The condition whereby what ever move a player makes it's bad i.e. a player has no choice but to make a bad move. I am here to offer you a place in history. We need another name for zugzwang because not all zugzwangs are created equal. Suppose this situation; a player has 2 legal moves and both worsen his position - zugzwang. Now suppose a player has 12 legal moves and they're all bad, that's some next level zugzwang right there, that's zugzwang in a class of it's own. But it starts getting grey, they might have to make a bad move but the opposition might not respond in the ideal way.
That is a debate on zugzwang scale, a Richter scale of zugzwangs.
Where I believe there is a distinct difference requiring a unique name is zugzwang as a result of check versus zugzwang that does not involve check.
One or the other needs a unique name.
Is there already a name, or do you consider having to make bad moves as a result of check, not zugzwang?
@Suzianne saidThat's because you lack wit and imagination, you are a bore.
No.
Number of possible moves is notwithstanding.
Zugzwang means ANY move will worsen your position, check or no check.
No difference if you have one possible move or 47.
Always making up your own definitions.
Apologies to my fellow posters, I have a stalker.
@Wajoma saidHi, could you give as an example with lots of options (so different figures moving, not moving a rook along the seven unpleasant fields)?
The condition whereby what ever move a player makes it's bad i.e. a player has no choice but to make a bad move. I am here to offer you a place in history. We need another name for zugzwang because not all zugzwangs are created equal. Suppose this situation; a player has 2 legal moves and both worsen his position - zugzwang. Now suppose a player has 12 legal moves and they' ...[text shortened]... here already a name, or do you consider having to make bad moves as a result of check, not zugzwang?
@Wajoma said"Zugzwang" does not apply to positions with the side to move in check.
The condition whereby what ever move a player makes it's bad i.e. a player has no choice but to make a bad move. I am here to offer you a place in history. We need another name for zugzwang because not all zugzwangs are created equal. Suppose this situation; a player has 2 legal moves and both worsen his position - zugzwang. Now suppose a player has 12 legal moves and they' ...[text shortened]... here already a name, or do you consider having to make bad moves as a result of check, not zugzwang?
"Check" is a forcing situation. Zug is for situations where you would be fine if you could "pass" your turn.
@BigDogg saidThanks for that, I did 3 minutes of research and didn't see the non-check stipulation. It looks like my know-it-all retard stalker suzidude was wrong too.
"Zugzwang" does not apply to positions with the side to move in check.
"Check" is a forcing situation. Zug is for situations where you would be fine if you could "pass" your turn.
Agreed, putting someone in check and then they're only faced with bad choices is too common. How about a word for the opposite of zugzwang, where you force the opposition into a position where every move they make is good ;^) Is there an opportunity to create a new word and enter chess history.
It seems there is a subjective aspect to the term, grey areas.
Hi Wajoma,
The term basically means if you could pass at chess, be allowed NOT
to make move then you would be OK. However passing is not allowed
so if it your turn to move and everything move losses then it's Zugzwang.
Super Zugzwang sounds OK and a good idea but it's not needed.
Snookered, up the creek, gimped... are terms I've seen in print.
Many many years ago The News Statesman ran a competition for their
readers to come up with a new name for Zugzwang and it was won by
Gerald Abrahams with the term 'Move bound.'
Regarding every move wins. I'm reminded of this position.