<p>I have seen situations where under-promotion to a rook or bishop has been a key move to prevent a stalemate.  Without going into two much detail, its possible for the opponent to place his King in a place whereby your pawn being promoted stalemates him, but an under-promotion to a rook or a bishop leaves a square unthreatened for the opponent's king to move into.  Unfortunately, the situations I've seen where in semi-casual or academic play, and I have no citations involving players of note or repute in these scenarios.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-27T17:54:09.283Z
2012-02-27T17:54:09.283Z
GWLlosa
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Krabb%C3%A9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tim Krabbé</a> compiled <a href="https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/minor.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a list of over 40 serious examples of promotion to rook and bishop</a>, including some seen in the top answers.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-13T16:34:38.917Z
Welcome to Board & Card Games! Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, [it would be preferable](//meta.stackexchange.com/q/8259) to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.
Glorfindel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-14T21:21:14.820Z
This mentions the possibility of underpromoting to create uncertainty on the board, something I haven't seen mentioned before: "Had he played h1Q+ or h1R, White would have had to capture, but now he had to think". It would be great to update this answer with a summary of that page and some examples.
tttppp
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-21T00:26:40.067Z
This is really a link only answer - I would recommend deletion but the the up votes prevent that. Please explain the content of the link in your post if the website is taken down or the page location on the site changes, the link will become dead and this answer gives very little else.
Andrew
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-12T00:35:31.317Z
@Glorfindel Are you suggesting that they list all 40 examples in their answer?
Acccumulation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-12T08:19:18.633Z
@Acccumulation no, but it's still possible to give a summary of the page and perhaps one or two of the more interesting ones.
Glorfindel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-13T13:00:41.710Z
2020-06-13T13:00:41.710Z
Purple P
<p>If you have a winning position but you are running out of time, then you'll want to be able to deliver checkmate without having to think for too long about each move.  In these situations a rook can be safer than a queen because you are less likely to <em>accidentally</em> put your opponent in stalemate, even if you <em>could</em> have delivered mate with a queen had you more time to think about your moves.  For this reason I have seen blitz games at lower levels where the winning player promotes to rook to safely finish it off.  But I'm not aware of this having been done at master level or in slow games.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-21T15:38:10.130Z
2020-05-21T15:38:10.130Z
Silas S. Brown
<p>As <strong>a low-rated player enjoying games with tight time controls</strong>, I very often promote to a rook instead of a queen. The reason is slightly different from the other answers: not so much to prevent <em>instant</em> stalemate, but <strong>to prevent running into accidental stalemate down the line</strong>, while trying to mate my opponent through ladder-mate or a king and rook endgame.</p>
<p>To the second question, if this &quot;an actual advantage&quot;... for a low rated player, it can be. Needing less mental capacity to prevent stalemates while checkmating in a low-time situation is an advantage <em>to me</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-24T18:18:44.290Z
2021-10-24T18:18:44.290Z
Jeroen
<p>When an opponent refuses to resign in a hopeless position, I will often promote to a rook, bishop or knight.  It makes the end game much more interesting, and sharpens my lesser-piece endgames.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-09T04:02:26.357Z
2020-12-09T04:02:26.357Z
Houston Ghostbirder
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/w5WPc.jpg" alt="enter image description here">
If black move and selects Q then it's stalemate.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-14T16:31:54.123Z
And also a checkmate next step if you chose a rook.
Jack Marvel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-15T19:52:59.883Z
This does no provide an answer to the question. The asker stated in the question that they're aware of the possibility of using this to avoid a stalemate; they wanted to know about real games where it has happened; or other reasons it might happen.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-14T16:30:52.977Z
2018-07-14T16:30:52.977Z
Jack Marvel
<p>Readers may be interested in the following link:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4</a></p>
<p>in which the great physicist Richard Feynman made use
of promotion to bishop, specifically, in an entertaining analogy between theoretical physics and chess. Perhaps I missed it, but I
did not see in the discussion above a case occurring in a recorded
game where bishop promotion gave a result which other promotions would not.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T15:33:03.527Z
2020-11-20T15:42:39.540Z
2020-11-20T15:42:39.540Z
S. Hastings
<p>Under-promotion to bishop/rook happens from time-to-time.  I've only seen it in three cases:</p>

<ol>
<li>The pawn will be captured regardless of what it's promoted to, and the promoting player wants to be cocky</li>
<li>It's checkmate with just a bishop or just a rook, and the promoting player wants to be cocky <em>(in those cases, a queen would mate also)</em></li>
<li>Promoting to a queen is stalemate</li>
</ol>

<p>Of those, the only one that's interesting is #3.  It's extremely rare, but <em>has</em> happened in tournament games.  For example, in the game <strong>Ruben - Sultan Khan, 1930</strong>:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/7ut3i.png" alt="(image)"></p>

<p>Playing <code>1. f8=Q</code> leaves Black in stalemate, but <code>1. f8=R</code> does not <em>(though <code>1. Kf6!</code> would have been better :) )</em></p>

<hr>

<p>Here is another example (<strong>Vasiukov - Tukmakov, 1976</strong>) </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FurXh.png" alt="(image)"></p>

<p>White, in a last-ditch effort, played <code>1. Rg1+</code> -  <code>1.. hxg1=Q</code> would be stalemate!  Black responded <code>1.. hxg1=R! 0-1</code></p>

<hr>

<p>Under-promotion to knight is more common (though still very rare) than to rook/bishop because, unlike rooks/bishops, the knight has the possibility to attack squares the queen cannot, which can sometimes be necessary to win material or force checkmate.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-27T20:19:36.853Z
Isn't your second one also an example of #3?  White's laying a little trap; hxg1=Q is stalemate, so if Black wants to capture the rook he has to underpromote... (obviously h1=Q+ wins too, but Black comes out further ahead on material with the underpromotion).
Steven Stadnicki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-27T20:49:27.020Z
@Steven: Yes you're correct - cripes, I didn't even notice that!!  I've edited that into my answer.
BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-28T18:12:23.563Z
Thanks, this answer is great!  In the second example I'm not sure I would have spotted the stalemate (but then again I'm not a grandmaster!)
tttppp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-17T18:42:00.017Z
@Steven h1=Q+ would not "obviously" have won, because it is illegal.
RoundTower
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-14T13:04:13.153Z
Link for the first game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1135506 Link for the second game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1368406
SQB
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-27T18:25:24.727Z
2012-04-23T13:59:47.253Z
2012-04-23T13:59:47.253Z
BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
<p>Reading <a href="https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6729/what-is-the-proper-algebraic-notation-for-a-pawn-being-promoted">What is the proper Algebraic Notation for a pawn being promoted?</a> made me wonder whether pawn promotion to rook or bishop ever happens.  The only time I can think this might happen is when promotion to a queen would provide stalemate.</p>

<p>Are there any other situations where one might choose a rook or bishop over a queen (or knight)?  Secondly, has this ever been a case where promotion to a rook/bishop gave an advantage in an actual game?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-27T17:36:34.600Z
Preferably answers to the second question should be between players of some repute, but if you've ever seen any game where this happened I'd be interested.
tttppp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-23T23:13:07.573Z
I love this question, particularly the fact that it contains an answer that had never occurred to me - to prevent stalemate. I only play chess at a 1500 level, I guess it shows :)
Dónal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T16:36:44.683Z
@tttppp: Did you see the [new chess.SE site](http://chess.stackexchange.com/)?  Just thought you might be interested, since you asked this question.
Daniel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-22T09:33:15.473Z
See this Chess Stack Exchange question: [What are some examples of promoting a pawn to a rook or bishop?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/725/7297)
Glorfindel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T19:01:40.007Z
I happen to find that a King and Rook mate is easier for me to engineer than a King and Queen mate. Because of this, I will often promote to a Rook if there are only those 3 pieces on the board.
Elliot Hodge
<chess>
Is pawn promotion to rook or bishop something that is seen in play?
tttppp
# Is pawn promotion to rook or bishop something that is seen in play?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-02-27)

Reading [What is the proper Algebraic Notation for a pawn being promoted?](https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6729/what-is-the-proper-algebraic-notation-for-a-pawn-being-promoted) made me wonder whether pawn promotion to rook or bishop ever happens. The only time I can think this might happen is when promotion to a queen would provide stalemate.

Are there any other situations where one might choose a rook or bishop over a queen (or knight)? Secondly, has this ever been a case where promotion to a rook/bishop gave an advantage in an actual game?

**Tags:** chess

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Preferably answers to the second question should be between players of some repute, but if you've ever seen any game where this happened I'd be interested.  
> **username_1**: I love this question, particularly the fact that it contains an answer that had never occurred to me - to prevent stalemate. I only play chess at a 1500 level, I guess it shows :)  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Did you see the [new chess.SE site](http://chess.stackexchange.com/)?  Just thought you might be interested, since you asked this question.  
> **username_3**: See this Chess Stack Exchange question: [What are some examples of promoting a pawn to a rook or bishop?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/725/7297)  
> **username_4**: I happen to find that a King and Rook mate is easier for me to engineer than a King and Queen mate. Because of this, I will often promote to a Rook if there are only those 3 pieces on the board.  

---

## 8 answers

### Answer by username_15 on 2012-02-27. Score: 57 | Accepted answer

Under-promotion to bishop/rook happens from time-to-time. I've only seen it in three cases:

1. The pawn will be captured regardless of what it's promoted to, and the promoting player wants to be cocky
2. It's checkmate with just a bishop or just a rook, and the promoting player wants to be cocky *(in those cases, a queen would mate also)*
3. Promoting to a queen is stalemate

Of those, the only one that's interesting is #3. It's extremely rare, but *has* happened in tournament games. For example, in the game **Ruben - Sultan Khan, 1930**:

![(image)](https://i.sstatic.net/7ut3i.png)

Playing `1. f8=Q` leaves Black in stalemate, but `1. f8=R` does not *(though `1. Kf6!` would have been better :) )*

---

Here is another example (**Vasiukov - Tukmakov, 1976**)

![(image)](https://i.sstatic.net/FurXh.png)

White, in a last-ditch effort, played `1. Rg1+` - `1.. hxg1=Q` would be stalemate! Black responded `1.. hxg1=R! 0-1`

---

Under-promotion to knight is more common (though still very rare) than to rook/bishop because, unlike rooks/bishops, the knight has the possibility to attack squares the queen cannot, which can sometimes be necessary to win material or force checkmate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_16**: Isn't your second one also an example of #3?  White's laying a little trap; hxg1=Q is stalemate, so if Black wants to capture the rook he has to underpromote... (obviously h1=Q+ wins too, but Black comes out further ahead on material with the underpromotion).  
> **username_15**: @Steven: Yes you're correct - cripes, I didn't even notice that!!  I've edited that into my answer.  
> **username_0**: Thanks, this answer is great!  In the second example I'm not sure I would have spotted the stalemate (but then again I'm not a grandmaster!)  
> **username_17**: @Steven h1=Q+ would not "obviously" have won, because it is illegal.  
> **username_18**: Link for the first game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1135506 Link for the second game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1368406  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2012-02-27. Score: 6

I have seen situations where under-promotion to a rook or bishop has been a key move to prevent a stalemate. Without going into two much detail, its possible for the opponent to place his King in a place whereby your pawn being promoted stalemates him, but an under-promotion to a rook or a bishop leaves a square unthreatened for the opponent's king to move into. Unfortunately, the situations I've seen where in semi-casual or academic play, and I have no citations involving players of note or repute in these scenarios.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-06-13. Score: 4

[Tim Krabbé](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Krabb%C3%A9) compiled [a list of over 40 serious examples of promotion to rook and bishop](https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/minor.htm), including some seen in the top answers.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Welcome to Board & Card Games! Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, [it would be preferable](//meta.stackexchange.com/q/8259) to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.  
> **username_0**: This mentions the possibility of underpromoting to create uncertainty on the board, something I haven't seen mentioned before: "Had he played h1Q+ or h1R, White would have had to capture, but now he had to think". It would be great to update this answer with a summary of that page and some examples.  
> **username_7**: This is really a link only answer - I would recommend deletion but the the up votes prevent that. Please explain the content of the link in your post if the website is taken down or the page location on the site changes, the link will become dead and this answer gives very little else.  
> **username_8**: @username_3 Are you suggesting that they list all 40 examples in their answer?  
> **username_3**: @username_8 no, but it's still possible to give a summary of the page and perhaps one or two of the more interesting ones.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2020-05-21. Score: 3

If you have a winning position but you are running out of time, then you'll want to be able to deliver checkmate without having to think for too long about each move. In these situations a rook can be safer than a queen because you are less likely to *accidentally* put your opponent in stalemate, even if you *could* have delivered mate with a queen had you more time to think about your moves. For this reason I have seen blitz games at lower levels where the winning player promotes to rook to safely finish it off. But I'm not aware of this having been done at master level or in slow games.


---

### Answer by username_10 on 2021-10-24. Score: 2

As **a low-rated player enjoying games with tight time controls**, I very often promote to a rook instead of a queen. The reason is slightly different from the other answers: not so much to prevent *instant* stalemate, but **to prevent running into accidental stalemate down the line**, while trying to mate my opponent through ladder-mate or a king and rook endgame.

To the second question, if this "an actual advantage"... for a low rated player, it can be. Needing less mental capacity to prevent stalemates while checkmating in a low-time situation is an advantage *to me*.


---

### Answer by username_11 on 2020-12-09. Score: 0

When an opponent refuses to resign in a hopeless position, I will often promote to a rook, bishop or knight. It makes the end game much more interesting, and sharpens my lesser-piece endgames.


---

### Answer by username_12 on 2018-07-14. Score: -1

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/w5WPc.jpg)
If black move and selects Q then it's stalemate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: And also a checkmate next step if you chose a rook.  
> **username_13**: This does no provide an answer to the question. The asker stated in the question that they're aware of the possibility of using this to avoid a stalemate; they wanted to know about real games where it has happened; or other reasons it might happen.  

---

### Answer by username_14 on 2020-11-20. Score: -2

Readers may be interested in the following link:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4>

in which the great physicist Richard Feynman made use
of promotion to bishop, specifically, in an entertaining analogy between theoretical physics and chess. Perhaps I missed it, but I
did not see in the discussion above a case occurring in a recorded
game where bishop promotion gave a result which other promotions would not.


---

