"examples of pawns promoting to a queen" sic
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
m...
"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

"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
your stylistic advisement is noted. yet, did you any content to my message?

"...did you [add?] any content to my message?" No, I didn't. I was
taking issue only with your tone, and your having made so many basic
errors in *your* use of English, which you appear to have assumed,
evidently erroneously, is better than others' equivalent use of it....

also, 'pawn promotion' is only refered to as 'underpromotion'
problematically as a theme.

Also, 'pawn promotion' is referred to as 'underpromotion' only with
regard to its being a theme in problems. Your misplacing "only" meant
that it modified "refered" (sic) rather than "underpromotion".

I have many books and magazines which refer to promotions to N/B/R in
GM praxis as: "underpromotion". These games are often headed with a
title like: "An Underpromotion Brilliancy". So you're wrong again.

by changing my term you are begging the
question, Mark.

Am I? How so?

so clearly one of your 'improvements' does not appear to
improve the clarity of my phrasing. 'iff ' is a standard abbreviation for
'if and only if.'

That's news to me. I can find no reference to this. Could you cite
one, please?

since those relative clauses which you added to my
sentences did not make them more understood, they were unnecessary.

"...more understandable..." you mean? Wrong and wrong.

were i
your teacher, i'd remove them.

Were you my teacher, I'd switch schools.

but i am glad to be read by a thinking person even if he doe not like my
style or attitude. thanks.


Thank you, too. I do enjoy your contributions, I look forward to
reading many more.

Best
Mark

Lady Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavour your
coffee with poison.

Winston Churchill: Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.

only does modify 'refer,' you are correct. i am using an adverbial modifier.
iff your inability to find references about anything doesn't surprise
me. but teaching you to crack open books is beyond the scope of this
message. In fact, you even get ****ed off when i tell others to open books--
and which books to open, so what's the point? but if you have read this far,
try one of Quine's logic texts!
by the way i do respect you, although you barely speak English and need to
inflict your views about my language upon others in a chess forum. and i am
sure you have at least one more chromosome than the respondent who pointed
out that queens are more powerful than rooks. ( please notice here that the
plural case of the two nouns match.)
and no one stops you from making poison even though we are not married,
which i presume is legal in your country with its strange language customs.
-marc
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...
"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
your stylistic advisement is noted. yet, did you any content to my
message?

"...did you [add?] any content to my message?" No, I didn't. I was
taking issue only with your tone, and your having made so many basic
errors in *your* use of English, which you appear to have assumed,
evidently erroneously, is better than others' equivalent use of it....

also, 'pawn promotion' is only refered to as 'underpromotion'
problematically as a theme.

Also, 'pawn promotion' is referred to as 'underpromotion' only with
regard to its being a theme in problems. Your misplacing "only" meant
that it modified "refered" (sic) rather than "underpromotion".

I have many books and magazines which refer to promotions to N/B/R in
GM praxis as: "underpromotion". These games are often headed with a
title like: "An Underpromotion Brilliancy". So you're wrong again.

by changing my term you are begging the
question, Mark.

Am I? How so?

so clearly one of your 'improvements' does not appear to
improve the clarity of my phrasing. 'iff ' is a standard abbreviation
for
'if and only if.'

That's news to me. I can find no reference to this. Could you cite
one, please?

since those relative clauses which you added to my
sentences did not make them more understood, they were unnecessary.

"...more understandable..." you mean? Wrong and wrong.

were i
your teacher, i'd remove them.

Were you my teacher, I'd switch schools.

but i am glad to be read by a thinking person even if he doe not like my
style or attitude. thanks.


Thank you, too. I do enjoy your contributions, I look forward to
reading many more.

Best
Mark

Lady Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavour your
coffee with poison.

Winston Churchill: Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
'iff' is a standard abbreviation for 'if and only if.'

That's news to me. I can find no reference to this.

"He's very clever, but sometimes his brains go to his head."
--Margot Asquith (1864-1945)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

It's common knowledge among logicians and mathematicians.

Could you cite one, please?

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iff

Lady Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavour your
coffee with poison.

Winston Churchill: Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.

Margot Asquith to Jean Harlow, who had mispronounced Lady Asquith's first name:
"The 't' is silent, as in 'Harlow'."

--Nick

Seabook wrote in message ...
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?


For actual games, see http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/minor.htm

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
'iff' is a standard abbreviation for 'if and only if.'

That's news to me. I can find no reference to this.

"He's very clever, but sometimes his brains go to his head."
--Margot Asquith (1864-1945)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

It's common knowledge among logicians and mathematicians.

Could you cite one, please?

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iff


Thanks! The scope of my ignorance is staggering.... I'm working on
reducing it to "unmanageable".

Lady Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavour your
coffee with poison.

Winston Churchill: Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.

Margot Asquith to Jean Harlow, who had mispronounced Lady Asquith's first name:
"The 't' is silent, as in 'Harlow'."


Ian Hislop: "The Duchess of York is not a strumpet..."
Paul Merton: "...more of a *strombone*..."

(Have I Got News For You, BBC TV)

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...

so clearly one of your 'improvements' does not appear to
improve the clarity of my phrasing. 'iff ' is a standard
abbreviation for 'if and only if.'

That's news to me.

Well, he's right.

I can find no reference to this. Could you cite one, please?

I did a Google search on iff+"if and only if". Here are some
of the results:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?...nd%20only%20if
http://splorg.org/people/tobin/projects/quinto/iff.html
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/arc...001-00773.html

It's even in the Merriam-Webster dictionary!
http://www.m-w.com/

I guess you didn't look very hard, did you?

Mark

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca

The winner of the game is the player
who makes the next-to-last mistake. - Tartakover
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
only does modify 'refer,' you are correct. i am using an adverbial modifier.
iff your inability to find references about anything doesn't surprise
me.

It's ok, Marc, Mr. Bourbaki provided me with a reference. I now know a
little more about it, no thanks to you.

but teaching you to crack open books is beyond the scope of this
message.

Teaching me anything may be beyond the scope of this message, I fear.
It need not be, however, which is kinda the point, which you seem to
be missing, possibly deliberately.

In fact, you even get ****ed off when i tell others to open books--
and which books to open, so what's the point?

No, not at all. First, I'm not "****ed off" about anything. Second, I
have not taken issue either with your having entreated others to open
books, or which books. I take issue only with your *attitude*, which
seems to be deteriorating, alas...

but if you have read this far,
try one of Quine's logic texts!

Good idea! I may! (You see, you just taught me something...great!)

by the way i do respect you, although you barely speak English and need to
inflict your views about my language upon others in a chess forum.

Oh dear, you're going downhill again. Posting unsupported vitriol
like: "...you barely speak English..." is wont to undermine your
credibility. You're right that I wrote: "...I couldn't resist..." but
the *context* of my having been unable to resist was your having used
BAD ENGLISH in berating another poster's English. In other words, you
did the deed of which you accuse me, to someone else, FIRST...

and i am
sure you have at least one more chromosome than the respondent who pointed
out that queens are more powerful than rooks.

I seriously doubt that. That would make me a different species from
that respondent, and all other respondents, for that matter.

( please notice here that the
plural case of the two nouns match.)

A bit ignorant on the biology front, though, sadly......

and no one stops you from making poison even though we are not married,
which i presume is legal in your country with its strange language customs.
-marc

England does indeed have strange language customs. I don't "make
poison" as you put it. What did you mean, exactly?

Best
Mark

(Seabook) wrote in message . com...
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.

From a game Nosenko-Rudd, Monmouth 1999:

WKc6, Ne6, Pa7, b6; BKa8, Bg3

1 Nc7+ Bxc7 2 bxc7 Kxa7 3 c8=R! (c8=Q is stalemate) Ka6 4 Ra8#

Jack Rudd

what you call vitriol in regard to my comments about your English usage is
supported by the fact that you appointed yourself the de facto monitor of
the english language here. also when you have taken the trouble to correct
me, your corrections are mostly very bad and wrong.
most importantly troll, this is a chess forum and since you could not
appreciate the topic of my response you took it to an ad hominem level and
nervily-- i might add-- attempted to adjudicate the manners of others. Mark,
it is time to take the stick out of your ass an act like an adult-- or not.
mostly learn to read. then learn to think. then learn english. and if you
accomplish these human feats, which seems to be a stretch for you as you
think i am responsible for your education, try chess! (and then manners- but
why bother when you can 'prove' good manners don't exist because you have
never heard of them and don't care to discover them.)
oh yeah i forgot-- you have the right to correct my english incorrectly
because you disagree with my opinions about chess on the internet. well,
houlsby, you haven't changed my mind about anything chessic, merely about
how educable you are. so i guess you now have a full-time job correcting my
views if you want it. good luck and good-bye.
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...
"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
only does modify 'refer,' you are correct. i am using an adverbial
modifier.
iff your inability to find references about anything doesn't
surprise
me.

It's ok, Marc, Mr. Bourbaki provided me with a reference. I now know a
little more about it, no thanks to you.

but teaching you to crack open books is beyond the scope of this
message.

Teaching me anything may be beyond the scope of this message, I fear.
It need not be, however, which is kinda the point, which you seem to
be missing, possibly deliberately.

In fact, you even get ****ed off when i tell others to open books--
and which books to open, so what's the point?

No, not at all. First, I'm not "****ed off" about anything. Second, I
have not taken issue either with your having entreated others to open
books, or which books. I take issue only with your *attitude*, which
seems to be deteriorating, alas...

but if you have read this far,
try one of Quine's logic texts!

Good idea! I may! (You see, you just taught me something...great!)

by the way i do respect you, although you barely speak English and need
to
inflict your views about my language upon others in a chess forum.

Oh dear, you're going downhill again. Posting unsupported vitriol
like: "...you barely speak English..." is wont to undermine your
credibility. You're right that I wrote: "...I couldn't resist..." but
the *context* of my having been unable to resist was your having used
BAD ENGLISH in berating another poster's English. In other words, you
did the deed of which you accuse me, to someone else, FIRST...

and i am
sure you have at least one more chromosome than the respondent who
pointed
out that queens are more powerful than rooks.

I seriously doubt that. That would make me a different species from
that respondent, and all other respondents, for that matter.

( please notice here that the
plural case of the two nouns match.)

A bit ignorant on the biology front, though, sadly......

and no one stops you from making poison even though we are not married,
which i presume is legal in your country with its strange language
customs.
-marc

England does indeed have strange language customs. I don't "make
poison" as you put it. What did you mean, exactly?

Best
Mark