# Is pawn promotion to rook or bishop something that is seen in play?

Reading 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?

-
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 Feb 27 '12 at 17:36
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 Mar 23 '12 at 23:13
@tttppp: Did you see the new chess.SE site? Just thought you might be interested, since you asked this question. – Daniel May 23 '12 at 16:36

## 2 Answers

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:

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)

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.

-
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 Feb 27 '12 at 20:19
@Steven: Yes you're correct - cripes, I didn't even notice that!! I've edited that into my answer. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Feb 27 '12 at 20:49
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 Feb 28 '12 at 18:12
@Steven h1=Q+ would not "obviously" have won, because it is illegal. – RoundTower Jun 17 '12 at 18:42
Link for the first game: chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1135506 Link for the second game: chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1368406 – SQB Aug 14 '14 at 13:04

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.

-