Try this

Originally posted by Mephisto2
What? So, the starting position is a zugzwang because if white were on the move it would be draw? Very, very funny.

End of discussion.

White is on move in the original position. 1.Rd1 puts black in zugzwang. If black were on move, there would be no zugzwang and black could draw.

You found the right moves, but your explanation was in error.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
What? So, the starting position is a zugzwang because if white were on the move it would be draw? Very, very funny.

End of discussion.

This is my understanding of zugzwang.

After 1.Rd1! any move black makes is bad, therefore he is in zugzwang.

But yes, I have heard the other definition to that in zugzwang, neither side wants to move.

This definition is not true for this position since after 1.Rd1 if black could pass his turn over, white would happily move again.

But I still call this position zugzwang because after 1.Rd1 all black moves lose.

Originally posted by RahimK
This is my understanding of zugzwang.

After 1.Rd1! any move black makes is bad, therefore he is in zugzwang.

But yes, I have heard the other definition to that in zugzwang, neither side wants to move.

This definition is not true for this position since after 1.Rd1 if black could pass his turn over, white would happily move again.

But I still call this position zugzwang because after 1.Rd1 all black moves lose.

That would mean that every 'forced' winning position (i.e. the vast majority of the endgame puzzles) leads to zugzwang after the opening move. And more so, even if the losing party can skip his/her move. Wow, I only have one small problem now: how does that explain "zugzwang" ethymologically?

Originally posted by RahimK
This is my understanding of zugzwang.

After 1.Rd1! any move black makes is bad, therefore he is in zugzwang.

But yes, I have heard the other definition to that in zugzwang, neither side wants to move.

This definition is not true for this position since after 1.Rd1 if black could pass his turn over, white would happily move again.

But I still call this position zugzwang because after 1.Rd1 all black moves lose.

When one player cannot move without weakening his or her position, that player is in zugzwang. When the player to move (and it could be either) is in zugzwang, it is called reciprocal zugzwang.

You are correct that only black is in zugzwang in the position in this thread.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
When one player cannot move without weakening his or her position, that player is in zugzwang. When the player to move (and it could be either) is in zugzwang, it is called reciprocal zugzwang.

You are correct that only black is in zugzwang in the position in this thread.

White, having a winning move, is not in zugzwang. Great!

Originally posted by Mephisto2
That would mean that every 'forced' winning position (i.e. the vast majority of the endgame puzzles) leads to zugzwang after the opening move. And more so, even if the losing party can skip his/her move. Wow, I only have one small problem now: how does that explain "zugzwang" ethymologically?

Not "every," but a large proportion, at least according to Dvoretsky.

"Zugzwang is one of the most important endgame tools. It is applicable everywhere: in elementary endgames such as 'king and pawn versus king' or 'king and rook versus king.' In the last case, the checkmating process cannot be successful without a zugzwang technique." Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, 289.

Argg....

Originally posted by Wulebgr
3 ... Kf5 =

How come? As play continues white won't be able to win blacks pawn?

Originally posted by o0obruceleeo0o
How come? As play continues white won't be able to win blacks pawn?

After 1.Rd2+ Kd5 2.Rxe5+ Kxe5 3.Kf3 Kf5, play might continue 4.Kf3 Ke5 5.c4 Kf5 6.Kd2 Kf6! Black maintains the distant opposition, and white cannot outflank to win the pawn.