Originally posted by Paul Leggett The essential idea is zugzwang-related. The side with the two knights has to have the other king stalemated (frozen in place but not in check), but needs another move by the opponent to deliver the actual checkmate.
Yes, good way of stating it. Need a psuedo-stalemate position as a precursor for mate with the two knights on the solo king in the corner.
Originally posted by moon1969 Yes, good way of stating it. Need a psuedo-stalemate position as a precursor for mate with the two knights on the solo king in the corner.
It just occurred to me that, essentially, a stalemate is a zugzwang position with no legal move. Purely an idle observation, but I had just never thought of it from that perspective before.
I need to go back and re'd Gp's original post. What a great thread!
Originally posted by Paul Leggett It just occurred to me that, essentially, a stalemate is a zugzwang position with no legal move.
I don't follow...
If it's Black to move he is stalemated - but I don't see why he'd want to "pass on this move", which is what zugzwang is about. Likewise, White wouldn't want to pass either if it were his move. So where is the "I'd rather it wasn't me to move" aspect?
correctly translated 'zugzwang' means: you are forced to move a certain, single move (or in rare cases all two or three possible moves lead to the same bad outcome).
meaning that in principle any 'find the mate in x moves' is a zugzwang, just by its correct meaning. often however, zugzwang refers to a position without any checks involved, leading inevitably to a lost (mated) position.
your diagram is of course a simple stalemate. as paul said, it is the extreme case of a 'zugzwang': you are forced to move the king, however you have no legal moves. thats the 'insight' paul was mentioning, i think.
if you add the pawn on the 2nd rank, you have a zugzwang position with one legal move: pawn-promotion. and that, as stated above, leads to the lost position (= mated).
hope the translation helps... lots of german lesson, lately... 😉
Originally posted by tharkesh correctly translated 'zugzwang' means: you are forced to move a certain, single move (or in rare cases all two or three possible moves lead to the same bad outcome).
meaning that in principle any 'find the mate in x moves' is a zugzwang, just by its correct meaning. often however, zugzwang refers to a position without any checks involved, leading inevita ...[text shortened]... position (= mated).
hope the translation helps... lots of german lesson, lately... 😉
well, i would put the order around: you are forced to move the king (or any piece), but you have no legal moves.
however you put it, a stalemate is a very peculiar thing in chess, at the border of legality - they simply made it a rule, that the game is drawn.
wonder how many years it took, until the first stalemate occured. and i guess, in that game, a huge argument arose: you lost! no, you lost! because you can not mate me! nooooooo, you lost, because you can't escape...
Originally posted by Varenka Zugzwang is when you have to move but would rather not. When it's stalemate you don't have to move because you cannot move!
well, technically speaking, one of the basic rules of chess is: you have to move! if you can not move, you loose, or as in stalemate, you draw....
edit: and by the way, paul, i think that white had a very similar insight to 'zugzwang' as you just mentioned: by not taking that pawn at move 63. (i had naturally taken it...) he had a very deep insight to 'zugzwang' and stalemate...
They should have never made the rule that you can't move into chek. I mean it is ridiculous! If you drop your king then you should lose BUT it would cause too many problems to change the rule now.
zugzwang just means having to move when you'd rather not. If you are in zugzwang then any move will cause a disadvantage; it doesn't have to be mate, it could just be the loss of a pawn, or a positional disadvantage.
Originally posted by Varenka Zugzwang is when you have to move but would rather not. When it's stalemate you don't have to move because you cannot move!
That's why it's a stalemate! If there were no compulsion to move, the losing side would be compelled to "pass" with no legal move available (which happens in some other types of board and card games), and the winning side could make another move.
The rules of the game create the zugzwang position, but since there are no legal moves, the game is considered drawn.
Your statement is the core of why it's a draw with two knights vs king, but a win if the opposing king is cursed with a pawn that can still move!
Originally posted by Paul Leggett The rules of the game create the zugzwang position, but since there are no legal moves, the game is considered drawn
Zugzwang is something that a chess player *never* wants to find himself in. But yet, sometimes getting stalemated can be a desirable end. The two are not the same. Show me a reference that backs up your definition of "stalemate" with the word "zugzwang".
Originally posted by Varenka Zugzwang is something that a chess player *never* wants to find himself in. But yet, sometimes getting stalemated can be a desirable end. The two are not the same. Show me a reference that backs up your definition of "stalemate" with the word "zugzwang".
hm, there will be no reference or clear definition. either you see the connections between stalemate and zugzwang or you see them not. not really necessary to play the game, as the rules are clear anyhow.
Originally posted by tharkesh hm, there will be no reference
On that we can agree 🙂
Here's the bit you don't get: a major part of being in zugzwang is that it's the act of making a move that turns the position from draw to loss, or win to draw/loss. Hence if I said to my opponent hypothetically, "may I skip a move?", it would be to his disadvantage to allow me so (even if the rules allowed such requests).
Now look at my stalemate position and imagine Black - who you claim to be in zugzwang - saying "may I skip a move?" White: "sure, no problem.... I'll just checkmate you and win instead of drawing".
13 Jun '11 12:45
Nice Knights
Back to Top