Hey Varenka,
it seems you keep pointing to something nobody is denying. I think nobody said 'stalemate is zugzwang' but 'stalemate is like zugzwang but with no legal moves'. For some statement like this one doesnt need a book reference or GM quote - especially if you keep in mind, that the word 'like' does not mean 'is identical to'.
It merely underlines the similarities and may help people to distinguish better between stalemate and zugzwang, drawn or lost positions, etc. If these two things have nothing at all to do with each other for some, or only a little bit for others or seem like a simple special subcase of the other more general rule for even others... is a matter of taste, i guess...
Greetings,
T.
Originally posted by VarenkaActually, zugzwang simply means "compulsion to move", without a value reference. It is almost always used in the context of putting someone in a bad spot, but it's not an essential ingredient.
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 t ...[text shortened]... is more than happy that it's his move and that doesn't sound like zugzwang to me.
GM Kaufman's statement is pretty straigntforward as to what he thinks, so I need to add nothing more.
This is a small point, and I'm sorry you don't understand it, but it's simply not that big a deal. Go with whatever concept works for you!
Originally posted by Paul LeggettSo every time it's someone's turn to move, they are in zugzwang.... every chess position is zugzwang for the side to move?
Actually, zugzwang simply means "compulsion to move", without a value reference.
Dvoretsky (Endgame manual, p289): "Zugzwang is a situation in which each possible move worsens one's position"
Batsford Chess Endings (p6): "Reciprocal zugzwang is a situation in which the stronger side cannot force a win if he is to move, while the weaker side loses if he must move"
And as I pointed out, Kaufman was talking in the context of stalemate being illogical and with a view to a rule change.
Originally posted by VarenkaThat's more or less right.
So every time it's someone's turn to move, they are in zugzwang.... every chess position is zugzwang for the side to move?
I just want to point out a good translation for Zwang (correct me if I'm wrong Germans, I'm comparing it to the Dutch word "dwang, dwingen"😉
When you are forced to do something you don't like it is "Zwang"
When you are forced to do something you were going to do anyway it is not really called "Zwang".
I can't think of a positive situation where the word "dwang" is used in Dutch and probably so is "Zwang". That's probably why this is only used in bad situations (where you have to move, but don't want to) and maybe even the reason you English speakers use Zugzwang instead of your own language.
Originally posted by yashinNo it's not.
That's more or less right.
Google for "zugzwang definition" and post any definition you find. Every one of the top links mentions something to the effect of "disadvantageous". I'm not debating how this word translates in every language. I'm specifying how it gets used in chess literature.
Originally posted by yashinFair enough. But in response to "every chess position is zugzwang for the side to move?", you stated "That's more or less right.", which obviously is not the case.
I was trying to point out that there is a negative meaning to "Zwang".
Which gives the "compulsory to move" meaning a negative one as well.
That would make it like this in chess literature:
"Compulsory to move, which is a disadvantage to the moving player".
Originally posted by yashin
I was trying to point out that there is a negative meaning to "Zwang".
Which gives the "compulsory to move" meaning a negative one as well.
That would make it like this in chess literature:
"Compulsory to move, which is a disadvantage to the moving player".
Thanks for the insight- Edward Winter has an article I read once where he talks about the difficulty of translating the German into an exact English equivalent, and he talks about how explanations have evolved over time as various attempts at translation have been made.
I found the link: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/zugzwang.html
It's a very interesting read, indicating that our attempt at debate pales in comparison to some of the debates in the past!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Paul LeggettZugzwang is not merely the compulsion to move. If it were, we would all be in Zugzwang on every single turn. "Putting your opponent in Zugzwang", which you refer to later on, would be impossible: your opponent would already be in Zugzwang, from the very start of the game.
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.
Zugzwang is that situation where this common requirement to move is disadvantageous to you. "Zwang", in German, is slightly stronger than a mere "requirement". It is something like "being forced to", as in, "I didn't want to move, but I must."
A stalemate is quite the contrary. It is a situation where you are not allowed to move, and that's good for you.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueSee the GM Kaufman reference- it is the inspiration for his suggestion of a rule change. His opinion about the logic of stalemate is a more developed version of what other posters have added to the thread, and his observation that, absent the special rule about checks, every king move available is horrible and ends in mate, is relevant.
Zugzwang is not merely the compulsion to move. If it were, we would all be in Zugzwang on every single turn. "Putting your opponent in Zugzwang", which you refer to later on, would be impossible: your opponent would already be in Zugzwang, from the very start of the game.
Zugzwang is that situation where this common requirement to move is disad ...[text shortened]... uation where you are not allowed to move, and that's good for you.
Richard
Like I said in the original post, though, this is a small observation, and go with whatever works for you! We can all agree that none of our games will be meaningfully affected by this thread, that's for sure.
Maybe the issue is also that people are trying to compare the definition of stalemate with the definition of zugzwang.
If you look at the positions of both, in a way you can state (and very likely easily debate against) that they are actually the same.
Yes, in this way I would like to say the the positions of stalemate and zugzwang are the same, in that a player is forced to make a move.
In both situations there are very few moves left. The difference is that there is the rule in chess that says a king cannot move in check.
If this rule were not there, then in a stalemate position, a king would be forced to move (in check), which would lose the game. In the zugzwang position, the player would be equally forced to move, not necessarily in check, but still losing the game.
Stating that they are very much different and not at all similar is simply not true.
You can say that zugzwang and stalemate are the same but for this one single little chess rule.
You can also say that zugzwang and stalemate are two completely different things because of this one single little chess rule.
See how easy this all is?
There will be many many things in my post that there will be many arguments against. This is just more a kind of philosophical idea, which is not per se right or wrong in any way, just like the original idea by Paul Leggett (thanks for that).
Debate. 😉
Originally posted by davanielthats a nice summary.
You can say that zugzwang and stalemate are the same but for this one single little chess rule.
You can also say that zugzwang and stalemate are two completely different things because of this one single little chess rule.
so this thread that started off from the 'two master knights' and a special position on the board and came now to the underlying principles of it - both of which (zugzwang and stalemate) were masterly managed by white and almost by black, at least 50 moves in advance...
Originally posted by davaniel
The difference is that there is the rule in chess that says a king cannot move in check.
If this rule were not there, then in a stalemate position, a king would be forced to move (in check), which would lose the game.
White to move, so stalemate. Remove the rule about the king being able to move into check. And it's still stalemate.
You can say that zugzwang and stalemate are the same but for this one single little chess rule.
My example proves that to be incorrect.
Originally posted by VarenkaHow did white move into this position? This is a great retrograde problem-like position.
[fen]7k/8/8/8/p1p5/PpPp4/RP1P4/KN6[/fen]
White to move, so stalemate. Remove the rule about the king being able to move into check. And it's still stalemate.
[b]You can say that zugzwang and stalemate are the same but for this one single little chess rule.
My example proves that to be incorrect.[/b]