The first line is not a definition of Zugzwang.
The second line is fantasy.
But now serious : David, what do you mean to say ?
The first line is not a definition of Zugzwang.
The second line is fantasy.
But now serious : David, what do you mean to say ?
Zugzwang occurs when a player is in a situation where every move is bad, yet if he could skip the move, the position would be okay. This happens quite frequently in the endgame. This is the quote from the lesson I am doing in the chess.com course.
Skipping a move is indeed not in the rules of chess. If a player in such a position could, I think it wouldn't do them any good.
What's your definition of Zugswang? I like the word Novotny. No what a player moves, they lose.
Why? Obviously there are lost positions that would be dead draw if skipping moves were allowed.
Why? Obviously there are lost positions that would be dead draw if skipping moves were allowed.
And drawn positions that would be dead lost as well.
This was a topic of some discussion (heated discussion) some time back.
If skipping the move doesn't improve your game over playing the least of many poor choices, it is not zugzwang, it is a lost position.
There was some disagreement on this point. Some preferred the (incorrect) definition in which every available move worsened your position without regard to what skipping a move would do for you (or not do for you).
Some preferred the (incorrect) definition in which every available move worsened your position without regard to what skipping a move would do for you (or not do for you).
I agree with this definition. The idea of skipping a move is an impossibility anyways.
Sure, but then a mate in 1 is also zugzwang and the concept becomes useless in terms of distinguishing something different from what is simply a lost position.
Hmm both of you raise good points. Actual zugzwang is much more rare then I thought if the move skipping criteria is needed for the term to be defined...
You must not be very creative if you honestly think there is no such position.
LuftWaffles is just nitpicking semantics.
Zugzwang occurs when the player would have to worsen his/her own position due to the ability to move.
(No picture available) A good example would be White rook on h8, White King on c6 and Black King on a7 and it is Black to move. Since Black can only play Ka6, putting himself in mate thus worsening his result. Then White can mate with Ra8#.
If we take Zugzwang to be a position where the best move is not to move and not harm the position,then I think that one of the advantages of time controls is that in these situations, where the best move is not to move, a player loses if they just do nothing, and let their time run out.
And based on the definitions given on page 1, the immortal zugzwang game is not, in fact, a true zugzwang.
I assert that I can call a position when a player is in check and all legal moves out of check lead to checkmate; zugwang.
I suppose that this is the idea behind mate in 2 puzzles. White to mate in 2 could be seen as White's first move puts Black into a zugwang where whatever Black moves White will mate.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Mentor says zugzwang is when every move a side could play in a situation is bad and that things would be all right if they could miss a go. I think that in such a situation if a turn could be missed the opponent could make matters worse.