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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! 😉
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.
1. d4 {Notes by Nimzowitsch} Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. Ne5 c6 {Safeguards the position} 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Bf4 a6 {Protects the oupost station c4, i.e., by ...a6 and ...b5.} 11. Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 Nc6 {The ghost! With noiseless steps he presses on towards c4.} 13. Nxc6 {Samisch sacrifices two tempi - exchange of the tempo-eating Knight on e5 for the Knight which is almost undeveloped - merely to be rid of the ghost.} Bxc6 14. h3 Qd7 15. Kh2 Nh5 {I could have supplied him with as yet a second ghost by ...Qe7 and ...Knight-d7-b6-c4, but I wished to turn my attention to the King's side.} 16. Bd2 f5 {!} 17. Qd1 b4 {!} 18. Nb1 Bb5 19. Rg1 Bd6 20. e4 fxe4 {!This sacrifice, which has a quite surprising affect, is based upon the following sober calculation: two Pawns and the 7th rank and an enemy Queen's wing which cannot be disentangled - all this for only one piece!} 21. Qxh5 Rxf2 22. Qg5 Raf8 23. Kh1 R8f5 24. Qe3 Bd3 25. Rce1 h6 {!! A brilliant move which announces the Zugzwang. White has not a move left. If, e.g., Kh2 or g4, then R5f3. Black can now make waiting moves with his King, and White must, willy-nilly, eventually throw himself upon the sword.} 0-1
edit x: fixed. one must remove hidden line breaks...
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:
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.
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”?
09 Nov '11 00:231 edit
my first zugzwang
Back to Top