thirteen! We need another white knight! Yes, another one!)) WHPratt (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that they carry extra pieces around. It is common to borrow one from another set and some sets come with extra queens. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the few games I have played with more than one queen, a second queen has simply been borrowed from a nearby board. Many chess sets are also sold with four queens to handle this contingency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with "1862 British Chess Association rule" section

At what I think is the opening of the third paragraph, it says "The broad language of Law XIII also appears to allow promotion to any piece of any color. This led to the whimsical endgame study diagrammed at right." The problem is, the diagram is not to the right but a good ways above (it is the right-hand diagram following the first paragraph), and it took me a while to figure this out. This is broken. But I don't know how the chess diagrams work and do not want to mess around with them, but if somebody who is familiar with this could fix it, that would be great. Just labeling the diagram and changing the text would be a kluge but at least an improvement. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks for noticing that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When Was Law XIII changed?

Its wording seemed to allow promotion to a piece of the other colour. This is not the rule now.

So, when was it changed/reinterpreted? And are there any recorded games where promotion to the other colour was done, when it was possible? 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:85DD:A32A:1AB5:EFF4 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to those questions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I honestly doubt it. It seems to me that situations where dummy pawns, extra kings, and defections would be useful would be even rarer than situations where bishop underpromotion would be useful. (Which might be a good argument for restoring them to the game, actually, to legitimise some wonderful joke problems.) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Inverted rook for queen

In amateur games this is pretty normal, but in tournaments it is strictly forbidden. A queen can only be represented by a queen piece. Furthermore placing an inverted rook on the board is a/ illegal since it doesn't represent a queen, b/ illegal because it doesn't even represent a rook and c/ could be considered distracting your opponent. In any case this would lose you the game. The referee having spare queens is pretty important at tournaments.62.159.14.62 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bubba73 will weigh in soon and he has been a TD so he will know, but I don't think "strictly forbidden" is correct. I think "discouraged" would be closer to accurate. As far as I know, any distinct token can be used to represent a promoted queen if an actual queen of the correct color is not available. An inverted rook is traditional. Quale (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The official FIDE rules say to stop the clocks and call the arbiter if the piece isn't available. In The Official Rules of Chess by Eric Schiller (an international arbiter), which are supposed to be the FIDE rules, he says "alternatively, use an inverted rook or pawn on its side and verbally indicate which piece it represents. The arbiter should replace it." The official USCF rules say that an upside-down rook is OK and if not stated otherwise, it is considered to be a queen.

I am horrified by using a pawn on its side, for instance it can roll to another square. But in scholastic tournaments I have also seen the players use a queen of the other color and a knight used as a queen! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Drueke brand chess sets had pieces (and pawns) with octagonal bases. Maybe it was to discourage rolling when these were deployed sideways. ;) WHPratt (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bishop promotion

Our only examples are from two studies/problems and analysis of a game where the bishop promotion didn't actually happen. Shouldn't we have an example where the bishop promotion did happen in an actual game (Sokolsky–Ravinsky perhaps, although that game is somewhat mysterious?) Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be a good example to include, but it is pretty strange. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added. Is this OK? Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Notation

There should really be a discussion on how promotion is notated in algebraic/descriptive/correspondance/computer/etc. notation. Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This might be a welcome addition. I note a recent edit regarding the use of the term "eighth rank." Now, in the old descriptive notation, each side had an "eighth rank" as its target for promotions, and this was equivalent to the opponents' first rank. Algebraic notation doesn't maintain that concept. WHPratt (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I would think that the concept of ranks being counted from each side's back rank is still alive and well, even if descriptive notation is not: we still talk about "rooks on the seventh rank", after all. In some cases of special symmetry, descriptive notation still has a very small niche. Many authors will now refer to that dangerous square in the opening as f2/f7 instead of KB2, but I should like to offer a tongue-in-cheek unclaimable prize to someone who can make the following sentence read well in algebraic: "a standard fianchetto consists of performing the moves P-N3 and then B-N2". ^_^

Returning to the topic, this would also be historically interesting, because there seems to have been a lot of variation in how exactly you represent the promoting part of the move. Even in algebraic notation today, it is possible to write d8=B, d8(B), d8B, or d8/B. The moving part is always the same, and follows the usual conventions for a move (e.g. d8, d7-d8, P-Q8, 4748, etc.), but representing the promotion requires a lot of ad hoc solutions. It would surely be interesting to find out how popular each of them is and has been. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Alice Through The Looking Glass

It's something of a shame that the extant article does not have a "popular culture" or a "literary usage" section. Alice Through The Looking Glass was all about the queening of Alice as she progressed through 8 "fields" laid down before her, encountering the White and Red Knights, all of the Kings and Queens along the way as well as a few pawns that were performing menial tasks. :) Damotclese (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I note that this article is the primary topic for the term underpromotion, which is extensively covered in the article. Pawn underpromotion? Under pawn promotion? It would be interesting if royal promotion were allowed, forcing your opponent to simultaneously checkmate two kings! wbm1058 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Promotion (chess) → Pawn promotion – Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. 108.49.247.206 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @108.49.247.206 and Frayae: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Should be discussed at RM since the term "promotion" is often used on it's own. Chess is a whole topic of interest and I anticipate people will have comments to make. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Slightly against (1) the article also mentions shogi, in which pieces other than pawns can promote. (2) "Pawn promotion" is probably the less-used term. The Oxford Companion has an entry "pawn promotion" but it says to see "promotion". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The FIDE Laws of Chess use the term "promotion" and not "pawn promotion". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A Google search for the exact phrase "pawn promotion" turns up only 238,600 hits. A search for promotion and chess turns up 13,600,000 hits - 352x as many. Or over 35,100% more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Leave as is - just "promotion" is the term used in chess. "Pawn promotion" would be a redundancy; I don't hear anyone say it in real life, and chess writers don't use it because it's a waste of ink. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per redundancy. Promotion in chess means pawn promotion, as far as I know it is the only meaning. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per policy, especially WP:NATURAL Red Slash 14:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NATURAL applies only if there is another topic which would be confused with this one. There is no other topic which applies to 'Promotion (chess)'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• That's incorrect. The parenthetical "(chess)" is the disambiguator to disambiguate this article from other articles titled Promotion. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NaturalDisambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NaturalDisambiguation. Chess writers don't use the term "pawn promotion" because the context of the promotion is obvious in chess writing; however, the context is not obvious here. --Rob Kelk 17:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bubba73, since not all promotion in chess (or in the article) is pawn promotion. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Underpromotion controversy

Promotion to a rook (castle) or bishop is useless and perhaps should be removed. Promotion to a knight (horse) is still useful. LukeyBear11 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No it is not useless. For instance, once I had a tournament game (in the 1970 US high school championship) where I had to promote to a rook to avoid stalemate (and soon won the game). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's nice to see that there are Wikipedians who are attempting to suggest changes to an article that they literally have not read. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Unclear WHEN this can happen

The introduction lacks any description as to how or when promotion happens! It dives deeply into different forms, etc, but does not explain what is needed for a promotion, how it actually *works*. Could this be added? Dr. F.C. Turner (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The intro says that it happens when a pawn reaches its eighth rank. I added a sentence as to why it is done. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

square -> point

The word "square" was changed to "point" in about four places. I think "square" is better. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, that was me. Allow me to explain my decision: in xiangqi and janggi, pieces are placed on the intersection points, not within the squares. Thus, I felt it unfitting to say that a piece would travel a certain number of squares when it, in fact, does not travel on said squares.

An argument could be made that, because points are zero-dimensional, you can't use them as a unit of measurement (e.g. "moving one point"). However, we don't really think of moving a certain number of board spaces as being equivalent to moving a certain physical distance. Say the side of a chessboard square is one unit long. If you move two squares vertically on a chessboard, you move two units; if you move two squares diagonally on a chessboard, you move about 2.8 units; if you move two squares knightwise on a chessboard, you move about 4.5 units. So the number of squares a piece is considered to move is simply the number of squares it passes directly through as it moves. Same logic for points.

So yeah, that's my rationale. I'd like to hear yours. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. You could consider a square to be a point, because it doesn't matter where on the square it is. But "square" is the common terminology. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Piece ordering

Do we order the icons based on FIDE's ordering (itself based on relative piece strength) or based on relative frequency of promotion? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many examples?

I think this article cites way too many games and chess problems. For one, the second paragraph of the "Strategy" section is an impenetrable wall of text and notation. Furthermore, there are no fewer than fifteen diagrams in the "Underpromotion" section, six for knight promotions alone. I think we could afford to trim this article considerably; it seems far too long in its current state. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording

Okay, we're all chill here. We're all friends.

User:MaxBrowne2, we meet again. I see that you have made some edits. Allow me to go over them:

Edit #1: Yep, that makes sense.

Edit #2: Pedantry? It's called accuracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Edit #3: Why did you massacre so much information? That doesn't make sense.

Edit #4: No comment.

Edit #5: Yeah, sure.

Edit #6: The information you added is already covered in the very same paragraph.

I see some value in what you're putting here, but the rest I'm reverting. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep the lead simple. This is the only part of the article many readers are going to read. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You know that any reader who actually cares about the topic of the article is going to have an attention span lasting longer than, like, six sentences? Well, if you didn't, now you do. Knowledge is power. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with basically all of Max's edits. The previous lead had went well beyond summarizing the most important points of the article. The one thing I don't get is why the algebraic notation template was removed – was that intentional? Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Restored. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's go over every change.

"In chess, promotion is the replacement of a pawn with a new piece"

What new piece? Oh, right, you removed the specification for absolutely zero reason.

"usually a queen"

Isn't this information already in the lead? Isn't it unnecessary to have here, then? And you wanted to get on my case about too much detail.

"It occurs immediately when the pawn moves to the last rank."

Fine.

"Standard chess sets do not contain enough pieces to accommodate all potential promotion options,"

There's a standard? You know there are chess sets that do contain enough pieces to accommodate all potential promotion options, right? Are you trying to say that those sets are abhorrent to the nature of chess sets or something?

"In club and tournament play, where multiple chess sets are available, promoted pieces may be borrowed from other chess sets."

You know that if you can borrow pieces from other chess sets, then that already logically implies that those sets... exist?

Removed information:

"The choice of the new piece is not limited to pieces previously captured; thus, promotion allows a player to own more pieces of a given type than they had at the start of the game."

I feel like this is an important piece of clarification, since some people might think not having enough pieces to promote just means they can't promote, which wouldn't be too illogical to think.

"The pawn cannot remain as a pawn or promote to a king."

I think some people might get confused about whether or not promotion is mandatory, so this information could be useful. I guess the note about the king isn't strictly necessary if we just specify the pieces one can promote to, but here's something I find interesting: you removed this information in the very same edit that you removed the specification of what pieces one can promote to.

"Underpromotion is usually to a knight, as it moves in a way the queen cannot. Promotion to a rook or bishop instead of a queen may be done to avoid or induce stalemate, but most underpromotions are humorous in nature."

Well, going this in-depth probably isn't necessary either. I think it would at least be useful to clarify with something like: "Underpromotion can be useful in some situations, even though the queen is generally the strongest piece." That way, nobody leaves with the impression that underpromotion was just added to chess for no reason. After that, any reader who gets curious about why underpromotion exists can go ahead and read the body of the article.

"Additionally, in casual play, two pawns on the same square may indicate a queen."

Why remove this? You didn't even add a "citation needed" or anything, you just nuked it. Were you completely convinced that this is untrue? You know what, to be fair, I read this information over at Pawn (chess) and it had no source, so maybe it is untrue. I imagine you searched for a source to the information and couldn't find any, thus concluding that none exists and that the information is actually a hoax. That did happen, right?

A note on the length of Wikipedia lead sections:

I refer to MOS:LEADLENGTH for my following statement: The lead section as it existed before your edits was in no way too long. Three paragraphs of content is perfectly reasonable for such a large article (intense though my efforts have been to cut down on said article's length). While it is nice to have a lead section that won't bore the average reader, reducing the entire thing to just five sentences is going way, way, way too far in my opinion.

I'm really frustrated, okay? I'm trying to understand your point of view, and I think you have good intentions, but most of your decisions simply don't make sense to me. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to "Okay, we're all chill here"? The problem with the lead before Max's edits was not length per se but rather that it wasn't doing a good job "summarizing" the article. If you want to restore the sentence "The pawn cannot remain as a pawn or promote to a king" to the lead, fine by me, but the rest of your objections don't make much sense to me either. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pawn promotion is at the end of the day a fairly simple concept and doesn't need a whole lot of paragraphs in the lead to summarise it. Keep the lead short, the technical stuff can go in the body, and even then try to keep the language simple. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'm in a bad mood and suddenly it's my fault. Thank you for pointing that out for no reason.

I will rewrite the lead into a concise yet effective summary of the key points of the article. I hope the result is to your liking.

Oh, and for the record, User:MaxBrowne2: No, "of the same color" is not pedantry; no, it is not legalistic detail; no, it is not only relevant to chess problemists; it is part of the basic description of the rule, and it is four words long. Let it go. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The difficulty with writing a longer but still high-quality summary of this particular article is that the article itself is unbalanced and incomplete (and not B-class IMO): I have in mind specifically the Strategy section. You can't summarize content that isn't there to begin with. I understand that it's fun to write about unusual cases of promotion, but that is not really material that needs summary-style treatment. If we had some discussion of how the promotion rule relates to, e.g., why an extra pawn can often be a decisive material advantage in chess, the value of passed pawns in the endgame, the sharpness of endgames involving passed pawns (e.g., pawn races), etc., that is the sort of material that could be usefully summarized in the lead. Cobblet (talk)

Funny story. When I found this article, the Strategy section was actually much larger than it currently is, but only because it was full of a bunch of completely irrelevant information that had nothing to do with the ostensible subject of the section. And on that note: trust me, if you have trouble believing the article is B-Class now, you should've seen the mess it used to be. The most generous of gradings should not have scored this article any higher than a C-Class. Here's the last revision before my editing spree, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Promotion_(chess)&oldid=1065263916

However, a new era has dawned upon this article. The Strategy section will be reborn, and I will add all of those things you mentioned, which I agree are important things. And may I just say: thank you for joining me on this journey. And to User:MaxBrowne2, thank you as well, as even though we may have had our differences, I value your contributions. Wikipedia, truly, is a beautiful place. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"regional variants"

This term is very Western-centric and a bit insulting to the "regions" where these games are played. Shogi is every bit as complex as chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Various, including an apology [title by Drmies]

Alright, User:MaxBrowne2, let me start with this: I'm sorry for addressing you in my edit summaries and also for not learning my lesson. I will stop.

I am disheartened that you chose to revert my edits without a second thought, but at the same time, I understand that you must have felt frustrated, just as I did.

I will present my case for my edits again. I will not be abrasive toward you; you do not deserve it.

"Underpromotion may be done for various reasons, such as to avoid stalemate or due to the knight's unique movement pattern."

This version is more concise and easily understandable.

"Most chess sets do not contain enough pieces to accommodate all potential promotions,"

I do not know definitively that there exists on this Earth at least one chess set containing enough pieces for all promotions. On the other hand, you do not know that there does not exist on this Earth such a set, and I would in fact be very surprised were that the case. Until we can find every chess set in every corner of the globe, the only thing we can say for sure is that it must be very, very, very common for a chess set not to have 96 pieces.

"When multiple sets are available, promoted pieces are usually borrowed from other chess sets."

This is to replace "if necessary." You see, sometimes that second queen is indeed necessary, but that doesn't mean you can force it to exist if it's not available. And so I have stated that it must be available.

"Regional variants"

Is this better than "Asian games of the chess family"? Well, let's see. Firstly, "Asian" implies that there is something special about the games' place of origin when there is not. Secondly, "variants" is more concise. To address your main concern: According to this website, "A chess variant is a game related to, derived from, or inspired by chess." These other games would fall into the "related to" category. Now, is this a misnomer? I mean, maybe it is. We could call them "chaturanga variants" if we wanted to be more pedantic and less snappy. I guess "chess family" is fine. However, I prefer "regional" over "Asian."

Well, that's about it. Once again, I am sorry. I saw you as my enemy, but you were just trying to help. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not fond of vague language such as "various reasons", it would be better to just list the reasons. Instead of debating personal opinions about the language, I think it could be helpful to stick more closely to what the sources say. The underpromotion section seems a little sparsely cited right now, and correcting that might make more clear how we should phrase it. What references do we have that discuss chess sets in the context of promotion and borrowing pieces from other sets? Quale (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

9 queens etc

I am literally being asked to provide a source that 1+8=9 and 2+8=10. That's all the statement about 9 queens, 10 rooks etc is trying to convey - that the only limit to the number of pieces of any type a player can have is the number of pawns they can promote. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No. My point is that I don't believe it's possible to get to a position where these promotions have take place without a mate occurring first, particularly with Queens. Unbh (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it possible, it's easy. Even 18 queens on the board can easily be constructed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring. Great.

User:Unbh, please do not remove information solely because you have a feeling that it's false. If you want, you can add something called a {{Citation needed}} template to the text. If you actually know that the information is wrong, then you can cite sources of your own that say so.

User:MaxBrowne2, please stop being aggressive toward this other person. Don't make personal attacks. Don't angrily barge into their talk page and insult them. Just take a deep breath. It'll be okay.

Both of you, knock it off with the edit warring. You should have just come to the talk page in the first place. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the 9 Queens bit because it's a nonsense as it stands and where it is. It's uncited and it's an extreme hypothetical situation that is effectively trivia. It doesn't make sense to have it in the statement of the rule, it's completely WP:UNDUE. If it's restored it should at the very least have a citation to show that it's actually noteworthy and not just a bit of theoretical OR. Unbh (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

1+8=9 is not OR and doesn't need to be cited. I gave an example where 18 queens were on the board, dismantling your argument that it is impossible to occur, though the source itself is a forum and therefore not citable. It comes down to "I just don't like it" on your part. Please edit in areas where you actually have a few clues... I don't edit articles on sailing or nuclear physics or Middle Eastern politics. And stop fucking templating me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

[Here] is something of a reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not asking for a number for 1+ 8= 9. That's a strawman. I'm asking for evidence that this 9 queen situation is actually noteworthy enough to be included in a summary of the rule. Otherwise it's simply confusing trivia. Unbh (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If you edit in a civil manner and don't make abusive edit summaries then you won't get templated Unbh (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fuck off, dickhead. And take your superior attitude and your edit warring and your templates with you. Just fuck off. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. That took you four edits to compose? And some misleading edit summaries into the bargain. Unbh (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your conduct in this situation has been so utterly embarrassing, I want to weep. There is absolutely no world in which this comment is acceptable on a Wikipedia talk page. Don’t edit Wikipedia if you can’t behave yourself. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to leave you similar instructions. This is not your argument so stay out of it. A week after the fact too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely could not care less one way or another regarding the material you were so eager to prettily squabble over. That is not the issue here. The issue is that you felt the need to throw a temper tantrum over it, and I don’t feel the need to explain why I have a problem with that. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Fuck off. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it’s blatantly obvious that you’re looking for a fight, but I’m not giving you one. Now, you have a choice of a) either calmly walking away or b) stirring up even more trouble and digging yourself a deeper hole, possibly eventually forcing me to get certain other people involved. To me, this seems like a pretty obvious one. I leave it to you to decide. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who picked a fight by jumping into a thread where you weren't wanted. So fuck off. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Welly well well, would you lookie that. I come back to this page after a while, and it's fully protected. Phenomenal.

I actually find it perfectly understandable how pissed off you got at Unbh. Frankly, I would have felt exactly the same way given the nonsensical nature of their arguments. But to be clear, I am not taking your side here, because you still completely bungled this situation. There were many ways you could've handled this other than engaging in an internet bare-knuckle brawl, but you didn't use any of them.

Wrong choice. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet again you revive this thread after days, weeks even, and completely unnecessarily, just so you can lord it over me and act like you're morally superior. What's more important to you, improving the article and defending it from editors who make up their own rules, or feeling morally superior to others? Fuck you for that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The protection is due to expire Friday. In the mean time one can make substantive comments in this talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Restored with a source. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Restricted promotion

In the days of restricted promotion to captured pieces only (e.g. Philidor), could one have two bishops travelling on the same colour? For example, might one have one's dark-squared bishop captured, and then promote to a second bishop on light squares? (A rather theoretical situation, I suppose!) Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Formalized rule sets didn't really appear until the 19th century. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Should've expected that, but good to know. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing specifically prohibiting it, so I have to assume it’s allowed. After all, the reason restricted promotion was ever a thing at all was just to prevent people from playing with more pieces than the set came with, but chess sets don’t come with light- or dark-squared bishops; they just come with bishops. Plus, just because you have a bishop controlling a color of square doesn’t mean that any subsequent bishops on that color are now completely redundant. It seems like such a strangely niche thing to prohibit for no real reason, anyway. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Opening promotions and could have

I've removed the examples where there could have been a promotion - there are lots of scenarios where things could take place - this section should deal with promotions that actually happened, not conjecture and crystal ball gazing where the promotion was avoided. Anything else is cast iron Wikipedia:OR Unbh (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. WP:CRYSTAL is concerned with future events, not already completed events. Just because a move wasn't physically played on the board doesn't mean the example is irrelevant. It's very common for a player to resign before a pawn actually gets promoted, for example, or to avoid a spectacular line based on pawn promotion but get a losing position anyway. In chess, often the most interesting and spectacular lines are in the notes, rather than physically played at the board. If you knew anything about chess you'd know all this, but for some reason you seem to have an agenda of destroying other people's content and behaving like a troll. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, this is an encyclopaedia. We record what did happen, not what could have happened, regardless of how spectacular that could have been.Unbh (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The point of the examples is to illustrate a tactic, not to keep a historical record, otherwise how could we include any analysis at all? Or would you have us use only composed positions? It's absurd and none of this has anything to do with crystal balls or original research. I'm restoring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You illustrate the tactic with examples of where it did happen, not speculation about where it could have. That is exactly original research.Unbh (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule that says an example of a chess tactic must have been physically played at a board. It could be analysis of a game that was played, or it could be an entirely composed and artificial position. You're inventing rules that don't exist. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It can be all those things, if you have a reliable source discussing it. You don't, you're introducing your analysis based on a projection of what could have happened. You analysis is OR.  Unbh (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced. I have reported you for edit warring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The games are sourced, the analysis isn't. It's not the same thing.Unbh (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Both are sourced, and it is not "my" analysis. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no source for any of the analysis in Shechter Perlis, unless you mean the forum discussion underestimated, which is totally not RS. And regardless it doesn't matter, discussion about what could have happened is still not relevant. It's all crystal ballingUnbh (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You really are just making it up as you go along. You can't even spell Schlechter's name, how am I supposed to take you seriously on chess matters? Your position that only moves actually played at the board are valid examples to illustrate a chess theme is utterly ridiculous. There are plenty of sources on Schlechter-Perlis, but they are chess books. You don't have any books on chess do you? And you know what I think of your stupid fucking templates, so I can only assume you do that to troll me. You are not a good faith editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Steve Giddens, 101 Chess Traps. (example 71, page 79). Irving Chernev, Combinations, the Heart of Chess. (example 128, page 66). There are many others. None of the analysis is "mine" or "original". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Put the sources in the article then. But the point remains the same, you can't give examples of promotions that didn't happen. It's absurd. If you don't like warnings then learn to be WP:CIVIL Unbh (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure I can give those sources, but no the point does not remain the same. There is no wikipedia requirement that illustrative examples of chess themese were ever physically played at a chess board. It is nowhere in any wikipedia policy, otherwise it would be impossible to comment on any chess moves. And if you've got an issue say it in your own words, not with a fucking template. What are you trying to achieve with that? I can only treat it as trolling. I will consider genuine attempts to communicate, but all tamplates will be summarily dismissed. Just fuck off with that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Schlechter-Perlis example, I am unhappy that it was sourced to chessgames.com. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this talk page, chessgames.com is not a reliable source. The Carlsbad 1911 chess tournament was itself notable, so one would hope that there was a reliable source for its game scores, but our article on it doesn't link to one.

The promotion we are talking about appears in the analysis of the game, not in the game itself. We generally discourage people from including their own analysis in chess articles. That is considered WP:OR. I do not think that the analysis we are presenting of Schlechter-Perlis was done by a Wikipedia editor; more likely it was lifted from the comments in the chessgames.com page. So it isn't WP:OR. But getting analysis from the comments in a chessgames.com page is an even more flagrant violation of WP:RS than getting the game score itself from chessgames.com. So this is a serious sourcing problem.

Sometimes the solution to a sourcing problem is to excise the unsourced material. Here, however, that is a significant step in the wrong direction. The game is well-known and the analysis is well-known, so an editor who cares about the solution of this problem should be able to solve it by carrying out some research. An editor who doesn't have time or resources to carry out this research can leave an appropriate template; or perhaps even a comment in this talk page would be sufficient. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Chessgames isn't ideal, but there are plenty of other usable sources. We can even go back to probably the game's first publication, which includes the same alleged "original research". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just the game, there's nothing there about early promotion. Unbh (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is like arguing with a child. 22:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yert again twith the personal attacks. When will you learn to be civil. You've provided a better source for the actual game - there's still nothing about early promotion. As Bruce leverett has pointed out as well this stuff needs to be properly sourced and just posting as source for the game and extrapolating from there doesn't cut it unless you can source it properly.Unbh (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This truly is like arguing with a child. There are multiple sources for this and I can't be bothered explaining why they're relevant to a troll who knows nothing about chess, invents his own wikipedia rules and has an agenda to destroy other people's work. Textbook definition of WP:NOTHERE. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 is correct, this source includes both the game, and the analysis of the potential promotion. (See the search result on page 315.) It's in German, and it's a google books query rather than an existing web page, so it isn't ideal, but it beats the heck out of sourcing the comments section of a chessgames.com page. When the protection is lifted from this article, I would be happy to fix this, unless by then someone has found an even better source. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There's the aforementioned Chernev (got that book?) which is kind of fluffy but includes the relevant information. There's also Steve Giddins which pretty much covers everything. This link is "naughty" and almost certainly a copyvio, but the book can be cited. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for these two pointers. I have used Chernev as a source for the analysis. I have left untouched a citation of chessgames.com for the game score, because it's handy to have it to click through the game, and because I don't know (from using google books) whether or not Chernev gives the whole game score. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious as to l to why you think the chess articles should be held to different standards than the rest of Wikipedia. We're not here for comment but to record accurate information. Examples of where promotion actually took place are relevant. Examples of commentary on where could have done are interesting but not for Wikipedia. Again, be civil and you won't get warned.Unbh (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your "standard" simply does not exist. We are not just keeping a dry historical archive without commentary. We're allowed to say a cricket or baseball player screwed up if he dropped a catch. We're allowed to say Metal Machine Music is considered one of the worst albums of all time. We are allowed to comment and to cite it. And fuck your templates. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI

The restored version was the last version from July. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing disputes

It looks to me like the section, Promotion (chess)#Frequency, is unsound. It is based almost entirely on statistics culled from an online database of games. Is it not well-known among chess editors that these databases cannot be used as reliable sources?

Generally speaking, I don't think there is a reliable source about what happens frequently in tournament chess and what doesn't. If what we want to say doesn't fall under WP:BLUE, we can't say it. When the protection of this article is lifted, I would happily rip out the section about Frequency altogether. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't consider a reputable chess database such as chessbase to be a reliable source, but admittedly deriving statistics from a database would be original research, unless someone else has already done that research and published it. This is where subject matter experts like Tim Krabbe come in handy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We are on the same page with regard to the value of articles like the one by Krabbé. But our statement in the Frequency section, besides being original research, doesn't look very solid. Do we have any reason to think that the games in this database are representative of "all" games? (If they aren't, then we certainly can't make the statement that "3% of all promotions are underpromotions.") Most of my tournament games are not published or reported anywhere, so they don't make it to any database. Of the games that do make it to a database, how do we know that we're seeing the actual game score? (This is especially a problem for game featuring underpromotion, because we might be looking at some nifty post-game analysis, rather than the actual score, as in the chessgames.com version of Reshko vs. Kaminsky). Do we even have the name of an editor who looks into issues like that? Bruce leverett (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The actual game score of Reshko-Kaminsky is disputed. Normally if 10 sources say one thing and 1 source says something else we'd go with the 10 sources, but in this case the 1 source is highly credible. Maybe we could ask Karsten Muller where he got his info from? Regardless it's relevant because it's a very rare example of a correct underpromotion to a bishop from practical play. The demand that only moves physically played at the board be used as illustrative examples is bizarre and I'm done arguing about it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides the Frequency section, there are in the section about Underpromotion a few "citation needed" templates, which are complaining about the same problem, i.e. assuming that statistical results of search of a games database are generally valid. I will try to edit them all, one way or another. Don't know yet how they will all come out. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have carried out the above outlined changes. In addition, I would like to strengthen the last sentence of the intro: "Promotion or the threat of it often decides the result in an endgame." This should say that promotion can very strong, and even when a promotion does not occur, the threat of it often plays a major role in a game (in any stage, not just the endgame). But I don't have a good textbook at my fingertips! (Been playing chess too many years, I suppose.) Bruce leverett (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Found another example of a correct promotion to a bishop

McShane-Wilhelmi, Lippstadt 1998. 85.hxg8=B is quickest, though interestingly 85.hxg8=N also wins. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Admittedly 84.Rg8?! made things much harder than they needed to be. No hurry to play that move, just 84.Kxd4 is much easier. I imagine there were clocks involved, nevertheless 85.hxg8=B! was a correct underpromotion to a bishop. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this was entry 169 in Tim Krabbé's Open chess diary. 85.hxg8=N also wins, but as Krabbé notes, "that would have been much harder". Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)