Virtual Opposition - For the Love of god please explain

So white to move here, he can play Kc2 and he apparently has the opposition.  Ok, so now imagine the white king on c2, black's turn to now move.  Black can play Kf7, and now he has the opposition?  So this rule is stupid.  Nobody appears to have an opposition that they could possibly maintain.  So how can it possibly ever help knowing this failed rule?

This is called distant opposition and there is a formula.

See below. Notice the White king always holds an odd # of squares between the black king after white has moved ?

And btw, u needta place a pawn somewhere on the board in Post #1 to figure out distant opposition....& then whose to move. Makes all the difference in the world.

IOW's, u may be oversimplifying hon.

After 1. Kc2 Kf7, Black does not have the opposition. The rectangle f7-c7-c2-f2 does not have the four corners of the same colour.

With 2. Kd3, White keeps the opposition, since the rectangle d3-d7-f7-f3 does have the four corners of the same colour.

....but with your opponent to move, correct ?

After 1 Kc2 Kf7 2 Kd3, it is Black's move.

It may seem a little silly and pointless, but I think it is sometimes considered helpful as an explanation tool to consider distant opposition for a position with just two kings. I think the usual practice is to think of distant opposition as unchanged by pawns. The pawns can change whether or not the distant opposition is useful. At

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/endgame-fundamental-question ,

one can see a position where White can achieve distant opposition with 1 Ke1, but the move actually gives Black the possibility to achieve a draw (starting with 1...Ke8).

There is a very nice little game/puzzle in Silman's endgame book. White has his king on c1 and black has his on c8. The objective of the game with the white king is to get to any of the squares f8/g8/h8. If you can manage with white, white wins. If you defend with black, black holds/wins. I've played that game with both colours against friends and won with both colours. You need to count the squares between your king and the other king and time your advances properly. Try it on a board for half an hour and see if you can work it out.

Is there something specific and wrong with the quote that sg4rb0 presented?

Could one perhaps alternatively say that, if the rectangular corner squares are not all the same color, then the one that can gain the opposition is the side to move?

Ur right Spongy. My input wuz probably kinda dumb. Bare-naked kings is a good thing....if u wanna try2u/s virtual distant opposition.

PERFECT !....thx !!  .

And btw everyone. When my pfren talks about conventional opening theory ?....listen very carefully (as u weed thru his condescending humor).

Can u show this with a board diagram & decision offshoots ?....thx in advance  .

Incorrect.

What, why is that wrong?  Black makes all 4 corners of the square white, which makes him have the opposition.   You can't just write incorrect and leave it like that.  In my opinion your incorrect.

c7 and f2 are black.

This was also explained on post #5

unfollowing BTW

That's correct, they are.  However c7 and f2 are nothing to do with this entire post lol.  You must be reading this completely wrong.

"... c7 and f2 are black. ..." - mariners234

"... However c7 and f2 are nothing to do with this entire post lol. …" - sg4rb0

The rule is based on the idea that Black's move, 1...Kf7, so-to-speak, "builds a rectangle" determined by the position of the white king and the new position of the black king. That rectangle has the corners as indicated by peepchuy, "f7-c7-f2-c2". The rule is that one gains the opposition if one makes a move that "builds a rectangle" with all of the corners having the same color. 1...Kf7 does not gain the opposition because f7, c7, f2, and c2 are not all the same color.

I do not feel up to the task of indicating "decision offshoots", but I think that perhaps one line is sufficient to indicate the idea.