Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Re: Promotion to a Bishop





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Promotion to a Bishop
Ken Blake

2005-04-07, 6:07 pm

In news:1112568247.674782.61340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Gunsberg <gunsberg@kasparovchess.com> typed:
quote:

> ian burton wrote:

quote:

>
> No, Kramnik is not the first. Moreover, there have been
> instances of
> games between Granmasters that involved **necessary**
> underpromotions
> to a Bishop, for the obvious purpose of avoiding Stalemate
> threats by
> the opponent.



*Necessary* underpromotion is another thing entirely, not
necessarily to avoid stalemate, but often to create a winning
knight fork. As a matter of fact, underpromotion to a knight, is
the most common underpromotion. Underpromotion to a bishop is
much rarer.

But Ian, I'm sure, is well aware of both reasons for
underpromotion. What he was asking about is the kind of whimsical
underpromotion that occurred in this particular game--where the
Bishop and the Queen were equivalent.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews