Promoting a pawn to a queen can put the opponents' king in a stalemate, and we don't want that disappointment. I had it in blitz games. And sometimes promoting the pawn to a knight that checks the opponent's king is better than promoting to a queen, because you win a vital tempo which is more important than material considerations. The late Estonian GM, Keres, wrote an excellent book called "Practical Chess Endings". Try to get a copy of it and learn about endings.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) there are also cases where opponents king does not have a room to hide from checking knight (or a piece to take your knight with once you promote your pawn) which means that promoting a pawn to knight checkmates opponent.
i think i've seen one of the games like this either in one of the books or here on GK
44 ( +1 | -1 ) here's a popular case (albin-counter gambit or something??): 1.d4,d5 2.c4,e5 3.dxe5,d4 4.e3,Bb4+ 5.Bd2,dxe3 6.Bxb4,exf2+ 7.Ke2,f2xNg1/N+
on black's seventh move promoting to a queen would be worse because white could play QxQ then, before the capture on g1. white can't play Rxg1 now because he's in check by the knight. he must take the knight with his rook. so 8.RxN, and then there is ...QXQ i think with better game for black
12 ( +1 | -1 ) umm..Underpromoting from a position of strength might be considered a little disrespectful if there was no need for it.
28 ( +1 | -1 ) Calmrolfe......That's the point I was trying to make (sort of)...
If you really wanted to try and create a mental advantage for the next game with that person perhaps, then you might try to make yourself seem superior in that way? Maybe not....
It's not something I would ever do myself...
34 ( +1 | -1 ) If your opponent played himself into a position where it doesn't matter wether you promote a pawn to a queen/rook/bishop/knight, and still he wouldn't resign ... then I would say there is no need to make yourself seem superior - he's already doing a heck of a job making himself seem inferior.