"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
first, it's called ' pawn promotion', not 'queening'.

First, it's called: 'pawn promotion', not: 'queening'.

it's queening iff you
make a queen, so speak english.

It's queening only if you promote to a queen, so speak English.

Second,crack open capablanca's book for chess beginners.
It's called "chess
fundamentals',

Second, crack open Capablanca's book for beginners, it's called:
"Chess Fundamentals".

there you will find examples of pawn promotion to queen
leading to stalemate when a promotion to a rook wins.

Therein, you will find examples of pawns promoting to a queen and
creating stalemate positions, whereas underpromotion to a rook from
the same position, wins.

Third, learn to play chess before you advise experts on how to play.

Third, learn to speak and write clearly in English before you advise
others: "...so speak English.".

Sorry, Marc, I couldn't resist....

"Seabook" wrote in message
om...
Hi guys,
Do any of you guys know actual chess games or problems where queening
a pawn to a queen instead to just a rook or a bishop gives results
worse than queening to rook or bishop?

The reason I'm asking for these is I was having a discussion about
"optimizing" a computer chess engine with an expert in the field
(Guess who that is.). I first suggested that the chess engine could
just skip over the analysis of lines where a pawn is queened to a
bishop or a rook since queening to a queen should give the same, if
not better results. Lines where the pawn is queening to a knight
should not be skipped over, of course, because its movement is not
encapsulated in that of a queen. But a few hours after I got a
response from the expert, an abstract exception popped up in my head.
That is, queening to a queen could actually be worse than queening to
just bishop or rook.

Now I need actually example game setups that can confirm my fears.

Kal