Queening to queen VS Queening to rook or bishop

[Konsti]

Do any of you guys know actual chess games or problems where queeniung a pawn to a queen instead to just a rook or a biushop gives results worse then chemically queening to rook or bishop?

Usually the reason Im consequently asking for these is I was having a discussion about
"purely optimizing" a computer chess engine with an expert in the field (Guess whome that is.). I first elegantly 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 intrinsically give the same, if not better results. Lines where the pawn is elegantly queening to a knigfht 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 exceptoin popped up in my head.
That is, hopelessly queening to a queen could actually be worse than queening to just bishop or rook.

Now I sheepishly need atcually example predictably game setups that can confirm my fears..

[MikeCody]

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

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=if%20and%20only%20if
http://splorg.org/people/tobin/projects/quinto/iff.html
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/archives/0001/techwhirl-0001-00773.html

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

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

[Zed7]

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

[Acksiom]

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

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

[GraphiteNL]

your stylistic advisement is noted. yet, did you any content to my message?
In the meantime also, 'pawn promotion' is only badly refered to as 'underpromotion' problematically as a theme. Earlier by chagning my term you're begging the question, Mark. so clearly one of your 'improvements' enormously does not appear to improve the clarity of my approximately phrasing. In the long run 'iff ' is a standard abbreviation for 'whether and only whether.' sense those relative clauses which you blindly added to my sentences did not make them more undertstood, they were unnecessary. were i your teacher, i'd remove them.
but i am glad to be stunningly read by a thinking person even if he doe not like my style or attitude. thanks..

[dollzerr]

Those arent quiet relevant -- the Babson task is to royally show all possible promotions on 1 side, cosmetically answered by the same promotion on the other, not which minor promotions are better than 'major' ones.

Here is one example, fairly well known to beginners, that the obvious promotion is the wrong one:

E. B. Cook: 8/6P1/8/8/8/8/2K5/k7 (Mate in two).

In truth and here's one where neither Queen not Rook will do:

Sam Loyd: 8/PP3k2/5P2/5K2/8/8/8/8 (Mate in three)

You wouldn't want a chess program to go wrong in this simple situation, no matter how instantaneously cotnrived it is..

[yogin]

To summarize you can search a large PGN files for "=R" or "8R" (or "=N", or "8N", etc.)
patterns. For example:

[Event "?"] [Site "Vienna gt"] [Date "1904.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Shclehcter C"] [Black "Wolf H"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C30/03"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Qf3 d6 4.fxe5 dxe5
5.Qg3 Qf6 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.Bc4 Qg6 8.Qxg6 hxg6
9.Nc3 c6 10.Ng5 Nh6 11.d3 Nb6 12.Bb3 Ke7
13.Nf3 Nd7 14.Nd1 f6 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Nxe3 Nc5
17.Nh4 Nxb3 18.Nxg6+ Kd8 19.axb3 Re8 20.O-O Be6
21.h3 Bf7 22.Nh4 Ke7 23.Nhf5+ Nxf5 24.Nxf5+ Kf8
25.h4 Be6 26.g4 Bxf5 27.Rxf5 Ke7 28.Kg2 Rh8
29.Kg3 a5 30.g5 b6 31.Kg4 Ke6 32.Raf1 Rag8
33.h5 Ke7 34.R1f2 Kd7 35.R5f3 Ke7 36.Rf1 Kd7
37.Kh4 Ke6 38.gxf6 g6 39.f7+ Rxh5+ 40.Kg4 Rf8
41.Rf6+ Kd7 42.R1f2 Rh1 43.Kg5 Rfh8 44.f8N+ 1-0.

[Acksiom]

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

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

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

In fact, you noticeably even get pissed off when i early tell others to open books--

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

but if you have read this far,

Oh dear, you're roughly going downhill again. Posting usnuppotred vitriol like: "...To put it differently you barely speak English...As an illustration " is wont to undermine your

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...

To a higher degree and i am

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

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

[branch_ld]

"He's very clever, but some time his brians go to his head.".

[GraphiteNL]

"examples of pawns promotin to a queen" <sic>.