Promotion to rook or bishop Promotion (chess)

in position @ left (with white move), black threatens capture white s pawn (which draw), , promotion queen stalemate. move 1.g8=r! wins because white can force elementary checkmate resulting position.

at right position 2006 game @ irish chess championship. here too, promotion queen allow stalemate: 70...b1=q?? 71.qh3+! kxh3 stalemate (or 71...kg1 72. qh1+! , black king forced capture). instead, game concluded 70...b1=r! 0-1

less often, underpromotion rook may necessary not avoid stalemate, induce , save draw in otherwise hopeless position. right example end of study frédéric lazard. black threatens checkmate moving king , playing ...bf4. promotion queen not work on account of 1.d8=q? bf4 2.qd2+ kf3 3.qxf4+ kxf4 , black promotes either c-pawn or h-pawn. promotion rook saves draw, however, after 1.d8=r! bf4 2.rd2 (if 1...bxh2, 2.rd3+!), king moves black cause stalemate rook absolutely pinned, , bishop moves along c1–h6 diagonal can parried attacking bishop rook: 2...bg5 3.rd5 kf4 4.rd2 bh6 5.rd6 kg5 6.rd2 1 possible continuation.

bishop underpromotion

in position @ left, promotion queen or rook pin bishop, leaving black no possible move, resulting in stalemate. promotion bishop winning move: 1. c8=b! b\any 2. nd7 b\any 3. bb7# 1–0. (promotion knight threatens checkmate via 2.nb6, thwarted 1...bc7 2.nb6+ bxb6 3.kxb6, drawn game insufficient mating material.)

less often, underpromotion bishop may necessary not avoid stalemate, induce , save draw in otherwise hopeless position. right example end of study herman mattison.

both king moves lose (they can met ...rgg7, example), pawn must promoted. 6.b8=q , 6.b8=r both lose capture on c8, , 6.b8=n, while leaving stalemate after 6...rgxc8??, loses after 6...rcxc8. leaves 6.b8=b!: since c7 rook pinned, black must either lose theoretical draw or play 6...rxc8 which, bishop on b8 rather queen or rook, stalemate.

underpromotion knight or rook in practical play rare, , bishop rarer, in composed chess problems such last example, occurs more often. perhaps famous example saavedra position. cases can quite spectacular: study jan rusinek, example, sees white promoting knight, bishop , rook in order induce stalemate. allumwandlung problem promotions 4 possible pieces occur. extreme example babson task, underpromotions black countered matching underpromotions white (so if black promotes rook, white, , on), white s underpromotions being way mate black in stipulated number of moves.

in 1972 game between aron reshko , oleg kaminsky, promotion queen or rook allow 61...qf7+!! 62.qxf7 stalemate. white promote knight, not sufficient win (soltis 1978:34–35). white wins after:

61. a8=b! qb3 62. qd7

if 62.bc6 qa2 63.bd7 qg8 64.qxg8+ kxg8 65.kg6 wins (müller & pajeken 2008:219–20)

62... qg8 63. bd5 qf8 64. bf7 kh8 65. qe8 qxe8 66. bxe8 kh7 67. bf7 kh8

black in zugzwang 2 moves.

68. kg6 h5 69. kxh5 wins (soltis 1978:34–35).

in actual game, white promoted knight. white won game because of error black (müller & pajeken 2008:219–20).

in 1938 (or 1933) game between alexey sokolsky , grigory ravinsky, promotion queen or rook allow 66...rc2+ 67.ka1 (67.kxc2 stalemate) rc1+ draw perpetual check. promotion knight draws because of position of black s king, 66...rc8! 67.ra6 rxa8 68.rxa8 stalemate. however, move 66. a8=b!, played in game, wins white, following main variations: