Talk:Zugzwang

Wrong Picture?

the picture at the morphy thing seems wrong... what do you think? left picture is my idea.

Morphy, 1840s?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to play and mate in two moves

Paul Morphy is credited with composing the position at right "while still a young boy". After 1.Ra6, Black is in zugzwang and must allow mate on the next move with 1...bxa6 2.b7# or 1...B (moves) 2.Rxa7#. (Shibut 2004,p 297)

Morphy, 1840s?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to play and mate in two moves

• The original looks right to me; the solution works. In the second one, 1.Ra6 is impossible. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Knights are unable to make a tempo move"

This claim is refuted by tempo where the only example of gaining tempo uses a knight. Did the author mean "this knight is unable to make a tempo move"? If so, why is there a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TricksterWolf (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. A "tempo move" does not gain a tempo, it loses a tempo. (See triangulation.) In the opening and middle game players often strive to gain a tempo, but as described in this article in some endings the ability to lose a tempo is the key to winning. A knight can't lose a tempo because it always takes an even number of moves to return to the same square. Looking at this article shows it uses the jargon "tempo move" without explaining it. Our glossary of chess terms doesn't define "tempo move" either. Opportunities for improvement. Quale (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Polerio example, what's wrong with this (more obvious) solution?

The article states that "The only way for White to win is 1.Ra1 Kxa1 2.Kc2"

I think this is incorrect. Ra1 is a fantastic move, but (unless I'm counting wrongly) White can win as follows

1. Rc2 [black has to move K, doesn't matter where]
2. Rxa2 [black K can take R regardless of where K went in 1., any other move leaves white overwhelmingly stronger]
3. e3
4. f4
5. g5
6. Kxg6
7. Kxh5
8. Kg6

White King has sufficient head start such that Black can't prevent white taking both black pawns and clearing a route to promote the white one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.45.170.74 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be a draw (Black gets to move too!):

• 3. Ke3 Kb3
• 4. Kf4 Kg4
• 5. Kg5 Kd5

Now if 6. Kxg6 Ke6 (draw)

• 7. Kxh5 Kf5, draw, White can't promote the pawn. The black king on f5 prevents your 8. Kg6. (see King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame#Rook_pawn. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks - I knew I was missing something - the concept that B does have time to stop the W K getting back to the W P, provided B doesn’t head for it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.80.69 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is more of an issue that either the white king can't get out of the way of the pawn, or he has to allow the black king to get in front of it. e.g.

• 8. Kh6 Kf6 keeps the white king on the rook file, then if 9. Kh7 Kf7, or Black may try 9. h5, but then 9... Kf7. Then either 10/ Kh7 makes no progress, or 10. Kg5 allows 10... Kg7 is a draw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Zugzwang statements contradict zugzwang definition

My (Chesterday´s) comment

Zugzwang - redefined

Both in the WWW and in chess literature, there are many examples, where the term zugzwang is used in positions whose evaluation is independent of the right to move. That leads to contradictions and a lot of confusions, because there is no difference between the German terms Zugzwang and Zugpflicht (if it is your move, you have to move!). This problem can be removed by the following definition: A player is in zugzwang when he (to move) is lost and his opponent - if he were to move - could draw (at most). In such a situation, everyone would like to transfer the right to move to the opponent. Examples s. Chess Through a Magnifying Glass. Chesterday (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

Zugzwang

Zugzwang in chess

Point one of your list includes the positions (+/+), (+/=) and (=/+), point 2 includes positions of normal zugzwang, i.e. (-/=) and (=/-), and point 3 positions of reciprocal or mutual zugzwang, i.e. (-/-)-positions. There are some types of chess positions missing in your list of chess positions, namly the following ones: (=/=) (+/-) (-/+). This leads to contradictions in a number of examples:

Examples from games

Fischer versus Taimanov, second match game

1971, game 2: In the starting position after 85.Bf5 Black is not in zugzwang. The position is won for White independent from the rigth to move. Otherwise it would contradict the definition of zugzwang given before.

Fischer versus Taimanov, fourth match game

The same is true for the comment after 87.Kg6: Black is not in zugzwang. He is simply lost independent of the right to move. This endgame has nothing to do with zugzwang! The same is true for Fischer versus Taimanov, fourth match game after 61. Be8: There is no zugzwang!

Reciprocal zugzwang

The position Hooper 1970, p.21 is zugzwang but not reciprocal zugzwang. Otherwise it would contradict the afore given definition!

There are a lot of more contradictions in the rest of the article. Some of the examples are also used on the website http://www.schachlupe.de/index-GB.html. Chesterday (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Initial definition

The definition of zugzwang at the beginning of the article is problematic. It says that the position of the player to move will become weaker or worsen by the move. But the position is already weak or bad, because of the compulsion to move (zugpflicht). A better definition should say that a player is in zugzwang if his position were better if he had the option not to move at all. It is a comparison between the real and a hypothetical situation, not between the situations before and after a move.

Before editing the article, I'd like to know your comments. --Peter Buch (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)