I don't think there should be a variant of that sort because it means that if someone were to get a single passed pawn it would be near impossible to beat them. Checkmating one king is enough, but two of them?
Promote pawns to kings?
Sort:
Oldest
isn't it already the case where you can promote pawns to kings? am I missing something?
@carric- Well, a skewer is one way to pick up a king.
@adhdkid91- No it's not.
Sucicide / Giveaway Chess allow promotion to King. But this is not really what you want, as these are not true Chess variants: there is no royal pieces, and thus no mate or check.
Spartan Chess comes closer. There black (the Spartans) already start with two Kings, and you can expose one of them to capture. And if you lose it, you can then promote one of the Hoplite Pawns to a new second King. (It is not allowed to have 3 Kings, though.)
There is one special rule, though: you are not allowed to leave both Kings in check! (Even though you know at most one could be taken.) So you can be checkmated even with two Kings.
The stalemate rule is quite independent from whether you can have multiple Kings and let the redundant one be captured, however. In Spartan Chess, when you are down to a single King and have only moves that would put it in check, it is still draw.
Take a look at my article "On Spartan Chess and Spartan Mirror and other variants with more than one king per player":
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:
You don't have to be able to promote a pawn to a king for that position to be legal. It's already legal. I've had that position quite a few times. Both as black and white.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:
You don't have to be able to promote a pawn to a king for that position to be legal. It's already legal. I've had that position quite a few times. Both as black and white.
You came here 14 years later just to ignore what the guy wrote? In that example, the pawn represents a (second) king. Are you sure you had that position quite a few times, both as black and white?
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:
You don't have to be able to promote a pawn to a king for that position to be legal. It's already legal. I've had that position quite a few times. Both as black and white.
You came here 14 years later just to ignore what the guy wrote? In that example, the pawn represents a (second) king. Are you sure you had that position quite a few times, both as black and white?
Yes, I've had that position a few times. I'm sure you have too if you've played a lot.
I don't see how a pawn "represents" a second king. Pawns don't "represent" queens, bishops, or anything else besides pawns. If a pawn has been promoted the new pieces is represented on the board. If it has not been promoted, it's represented as a pawn. As shown in the diagram.
Apr 13, 2025
0
#11
Bro. That is illegal but IMAO it is still funny
Keep on going guys sry
lfPatriotGames wrote:
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:
You don't have to be able to promote a pawn to a king for that position to be legal. It's already legal. I've had that position quite a few times. Both as black and white.
You came here 14 years later just to ignore what the guy wrote? In that example, the pawn represents a (second) king. Are you sure you had that position quite a few times, both as black and white?
Yes, I've had that position a few times. I'm sure you have too if you've played a lot.
I don't see how a pawn "represents" a second king. Pawns don't "represent" queens, bishops, or anything else besides pawns. If a pawn has been promoted the new pieces is represented on the board. If it has not been promoted, it's represented as a pawn. As shown in the diagram.
So you didn't even bother to read the first post before you responded. And then you didn't read it even when you were called out. At least you are consistent. Bravo.
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:
You don't have to be able to promote a pawn to a king for that position to be legal. It's already legal. I've had that position quite a few times. Both as black and white.
You came here 14 years later just to ignore what the guy wrote? In that example, the pawn represents a (second) king. Are you sure you had that position quite a few times, both as black and white?
Yes, I've had that position a few times. I'm sure you have too if you've played a lot.
I don't see how a pawn "represents" a second king. Pawns don't "represent" queens, bishops, or anything else besides pawns. If a pawn has been promoted the new pieces is represented on the board. If it has not been promoted, it's represented as a pawn. As shown in the diagram.
So you didn't even bother to read the first post before you responded. And then you didn't read it even when you were called out. At least you are consistent. Bravo.
This is what the first post says "Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:"
The comment is followed by a diagram which probably almost all of us have seen before. White has a king and a pawn. Black has a king. If it's black to move, it's a stalemate. If it's white to move it's a win for white. I've been on both sides of this position quite a few times. I'm sure you have too.
For the sake of argument lets say black had two kings, since the question is about losing both kings. (no matter what white cannot lose one OR two kings) White has already captured one black king with one remaining. In this position it's indicated that the score is 1-0, which I assume means it's white to move, thus capturing the second king with an upcoming checkmate.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
This is what the first post says "Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:"
The comment is followed by a diagram which probably almost all of us have seen before.
This is exactly the point where you should have been suspicious. I was, I clicked on the diagram and there are some notes that clarify everything: the piece on e7 is not a pawn, but a king.
You didn't do that, that's fine. But then I told you that the e7 pawn represents a king, and then you started babbling about "pawns don't represent anything", on and on.
And even when I told you twice, you still don't try to understand what's going on, instead you write a whole wall of text about nothing.
Facepalm.
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
This is what the first post says "Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal:"
The comment is followed by a diagram which probably almost all of us have seen before.
This is exactly the point where you should have been suspicious. I was, I clicked on the diagram and there are some notes that clarify everything: the piece on e7 is not a pawn, but a king.
You didn't do that, that's fine. But then I told you that the e7 pawn represents a king, and then you started babbling about "pawns don't represent anything", on and on.
And even when I told you twice, you still don't try to understand what's going on, instead you write a whole wall of text about nothing.
Facepalm.
I looked at the diagram again. It sure looks like a pawn to me.
Pawns don't "represent" anything other than a pawn. If a pawn gets promoted, it then becomes the new piece (in this case supposedly a king). They do not remain pawns. If a diagram shows a promoted piece, it is the new piece that is shown. Not the old pawn.
In any case it wouldn't matter since the question was about "losing both kings". Read the original comment. Only black was capable of losing both kings as there is only one black king. There is no possible way for black to win both white kings (assuming the pawn is actually a king).
Which is why it only makes sense that the diagram is correct and it must be white to move (1-0) and will win the other black king soon.
Also, I don't see any "notes" that clarify the piece on e7 is a king. I do see the opposite though. I see a diagram that clarifies what the piece on e7 is. A pawn. What, specifically, do you mean by notes that clarify what the piece on e7 is?
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I see a diagram that clarifies what the piece on e7 is. A pawn. What, specifically, do you mean by notes that clarify what the piece on e7 is?
Click the Analysis button in the bottom left corner.
Whatever. I'll leave you to it.
magipi wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I see a diagram that clarifies what the piece on e7 is. A pawn. What, specifically, do you mean by notes that clarify what the piece on e7 is?
Click the Analysis button in the bottom left corner.
Whatever. I'll leave you to it.
Yes, I see it now. I guess I don't understand why one would have to pretend when it could have just been indicated in the diagram. Also, the original comment was about losing both kings. Only white supposedly has two kings. So there is no way for black to checkmate both white kings.
Even so, if promoting a pawn to a king were possible I don't see how that position would be possible. Having two kings would not mean it's suddenly possible to have opposing kings on adjacent squares. That rule would still exist. I don't see anywhere in the notes where that rule is suspended.
I guess the point is the OP said if being able to promote pawns to kings then that position would be possible. I don't see how. Promoting pawns to kings wouldn't automatically nullify all other rules of chess. If it did, then that position is not checkmate. Because the black king can escape by moving 4 squares to the left on the next move. Or even better, since the opposing kings are on adjacent squares, the black king can simply take the white king (represented by a pawn).
Oh wow, how many posts, 14 years later, because of my two-line reply. :-)
Multiple-king variants are really interesting.
Weak Dual Chess, Royalty Transfer Chess, Spartan Chess, Spartan Mirror, etc. (including some forms of shogi!, with the drunk elephant, which promotes to a second king).
But, if you can promote pawns to queens or rooks (or to R+nrK or B+N hybrids, as in Spartan), that's usually much better than having a second or even third king.
It depends on the rules, of course.
For example, one can devise a standard-chess-based variant where additional kings are the only possible pawn promotions! (With extinction royalty rules, I suppose.)
Another idea: standard-chess-based, the only available promotions are N, B, K.
I could add those ideas to section §7 (Some weakened-promotion variants) of my page
https://sites.google.com/site/emanuelesaiu/chess-ownvariants
On Spartan Chess and Spartan Mirror and other variants with more than one king per player, https://sites.google.com/site/emanuelesaiu/chess-spartan
Do you think that there should be a chess variant in which you can promote pawns to a king, meaning that you'd have to lose both the kings to lose the game? If this were the case, this position would be perfectly legal: