Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 11 Jan '11 17:16
    It is easy to construct a game study where the side having the first move can force a win, no matter whether it is white to move or black to move. For example, white king on c3, white pawn on a7, black king on c6, black pawn on a2. Whoever has the first move can force an eventual win. Can anyone construct a game study where the side having the second move can force a win, no matter what the first move is? If it can't be done, can anyone prove it can't be done?
  2. 11 Jan '11 17:45
    Not sure what you're after. Consider this 'extreme' position. White wins in one no matter who is on the move.

  3. 11 Jan '11 18:06
    Originally posted by Mephisto2
    Not sure what you're after. Consider this 'extreme' position. White wins in one no matter who is on the move.

    [fen]rr4k1/nnb2p1p/ppp2QpB/4p3/2b5/8/5PPP/1q2NRK1 b - - 0 1[/fen]
    I am thinking "In this position, you can win as white if black moves first, and you can win as black if white moves first." In other words, in the set-up position, both sides are in fatal zugzwang, but whoever has to move first, has no choice but to make a fatal move (not necessarily a mate in 1) and removes the other side from zugswang.
  4. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    11 Jan '11 18:18
    Originally posted by JS357
    I am thinking "In this position, you can win as white if black moves first, and you can win as black if white moves first." In other words, in the set-up position, both sides are in fatal zugzwang, but whoever has to move first, has no choice but to make a fatal move (not necessarily a mate in 1) and removes the other side from zugswang.


    Whoever has the move loses.
  5. 11 Jan '11 18:27
    Clean and simple. I've found it even has a name, reciprocal zugzwang or mutual zugzwang (wikipedia).
  6. 11 Jan '11 23:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    [fen]8/8/8/2Kp4/3Pk3/8/8/8 b - - 0 1[/fen]

    Whoever has the move loses.
    first thing that popped into my head. A trebuchet correct?
  7. Standard member Thabtos
    I am become Death
    12 Jan '11 03:15
    Originally posted by erikido
    first thing that popped into my head. A trebuchet correct?
    They updated the weaponry.

    Dvoretsky would say that the kings are on "mined squares."
  8. 12 Jan '11 23:59
    The whole notion of zugzwang is one of the cooler things about chess.
  9. 13 Jan '11 15:08
    Originally posted by erikido
    first thing that popped into my head. A trebuchet correct?
    I thought trebuchet was indeed the term, coined by Silman I think...
  10. 13 Jan '11 16:24
    Anyone have any good examples of real life games where it came down to "you move, you lose"?
  11. 13 Jan '11 16:58
    Originally posted by SmittyTime
    Anyone have any good examples of real life games where it came down to "you move, you lose"?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang#Examples_from_games
  12. 14 Jan '11 01:28
    Originally posted by SmittyTime
    Anyone have any good examples of real life games where it came down to "you move, you lose"?
    Note the position after move 61. Also note that the game was won (and this position was predictable) several moves earlier. Game 3972148
  13. 25 Jan '11 08:53
    Interesting...
    Actually aren't that easy, chess composer spend a very long time to create one chess puzzle.

    I have just saw this puzzle on: http://www.Chess9.com/index/chess-puzzle-1-24-2011
    and thought you might know the solution and help me.
  14. 26 Jan '11 13:42 / 1 edit
    if you check back to the puzzle and the comments at the bottom, SwissGambit (presumably the same SwissGambit as User 355642) has solved it. Great spot. Don't think I'd ever have got that.