Originally posted by Varenka
[b]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 c ...[text shortened]... because of the check?! Is this right? Is there some definition that states “but not in check”?[/b]
I can play the same games.
I'm betting you think this is zugzwang after 1.Rc3, since white needs it to force the win.
White to play
Now, let's add to the diagram.
By your definition, 1.Rc3 no longer causes zugzwang, since white could also win with 1.Rxh3 and promoting the pawn, even if Black could "pass". The best winning method, 1.Rc3, still works exactly the same way, i.e. by compelling Black to move, and yet it's no longer zugzwang because of a trivial pair of pawns in some faraway sector of the board.
This is my main objection to your definition of zug.