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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 09 Nov '11 00:23 / 1 edit
    If I understand the term correctly, this is the first ever zugzwang I recognized in my own game. The game was won anyway but I'm still proud of myself. I was black.



    Is there anything I should know about what was played? The opening was completely new to me and I followed "the book" blindly.
  2. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    09 Nov '11 13:37
    26.Qh8+ may have beat you
  3. 10 Nov '11 23:43
    Right, I didn't see that. I was actually quite happy I moved there. It was against my first instinctive thought to move to g8 and I was glad I was able to spot the "better" move.
  4. 11 Nov '11 00:11
    "Zugzwang" is used differently by various people but I think the most common usage is when it involves a change in the game result. i.e. if I have to move, the game result will be worse than if I didn't have to move. In the final position of your game, White is lost regardless of who is to move and I think this is the main point rather than how quickly White loses. So I wouldn't regard it as zugzwang as such.
  5. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    11 Nov '11 02:22
    Originally posted by Varenka
    "Zugzwang" is used differently by various people but I think the most common usage is when it involves a change in the game result. i.e. if I have to move, the game result will be worse than if I didn't have to move. In the final position of your game, White is lost regardless of who is to move and I think this is the main point rather than how quickly White loses. So I wouldn't regard it as zugzwang as such.
    Black achieves his aim [forced mate in 2] by using white's obligation to move against him, rather than making a threat [the move ...f4 makes no threat whatsoever]. In the chess problem world, this is a valid zugzwang. I guess I'm one of those people who uses it a bit differently. I think the efficient finish is to be commended, and zugzwang the tool which brought it about.
  6. 11 Nov '11 02:32
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Black achieves his aim [forced mate in 2] by using white's obligation to move against him, rather than making a threat [the move ...f4 makes no threat whatsoever]. In the chess problem world, this is a valid zugzwang. I guess I'm one of those people who uses it a bit differently. I think the efficient finish is to be commended, and zugzwang the tool which brought it about.
    "In the chess problem world" fair enough, but that's not the usual context. A much more common use is e.g. an author stating that zugzwang is an important idea in some endgame, and when they do so, it's got nothing to do with a more efficient finish and everything to do with affecting the game result.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    11 Nov '11 03:10
    Originally posted by Varenka
    "In the chess problem world" fair enough, but that's not the usual context. A much more common use is e.g. an author stating that zugzwang is an important idea in some endgame, and when they do so, it's got nothing to do with a more efficient finish and everything to do with affecting the game result.
    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400

    This one isn't called the Immortal Zugzwang Game for nothing. Black's huge positional advantage was evident [i.e., he was already winning] before the actual zug took place, yet it's still called zugzwang.
  8. 11 Nov '11 03:19
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    This one isn't called the Immortal Zugzwang Game for nothing.
    And people don't dispute it for nothing either...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Zugzwang_Game
  9. 11 Nov '11 11:02
    Originally posted by Varenka
    And people don't dispute it for nothing either...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Zugzwang_Game
    I think there needs to be two classifications of a Zugzwang:

    1) Ones like the Immortal game, where there is a forced destruction of one's own defences and/or a forced sacrifice

    2) A forced move into checkmate without a check, like the game that started this thread. WanderingKing has engineered a position where his opponent has no option but suicide.

    Akin to underpromoting checkmates, there were probably other ways to finish this game, but you've got to applaud style, no?




    Any Assassin Zugzwangs out there? There's a tough find for you GP!
  10. 11 Nov '11 11:57 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400

    This one isn't called the Immortal Zugzwang Game for nothing. Black's huge positional advantage was evident [i.e., he was already winning] before the actual zug took place, yet it's still called zugzwang.


    edit x: fixed. one must remove hidden line breaks...
  11. 11 Nov '11 13:01
    Originally posted by morgski
    I think there needs to be two classifications of a Zugzwang
    a position where his opponent has no option but suicide

    Suicide? If hypothetically White didn't move in the initial position (after f4), Black is going to kill him with Ne4/Nxf2/Rh1 mate. Is it really suicide when someone is going to be killed anyway?

    you've got to applaud style

    So call it a nice finish or an efficient finish... beautiful... whatever. But zugzwang?

    What I find ironic about this thread is that the initial poster wasn't sure about the definition of zugzwang and that's partly because of all the loose ways in which it gets used. Do we really want to regard the following as a good example of zugzwang? According to your definition it is in terms of accelerating the mate.


    Black to move.

    And if so it detracts from cases like the following where the term "zugzwang" has true meaning:

  12. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    11 Nov '11 14:34 / 1 edit
    Varenka- Your argument hangs on the notion that Zugzwang is only legitimate if there is no other way to win.

    It appears this is not the historical convention of the word, at least if you can trust Edward Winter on the matter. He sites Heidenfeld in the 1972 BCM as the source of your definition. Since the word has been floating around since the 1850's I am inclined to not take quite so draconian a view on it's meaning and I would suggest that at the very least you are not in possession of the "truth" but in a camp arguing for a more stringent definition.
  13. 11 Nov '11 14:57
    I recall a thread not so long about this very subject. What is Zugzwang?

    This postion by Swiss Gambit was posted to illustrate it perfectly.


    Who ever has the move loses. Mutual Zuggers.

    All I really know is we cannot do without it.

    Here.


    White mates after 1.Rd2 (Zuggers) Kb8 2.Rd8 mate.

    However if there was a rule that a bare King player can pass
    and not make a move then it is mighty hard to mate the Black King.
  14. 11 Nov '11 17:16
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    Varenka- Your argument hangs on the notion that Zugzwang is only legitimate if there is no other way to win.

    It appears this is not the historical convention of the word, at least if you can trust Edward Winter on the matter. He sites Heidenfeld in the 1972 BCM as the source of your definition. Since the word has been floating around since the 1850's I am ...[text shortened]... are not in possession of the "truth" but in a camp arguing for a more stringent definition.
    in a camp arguing for a more stringent definition

    I didn’t suggest there is a single correct usage; I suggested there is a more common usage. And in terms of this common usage, I refer to the current state of chess literature and not how I think it should be.

    So based on people’s suggestions above for defining zugzwang (Black to play in each case):



    This is zugzwang because Black is compelled to play Kc8 and allow mate?





    But here, though Black is compelled identically as before, it’s not zugzwang because of the check?! Is this right? Is there some definition that states “but not in check”?
  15. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    11 Nov '11 18:32
    I think your notion of "common" is at best subjective.