Talk:Promotion (chess)

message: 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)
replies: text:  You can only promote to a queen, rook, knight, or bishop of the same color.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: remove stub

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Each side can promote up to eight pawns.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of pawns that can be promoted

message: 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)
thread_title: Bishop promotion

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, the Black Bishop is missing--Delirious prince 04:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (see below)--Camembert 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: diagram (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article) 

message: 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)
replies: text: True. Good point. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First diagram on underpromotion to knight (1. e8=N+!) (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion of diagrams (this section is from merged-in "underpromotion" article) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'd never heard of the option to leave it a pawn until earlier today.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: :: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weird old promotion rules 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Promotion rule history

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zurakhov-Koblents: 79. c8N+ not best 

message: 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)
thread_title:  underpromotion paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed paragraph 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Promotions and illegal moves 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "1862 British Chess Association rule" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know the answer to those questions.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: When Was Law XIII changed?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Added. Is this OK? Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop promotion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alice Through The Looking Glass 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Underpromotion controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear WHEN this can happen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Piece ordering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many examples? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "regional variants" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Various, including an apology [title by Drmies]

message: 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)
replies: text: Formalized rule sets didn't really appear until the 19th century. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should've expected that, but good to know. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Restricted promotion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ongoing disputes 

message: McShane-Wilhelmi, Lippstadt 1998. 85.hxg8=B is quickest, though interestingly 85.hxg8=N also wins. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Found another example of a correct promotion to a bishop