Bishop promotions are rarer than knight promotions . The study by Dehler was spectacular in its simplicity . Nice informative video . Thanks . Hope we get to see another bishop underpromotion this year .
I once had three bishops on the board because I promoted a pawn which could be taken by a rook. The promotion square was protected by a bishop so I thought: if I promote it to queen, my opponent will just take it with the rook so I might just as well promote it into bishop but because of that my opponent didn't take it because it's a bad trade. For 11 moves it was 3 bishops vs. a rook
@@dandanthedandan7558 that was the idea. I expected my opponent to take the promoted piece with their rook regardless of what I promoted it into, but they didn't because it was a bishop so it was a bit of a surprise at the moment, though logical in hindsight
I feel like that's what stockfish does when it knows you're about to take the piece anyway. To me it seems it underpromotes in weird ways because it's like "if i lose a knight it's not as bad as if I've lost a queen".
@@Wongasm When Stockfish underpromotes unnecessarily, the only good move is to take the piece. Stockfish does not attempt to maximize its chances of winning against bad moves; it only ever assumes its opponent makes the best move. Therefore, underpromoting is exactly equally as good as promoting to a queen, since it will get captured either way. In Patralgan's case, though, Stockfish would only ever promote to a queen or rook, because a bishop or knight wasn't good enough to win, so the best move would not be to capture it.
You know we all learned as chess beginners how you might need a rook underpromotion to avoid stalemate and a knight underpromotion might be good to fork two pieces and get a free(?) capture of one (if the other player is crazy enough to allow that situation in the first place) but I never could for the life of me figure how underpromotion to a bishop would actually make sense in a for real game (not a chess problem).
I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be any reason to underpromote to a bishop or rook other than stalemate. Knights are understandable because of their unique moves, but a queen can do anything a bishop and rook can do. And other than the fact that a queen could cause stalemate, there’s no other reason to underpromote to a bishop or rook because a queen can simply do more for you than a bishop or rook in any other situation
You can underpromote to "troll" if it doesn't matter what you promote to For example, in this position 8/5k2/1p1pR3/p1pP2K1/P1P5/2P2q2/4p3/8 b It doesn't matter if you promote to a queen, rook, knight or bishop, they are all forced mates in exactly 8 moves
they literally show one where the only move is to promote to bishop and its not a stalemate... why do people comment without actually watching the video...
@@bipolarminddroppings I think you’re the one who needs to rewatch the video… the one you’re talking about is the one where the opponent is able to force stalemate in the following moves. Kind of embarrassing on your part really
Since the only difference between a bishop and a queen is the queen can move along rank and file, that means the only reason to underpromote to bishop is if being able to move along rank and file is a bad thing. All that does is prevent certain moves by the opponent, and give you more options. The only reason giving yourself more options would be bad is if you're trying for stalemate. The only reason limiting your opponent's options would be bad is if you're trying to _avoid_ stalemate.
I can think of two convoluted but practical reasons to promote to a bishop that don’t include stalemate. One is in a time scramble and pawn race, your opponent has your queening square covered say by a knight and their pawn can’t be stopped so they premove the pawn moves to the end since if you promote to a rook or queen it’s a check and cancels the premove. By making a bishop it’s not check, doesn’t cancel their premove and you get to stop the pawn in time
The second one I have thought of before is a sort of exchange sac. Where if you promote to a queen your opponent has to give up their rook for it, but if you make a bishop then your opponent giving up their rook looses material. The issue here is that if your “positional exchange sac for dark square control” is actually any good then giving up the rook is the best move anyway
Those are awesome, Sam! ⭐️ I covered one of these on my channel and there is also a cool one where one underpromoted to a rook. Sometimes, a queen is just not the right tool for the job. 🤔
This type puzzles enhance the idea for promoting which piece rather than Queen to win the game. Although we have un-tick the option automatically promote a Queen 🎯🎯.
As a 500 this video is blowing my mind. I actually paused for a few minutes to think of what situations could be here and I only got 1 and close to a second. Chess really is amazing.
I know this was about real games, but since there was a bonus study at the end, it's worth mentioning that there are also a lot of puzzles with underpromotion to a bishop even with a lot of pieces on the board. The most spectacular ones are probably solutions to the Babson Task.
I have a question for the 1938 game. I wonder if sacrificing the rook for the f7 pawn would be a winning strategy in order to then promote to a queen and have given the king an escape square to prevent stalemate tricks
If you're playing Martin or any other beginner bot and they let you take pieces with a pawn so you get a promotion, if you promote to a queen/rook that gives check the bot will almost certainly take it but if you promote to a bishop (bishop>Knight, but of course knight is fine as well), it doesn't give check so the bot will most likely not take it
in primary school we had a chess club, which had a leader board that scored our points based on wins, and in game decisions, such as capitalizing on blunders and trading for a more important pieces, so it was actually viable to go for bishops to farm points off an opponent by forcing more trades, since the heirachy was queen, rook, knight then bishop being the lowest. unfortunately i do not recall anyone having enough leeway to do so
0:53 The first game is a perfect example because promoting square is white if it was black two same color bishop cannot mate the white king...that was an amazing moment..wow.
Here, let me re-type your comment with the appropriate punctuation for you. Try to learn something from it: Dude, you made this vid so amazing. I really did enjoy watching this. Big thank you for this. We appreciated. You can't simply regurgitate word after word and expect people to immediately know where you intended your sentences to begin and end.
The purpose of promoting to Queen = convenience and control Rook = getting some of the queen's power with lower stalemate risk Knight = forks Now this for bishop
Best defense for black in the study by Dehler after d8 = B is: 1. d8=B, Bf7 2. Be7+, Kg8 3. Bxf7+, Kh7 4. Bf8, Kh8 5. Bd5, Kh7 6. Kf7, Kh8 7. Bg7+, Kh7 8. Be4# if after 3. Bxf7+ Kh8 4. Bd5, Kh7 5. Bf8, Kh8 6. Kf7, Kh7 7.Be4+, Kh8 8. Bg7# Just commenting if anyone was interested. Reason after Bf7 you can't just take immediately with Bxf7 is it's stalemate, so one final trick by black.
tbh, maybe a little late to add changes to this game but I think that maybe they should implement a rule that prohibits having more than one queen to make the promotion more dynamic. Maybe add a promotional option of "prince/heir" with the same move set as a king, making it possible to lose the first king(could make it so a check doesn't lock the pieces unable to intervene.
“Maybe a little late”? I think the “change the base rules of chess” ship sailed before anyone alive today was born, though there are exciting updates being made to the minutiae in the 21st century, if you’re into that kind of thing. In any case, your ideas have all been proposed by chess players and chess variant enthusiasts before. Even disregarding the fact that the rules of chess have stopped changing, if chess players wanted to implement your suggestions, they would’ve already done so.
I could see a theoretical possibility where you want to attack one piece but avoid forking another to prevent a bad line, therefore underpromoting a bishop. But if you asked me to create a board position based on this idea I wouldn't know where to start.
there are games, where a player promotes to a bishop just to shame the other, because a bishop is all he need to checkmate. you asked if we now another reason to promote to a bishop, there you have it ;)
It’s not something I’ve seen a lot, but you can under promote to try and avoid that piece getting taken right away, potentially allowing you to take a piece with it or get to safety
That makes no sense, if somone promotes to queen, and you should take it, if you underpromote, you can just take anyway and reach the same position, or not take and maybe get a better position, so you cant benefit from this unless you get lucky
@@isavenewspapers8890 i guess so, but i online you probably just premove the capture, and in classicsl you have enough time to not be confused, and i feel like the risk is much larger than the potential gain in this situation
@@askamundsen667 I don’t really premove unless it has no chance of backfiring, but that’s just me. Time trouble can happen even in classical. What risk?
OK, for a chess puzzle that doesn't involve stalemate where the solution is a rook underpromotion, how about this one: White: king on e1, rook on a1, bishop on f4, pawn on e7 Black: king on h2, pawns on g3 and h3 White to move checkmates in two moves. As is the convention in chess compositions, castling is assumed to be legal if it cannot be proven that castling is illegal. The solution is .... . . . . . 1. e8=R! Kg2 (or any other king move) 2. O-O-O-O-O-O!! # The rook on e8 hasn't moved yet, and the rule for castling is: move the king two squares toward a rook that hasn't moved, then jump the rook over the king. So, for O-O-O-O-O-O, the king moves to e3 and the rook jumps to e2. All perfectly kosher, correct? 😀
Yeah except the rook has moved. It moved when it was a pawn. Pawns are PROMOTED (not REMOVED AND REPLACED). I'd like to see a version of chess, though, where queen promotions are not allowed. So the player must choose which (non-queen) piece to promote to. Maybe even allow for promotion to a (non-royal) king.
@@isavenewspapers8890 Nope. Promoting means the pawn turns into a queen. It is not removed and replaced by a queen. When you get promoted at your job, are you removed and replaced by another worker? Or are you just given a new role?
@@mattt.4395 It's an exchange according to the wording of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the official chess rulebook. To answer that last question, yes: I am removed from my current role, and then I am replaced by someone else to fill that role. Of course, that's completely irrelevant, and I have no idea why you would bring it up.
Is there a position where the best move involves promoting to a bishop with two of your bishops already on the board? (In other words should my chess set have an extra set of bishops)
For bishop I would say its only to prevent stalemate but there are some cool knight promotions that arent just to prevent stalemates. I would have to find the video all I remember is its a GothemChess
Sometimes, you can promote to a bishop to stalemate yourself. E.g. position: White Ka8, Nc8, Pb7; Black Ke5, Rh8, Rc7 Here, 1. b8B! Rhxc8 is stalemate.
A reason to underpromote to a bishop that does not have anything to do with stalemate ? Trolling this guy who wants to play until mate despite only having a king against an entire army.
There’s a study where you promote to a bishop because you actually want to be in stalemate. It’s stalemate related but for the opposite reason.
Ya. Ben finegold showed it on one of his lectures. Crazy beautiful stuff
why would this be? Is this because you know you are pretty much beaten but effectively force a draw?
@@chembletonHas to be
Bishop promotions are rarer than knight promotions . The study by Dehler was spectacular in its simplicity . Nice informative video . Thanks . Hope we get to see another bishop underpromotion this year .
pretty sure knight is 2nd most common queen,knight,rook,bishop
By the way, you're not supposed to type spaces before punctuation in English. The period comes glued to the word immediately behind it.
I once had three bishops on the board because I promoted a pawn which could be taken by a rook. The promotion square was protected by a bishop so I thought: if I promote it to queen, my opponent will just take it with the rook so I might just as well promote it into bishop but because of that my opponent didn't take it because it's a bad trade. For 11 moves it was 3 bishops vs. a rook
Couldn't you just have traded the promoted pawn for the opponent's rook and play 2 bishops Vs none?
@@dandanthedandan7558 that was the idea. I expected my opponent to take the promoted piece with their rook regardless of what I promoted it into, but they didn't because it was a bishop so it was a bit of a surprise at the moment, though logical in hindsight
I feel like that's what stockfish does when it knows you're about to take the piece anyway. To me it seems it underpromotes in weird ways because it's like "if i lose a knight it's not as bad as if I've lost a queen".
@@Wongasm When Stockfish underpromotes unnecessarily, the only good move is to take the piece. Stockfish does not attempt to maximize its chances of winning against bad moves; it only ever assumes its opponent makes the best move. Therefore, underpromoting is exactly equally as good as promoting to a queen, since it will get captured either way.
In Patralgan's case, though, Stockfish would only ever promote to a queen or rook, because a bishop or knight wasn't good enough to win, so the best move would not be to capture it.
That's getting the right answer for all the wrong reasons.
You know we all learned as chess beginners how you might need a rook underpromotion to avoid stalemate and a knight underpromotion might be good to fork two pieces and get a free(?) capture of one (if the other player is crazy enough to allow that situation in the first place) but I never could for the life of me figure how underpromotion to a bishop would actually make sense in a for real game (not a chess problem).
Fabi promoted to a bishop for a reason which wasn't stalemate - he did it to tell his opponent it was time to resign!
I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be any reason to underpromote to a bishop or rook other than stalemate. Knights are understandable because of their unique moves, but a queen can do anything a bishop and rook can do. And other than the fact that a queen could cause stalemate, there’s no other reason to underpromote to a bishop or rook because a queen can simply do more for you than a bishop or rook in any other situation
Sometimes less is more
You can underpromote to "troll" if it doesn't matter what you promote to
For example, in this position
8/5k2/1p1pR3/p1pP2K1/P1P5/2P2q2/4p3/8 b
It doesn't matter if you promote to a queen, rook, knight or bishop, they are all forced mates in exactly 8 moves
they literally show one where the only move is to promote to bishop and its not a stalemate...
why do people comment without actually watching the video...
@@bipolarminddroppings I think you’re the one who needs to rewatch the video… the one you’re talking about is the one where the opponent is able to force stalemate in the following moves. Kind of embarrassing on your part really
@@bipolarminddroppings In fact, almost all of them are like that
Me fantasizing about even getting close to those endgames. 😂😂
Since the only difference between a bishop and a queen is the queen can move along rank and file, that means the only reason to underpromote to bishop is if being able to move along rank and file is a bad thing. All that does is prevent certain moves by the opponent, and give you more options. The only reason giving yourself more options would be bad is if you're trying for stalemate. The only reason limiting your opponent's options would be bad is if you're trying to _avoid_ stalemate.
I promote to a bishop all the time to punish opponents who refuse to resign by mating them with bishop and knight.
I can think of two convoluted but practical reasons to promote to a bishop that don’t include stalemate. One is in a time scramble and pawn race, your opponent has your queening square covered say by a knight and their pawn can’t be stopped so they premove the pawn moves to the end since if you promote to a rook or queen it’s a check and cancels the premove. By making a bishop it’s not check, doesn’t cancel their premove and you get to stop the pawn in time
The second one I have thought of before is a sort of exchange sac. Where if you promote to a queen your opponent has to give up their rook for it, but if you make a bishop then your opponent giving up their rook looses material. The issue here is that if your “positional exchange sac for dark square control” is actually any good then giving up the rook is the best move anyway
That first example is pretty clever. I'd love to see that happen in a real game.
Those are awesome, Sam! ⭐️ I covered one of these on my channel and there is also a cool one where one underpromoted to a rook. Sometimes, a queen is just not the right tool for the job. 🤔
Lol I’m a huge fan of your channel, so happy to see you here!
10:35 I can't checkmate with a bishop and a knight but i know these guys can
I don't think that I've ever seen or used a bishop underpromotion, fascinating vidio and great to see real game context and applications!
This type puzzles enhance the idea for promoting which piece rather than Queen to win the game. Although we have un-tick the option automatically promote a Queen 🎯🎯.
Well, Hikaru casually promotes to like 5 bishops when he's playing with low ranked players
As a 500 this video is blowing my mind. I actually paused for a few minutes to think of what situations could be here and I only got 1 and close to a second. Chess really is amazing.
I know this was about real games, but since there was a bonus study at the end, it's worth mentioning that there are also a lot of puzzles with underpromotion to a bishop even with a lot of pieces on the board. The most spectacular ones are probably solutions to the Babson Task.
Been asking about this for the last 12 days; should have came here lol
Underpromote to a bishop to get killer bishop advancement
That moment when someone only bishop promotes just to flex
A very fun, creative aspect to chess -- the underpromotion. Can't share it but had a Play Magnus game where only a Bishop would do too.
Why can't you share it?
@@isavenewspapers8890 For some reason the share game link no longer shows.
in the Kholmov vs Ehlvest example, after R-h1, K-d7 would also have avoided the draw
I have a question for the 1938 game. I wonder if sacrificing the rook for the f7 pawn would be a winning strategy in order to then promote to a queen and have given the king an escape square to prevent stalemate tricks
I think the reason why the guy in the first one missed it is because bishop and rook promotions are so rare you would probably never think of it
If you're playing Martin or any other beginner bot and they let you take pieces with a pawn so you get a promotion, if you promote to a queen/rook that gives check the bot will almost certainly take it but if you promote to a bishop (bishop>Knight, but of course knight is fine as well), it doesn't give check so the bot will most likely not take it
They underpromote to bishop and it's "brilliant" and "only good move", but when I do it, it's a "blunder" and "losing".
🤣🤣
Moral of the lesson: Don't promote to a queen or even a rook if you might stalemate
in primary school we had a chess club, which had a leader board that scored our points based on wins, and in game decisions, such as capitalizing on blunders and trading for a more important pieces, so it was actually viable to go for bishops to farm points off an opponent by forcing more trades, since the heirachy was queen, rook, knight then bishop being the lowest.
unfortunately i do not recall anyone having enough leeway to do so
Bros were farming in chess 💀💀
At first I thought it said "5 bishop promotions from a real game!"
Ben Finegold be like: I've got 1:20 on the clock, let's flex my bishop+knight check mate skills.
the best reason is to set up the board for the next game obviously
0:53 The first game is a perfect example because promoting square is white if it was black two same color bishop cannot mate the white king...that was an amazing moment..wow.
me right after I see sam copeland: OH MY GOSH JOHNNY SINS!!!
I used to under promote to a bishop because the board only came with 1 queen for each color.
Dude you made this vid so amazing I really did enjoy watching this. Big thank you for this we appreciated.
Here, let me re-type your comment with the appropriate punctuation for you. Try to learn something from it:
Dude, you made this vid so amazing. I really did enjoy watching this. Big thank you for this. We appreciated.
You can't simply regurgitate word after word and expect people to immediately know where you intended your sentences to begin and end.
@@TheGrammarPolice7 Thank you
As a german i love the way you pronounce Zugzwang, good video btw
The purpose of promoting to
Queen = convenience and control
Rook = getting some of the queen's power with lower stalemate risk
Knight = forks
Now this for bishop
it is literally the most crazy chess video i have come across!!!🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 (except of course videos of supreme leader's blunders😂😂)
Um.
I once promoted into a bishop in a bullet game to confuse the opponent. I won on time
all promoted bishops in this video were bishops on a white square
*underpromotes to a king.
For low level play, it makes people less willing to sacrifice a rook for the promoted piece.
Wow, first time seeing bishop promotion ever.
Me after watch this video and promote to a bishop every game
Best defense for black in the study by Dehler after d8 = B is: 1. d8=B, Bf7 2. Be7+, Kg8 3. Bxf7+, Kh7 4. Bf8, Kh8 5. Bd5, Kh7 6. Kf7, Kh8 7. Bg7+, Kh7 8. Be4# if after 3. Bxf7+ Kh8 4. Bd5, Kh7 5. Bf8, Kh8 6. Kf7, Kh7 7.Be4+, Kh8 8. Bg7#
Just commenting if anyone was interested. Reason after Bf7 you can't just take immediately with Bxf7 is it's stalemate, so one final trick by black.
I was expecting this to be demonstrated in a game, not a 'he should have underpromoted to bishop'.
tbh, maybe a little late to add changes to this game but I think that maybe they should implement a rule that prohibits having more than one queen to make the promotion more dynamic. Maybe add a promotional option of "prince/heir" with the same move set as a king, making it possible to lose the first king(could make it so a check doesn't lock the pieces unable to intervene.
“Maybe a little late”? I think the “change the base rules of chess” ship sailed before anyone alive today was born, though there are exciting updates being made to the minutiae in the 21st century, if you’re into that kind of thing.
In any case, your ideas have all been proposed by chess players and chess variant enthusiasts before. Even disregarding the fact that the rules of chess have stopped changing, if chess players wanted to implement your suggestions, they would’ve already done so.
No, you can't just add new pieces to chess, and expect it to be implemented by FIDE
I underpromoted to a pawn. Take that!
🤣🤣
Sam Copeland is great! love these
I loved the study at the end, just beutiful!
Hi Sam, thanks for the video. Where can I find full game PGNs?
I had a game where a bishop promotion was mate but I played queen instead
I could see a theoretical possibility where you want to attack one piece but avoid forking another to prevent a bad line, therefore underpromoting a bishop. But if you asked me to create a board position based on this idea I wouldn't know where to start.
How would attacking a piece ever lead to bad things?
Why do you promote to a bishop?
Sam: because of stalemate
Fabi in the Us championship: Cuz its cool
One of the best reasons:
To BM your opponent
Nah, en passant mate is a bit more spectacular tbh
Nah
Underpromoting in lower rated games is kinda the strat, just to make it so the trade doesn't seem like it's worth it
Technically a bishop promotion can be equal to a queen if the promotion involves a mate in so many moves
You might be able to bishop underpromote to prevent an opponent from queening because it would be stalemate, therefore creating a zwichenzug that wins
In a position where you opponent has the ability to stalemate you, you are winning?
Oh really.
If there were 2 passed pawns but one was blocked by a piece it’s not that hard
@@stripedgecko1061 Did you switch topics.
Very interesting video.. thx Sam
i love to check mate with 8 bishop so maybe thats another reason
In the Dehler study, after promoting to the Bishop what if Bf6?
4:17 what if we play Kd7 before promotion to prevent Ra8 being check?
In the second shown game, please show the mate, you stopped only saying it was a mate in few moves, but I have no idea how.
there are games, where a player promotes to a bishop just to shame the other, because a bishop is all he need to checkmate.
you asked if we now another reason to promote to a bishop, there you have it ;)
It’s not something I’ve seen a lot, but you can under promote to try and avoid that piece getting taken right away, potentially allowing you to take a piece with it or get to safety
That makes no sense, if somone promotes to queen, and you should take it, if you underpromote, you can just take anyway and reach the same position, or not take and maybe get a better position, so you cant benefit from this unless you get lucky
@@askamundsen667 It’s a legit confusion tactic, but the benefit is only psychological as opposed to objective.
@@isavenewspapers8890 i guess so, but i online you probably just premove the capture, and in classicsl you have enough time to not be confused, and i feel like the risk is much larger than the potential gain in this situation
@@askamundsen667 I don’t really premove unless it has no chance of backfiring, but that’s just me. Time trouble can happen even in classical. What risk?
I wish it was possible to underpromote to a pawn that walks the opposite way
But why.
You should have shown game of fabiano caruana at us chess championship
Great video!
10:30 if king e8 isnt it just checkmate with Bb5
“When you see mate in one, look for better.” - Ben Finegold
Jokes aside, yeah, you’re right.
It's unclear whether any of the players in the five games found the correct move? (Aside from the ones where it is made abundantly clear they didn't.)
The dehler study u can sacrifice ur bishop at f7,BxB7,d7 then u win the game easily no need to promote to a bishop
What is this, checkers? Who says Black has to capture instead of just playing Bg4?
Thank you:)
I thought the main reason to promote to bishop is to BM the opponent 😂😂😂
OK, for a chess puzzle that doesn't involve stalemate where the solution is a rook underpromotion, how about this one:
White: king on e1, rook on a1, bishop on f4, pawn on e7
Black: king on h2, pawns on g3 and h3
White to move checkmates in two moves. As is the convention in chess compositions, castling is assumed to be legal if it cannot be proven that castling is illegal. The solution is ....
.
.
.
.
.
1. e8=R! Kg2 (or any other king move) 2. O-O-O-O-O-O!! #
The rook on e8 hasn't moved yet, and the rule for castling is: move the king two squares toward a rook that hasn't moved, then jump the rook over the king. So, for O-O-O-O-O-O, the king moves to e3 and the rook jumps to e2. All perfectly kosher, correct? 😀
Yeah except the rook has moved. It moved when it was a pawn.
Pawns are PROMOTED (not REMOVED AND REPLACED).
I'd like to see a version of chess, though, where queen promotions are not allowed. So the player must choose which (non-queen) piece to promote to. Maybe even allow for promotion to a (non-royal) king.
@@mattt.4395 Exactly what do you think promotion is if not removal and replacement?
And here we see the willful ignorance of the fact that the pieces involved in castling must occupy the same rank.
@@isavenewspapers8890 Nope.
Promoting means the pawn turns into a queen. It is not removed and replaced by a queen.
When you get promoted at your job, are you removed and replaced by another worker? Or are you just given a new role?
@@mattt.4395 It's an exchange according to the wording of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the official chess rulebook.
To answer that last question, yes: I am removed from my current role, and then I am replaced by someone else to fill that role. Of course, that's completely irrelevant, and I have no idea why you would bring it up.
Is there a position where the best move involves promoting to a bishop with two of your bishops already on the board? (In other words should my chess set have an extra set of bishops)
For bishop I would say its only to prevent stalemate but there are some cool knight promotions that arent just to prevent stalemates. I would have to find the video all I remember is its a GothemChess
Sometimes, you can promote to a bishop to stalemate yourself.
E.g. position: White Ka8, Nc8, Pb7; Black Ke5, Rh8, Rc7
Here, 1. b8B! Rhxc8 is stalemate.
today's puzzle!
1:53 But wouldn’t that be a checkmate?
no, it's stalemate; white got no legal move.
The best reason to promote to bishop is disrespect
Well, sometimes my opponents refuse to resign so I take full advantage, make a bishop and a knight and practise my mates 🤣
Is that a good reason?
I saw the first game in the video and it made me click this video.
Why is it always the light square Bishop lol
Can you give the link of the game on 5:09
What is the famous chess study he talks about - did he say Sevendra study?
Here you go! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position
Yes really rare
11:17 black bishup f7??
Other reasons for underpromoting to Bishop?
Disrespect.
outro song name?
A reason to underpromote to a bishop that does not have anything to do with stalemate ? Trolling this guy who wants to play until mate despite only having a king against an entire army.
9:28 isnt bishop f7 (white) a move in this position?
It is a move. It’s not a good move, but it is a move.
Savendra
I actually underpromoted to 2 bishops and traded away all other pieces and gave checkmate with 2 bishops to bully my opponent
11:41 what is bishop to f7 ?
Same thing.
I always just Queen promote because if bishop or rook promotion is the best move i don't wanna even win anymore. I am not gonna think that hard
based
Nice,,,👍
I promoted two of my pawns to Bishops and mated opponent with Bishops only 😁
So… without using your king? How many bishops in total are we talking about, exactly?
@@isavenewspapers8890 I wasn't using my king but my opponent seemed kind of attracted to my king, he came closer and got mated ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
12:20 BM/Flex
It's pronounced Hjartarson not Hjartarson
🤣🤣