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

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

In news:1112645033.921410.242810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
Gunsberg <gunsberg@kasparovchess.com> typed:

quote:

> You seem to think that Burton is interested in finding
> **another**
> instance of "such an underpromotion [to a Bishop]" which is
> "mere
> whimsy" on the part of the Grandmaster.



Yes, but it's more than "seem to think" in this instance. I know
it to be true.

quote:

> I interpreted Burton's query to be a request to ascertain
> whether
> the Kramnik game is the first instance of underpromotion to a
> Bishop in
> a game between Grandmasters. I don't believe that he was
> stipulating
> that the underpromotion to the Bishop also had to be whimsical.
> In
> fact, it is reasonable to infer from Burton's query that he
> was
> interested in games featuring underpromotion to a Bishop, where
> the
> move was NOT **mere** whimsy.



It might be reasonable to infer that, but it happens not to be
the case. I know that from private correspondence with Burton.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


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