Nice Knights

Originally posted by Varenka
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.

thats true, and it is acknowledged already before (see above) that the now-used definition of zugzwang has evolved away from its original meaning: the exact translation of the german word, which just means: you have to move (zug = move, zwang = forcing something). if you stick to its origin, the connection to stalemate becomes clear: it is the special case (as actually in a mathematical proof) of a zugzwang: one with zero legal moves...

Originally posted by Varenka
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).

...[text shortened]... " White: "sure, no problem.... I'll just checkmate you and win instead of drawing".

Thats your problem. There is no such claim that stalemate is zugzwang the claim is the rules that allow stalemate are the same rules that allow zugzwang except that when you are in zugzwang you have a legal move ergo take a stalemate position and put an irrelevent pawn somewhere it can move and now you have zugzwang! simple.

Originally posted by tomtom232
There is no such claim that stalemate is zugzwang

Go read PL's earlier post:

"a stalemate is a zugzwang position with no legal move"

Originally posted by Varenka
Go read PL's earlier post:

"a stalemate is a zugzwang position with no legal move"

Exactly... since when does that mean "stalemate is zugzwang"

Originally posted by tomtom232
Exactly... since when does that mean "stalemate is zugzwang"

The clause at the end doen't make the "is" false.

Originally posted by Varenka
The clause at the end doen't make the "is" false.

What "is" a zugzwang position "is" it the same thing as actual zugzwang? 😉

Originally posted by tharkesh
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.

I agree that stalemate is a peculiar thing.

I've always assumed the following history of the rules of chess: The original goal of chess is to capture the king. However, soon it was accepted sufficient to give 'checkmate'. This basically means you have a forced 'capture' in one move. A mate-in-one is thus actually a capture-in-two.

In that perspective, stalemate is just a variation of capture-in-one, because any move made by the defender results in a capture of the king. I would consider this as a loss.

However, according to current rules, this is considered a draw, because of the rule that you cannot put the king in check yourself. To me, this is odd. I would just consider moving the king in check as a resignation (or a result of zugzwang in the case of stalemate).

Does anybody have an idea of the origin of stalemate? Why are moves that put the king in check considered 'illegal' instead of just a stupid way of losing?

Originally posted by tvochess
I agree that stalemate is a peculiar thing.

I've always [b]assumed the following history of the rules of chess: The original goal of chess is to capture the king. However, soon it was accepted sufficient to give 'checkmate'. This basically means you have a forced 'capture' in one move. A mate-in-one is thus actually a capture-in-two.

In that persp ...[text shortened]... s that put the king in check considered 'illegal' instead of just a stupid way of losing?[/b]

As far as I know, the rule that you cannot put your king in check is much older than the rule that stalemate is a draw. You couldn't put (or leave) your king in check even in chaturanga. (Except in four-handed, but that's for reasons specific to that variant.) If you think not being able to move into check is weird, consider that in Chinese chess, the kings aren't even allowed to see each other.
In fact, AFAIAA the aim of the game has never been to take the opponent's king - it's always been checkmate. After all, it's a courtiers' game, not a soldiers' one. Propriety must be maintained - the king is ransomed back to his home court, not slaughtered like a common sword-for-hire. Mere pawns don't get to lay a hand on him.

As for stalemate, at various points in the development of the game this was a win for the stalemating side, half a win for the stalemating side (good try, but next time try mating him - much harder with shatranj pieces!), a draw as it is now, or even ("for ye stalemate goeth against ye Natural Order of ye game, which is ye GRAND CHECKMATE of ye Kinge", or some similar reason) a win for the stalemated side. All of those have occurred over several centuries in various countries, but in all cases it has been agreed that the king could not move into check.

Richard

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".

We went from interesting to something else very fast. If there were no compulsion to move (zugzwang), there would be no stalemate. I believe this is the simplest it can be stated.

Whether or not the outcome of a rule is advantageous or disadvantageous to a player does not change the essential nature of the rule. If the rule says you must move on your turn, it is what it is whether or not you consider that good or not so good. Putting your opponent in zugzwang is generally good-unless he only has a king!

The idea as it pertains to the thread is that the addition of a pawn allows the "weaker" side a move, which means the "compulsion to move" can be met, which in turn allows the mate. In the absence of the pawn, black's compulsion to move cannot be met due to rule which states that a king cannot put itself in check.

Basically, a stalemate is where the rule stating that each side must move in turn and the rule stating that no king may put itself in check come into an irresolvable conflict, so the game "locks up" and is considered drawn, hence the term "stalemate".

I merely thought that this particular application of a zugzwang situation was interesting- I had no idea that it would confuse the issue for people. Sorry about that, especially if this has detracted from the beauty of the original post.

Well put Shallow Blue.

It's a game. You make a move, I make move.

The object of the game is to checkmate the opposing King.

I have made a move that does not allow you, following the rules
of the game, to make a legal rule.

I cannot checkmate you because it is your move. You cannot move.
Stalemate.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I merely thought that this particular application of a zugzwang situation was interesting

There are more books written on chess than all other games put together. Not to mention all the web sites, etc. too. How many describe stalemate in terms of a zugzwang? Go figure.

Fact: zugzwang involves being compelled to move when you'd rather not
Fact: stalemate ends the game
Fact: you cannot be compelled to move in a game that is finished

Originally posted by Varenka
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).

" White: "sure, no problem.... I'll just checkmate you and win instead of drawing".

I do like your insights. I agree. I don't think it really makes sense, or it is at least awkward, to say a stalemate is zugzwang with no legal move. Yet, it may be semantics for some, or just a way or understanding the original post issues, or just characterizing different aspects of the zugzwang position. I think of a stalemate as any position without your king in check and you have no legal move, and no need necessarily to bring in the concept of zugzwang.

For the position you posted, it is a stalemate if black to move, as you know.

The position might be characterized as a zugzwang for black (from draw to loss for black) if black to move but only if he has a piece elsewhere on the board that could be moved but not interfere with the upcoming white Ng6 mate. I think that is the concept you said in an earlier post.

Originally posted by Varenka
There are more books written on chess than all other games put together. Not to mention all the web sites, etc. too. How many describe stalemate in terms of a zugzwang? Go figure.

Fact: zugzwang involves being compelled to move when you'd rather not
Fact: stalemate ends the game
Fact: you cannot be compelled to move in a game that is finished

Your order is off a bit there. The game is only finished because a player is compelled to move, but is unable to do so. Here's some citations- you just didn't try very hard:

From http://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/zugzwang.html:


Zugzwang - It can happen to you

Zugzwang (ZGZW) is a German word which means "forced to move".

"Zug" = Move
"Zwang" = to be forced

ZGZW is a situation, where a player has to make a move because it's his turn. He would prefer not to make the move as this move will worsen his position, but he has to, as the chess rules require him to make the move. He is forced to move.

There are positions in chess, mostly in the endgame, where a move can seriously ruin your position and you lose. To be forced to move can change the outcome of the game from a win to a draw or from a draw to a loss.





If White must move then he is in "ZGZW" because the game is drawn as Black keeps the opposition. 1.Kf4 Kf6 2.Ke4 Ke6 To proceed White must finally move ahead the pawn and will end in a stalemate.(see next diagram)

If Black must move he is going to lose the game. 1...Kf6 2.Kd5 and White will eventually promote the pawn into a queen. etc. The outcome of the game for Black changed from a draw to a loss because of "ZGZW".





If White must move then he will win the game as the black king must move away and White finally promotes the pawn into a queen. 1.Kf6 Kd7 2.Kf7 etc.

If Black must move he is in "ZGZW" and it is stalemate because the king can't go anywhere. "ZGZW" saves Black as the game is drawn. (Bold added by Paul)
(For reasons beyond my ability to discern, the diagrams didn't copy, but they are not necessary to make the point. Anyone can use the link above if needed. Sorry about that.)

On the wikipedia.com article on stalemate, we have the following quote: Grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken" (Kaufman 2009). "

GM Kaufman's credentials are better than mine, but the point is the same- without zugzwang, there would be no stalemate.

I simply did a search for "stalemate as a form of zugzwang" and the answer to "How many describe stalemate in terms of zugzwang?' and the answer is "Lots."

I hope this helps, as I am not sure there is another way to explain it.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett

Your first reference is written by Norbert Thomas, an untitled chess player who I'm sure we're all familiar with...

Then you quote GM Kaufman in the context of a proposed rule change because he thinks stalemate is illogical.

I looked at your "lots" of other references and I've still to see something substantial. Can you give me a book reference by a titled player?

Look at dictionary definitions for "zugzwang" and you'll see something like "a situation in a chess game in which a player is forced to make an undesirable or disadvantageous move"

The *undesirable* aspect is a key part of zugzwang that you refuse to acknowledge. If it wasn't for the undesirable part then at the start of a chess game White is in zugzwang because he is compelled to make a move. But that of course makes no sense. Zugzwang must involve the fact that if I move the result will be worse than if it were my opponent to move.

With that in mind, consider...



Now tell me why Black would prefer it to be White's move here? Black is more than happy that it's his move and that doesn't sound like zugzwang to me.

Stalemate and Zugzwang could not be more different.

There really is no relationship between them.

Stalemate is the end of the game with no moves possible.

Zugzwang is a situation where only a bad move is possible.

In the common K&P vs K, the attacker desires causing zugzwang and abhors causing stalemate.