< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Jun-15-11|| ||dotsamoht: THIS is the ultimate tomb game.
Michelet vs Kieseritzky, 1843
|Jun-15-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <dotsamoht> That's a good one, but I think this has it beaten. M/K has just an imprisoned queen; Black's king remains free to be overpowered. Here, four White pieces are caught and forced to walk into their own grave.|
|Jun-15-11|| ||kevin86: This whimsical game is so good the no comment will do it justice.|
Just think of the principle of zugzwang in a straitjacket.
|Jun-15-11|| ||watergun7: I would have gone for ...Nf5 ...Nd4 at the end. Ready to meet Qh3 with ...Rxg1+ Kg1 Qe1+ and then ...Nf3x|
|Jun-15-11|| ||tatarch: What a brutal way to lose|
|Jun-15-11|| ||th3doctor: Anytime I'm feeling depressed about my position at the board from now on, I'll be able to think about this game and know it could be much much worse.|
|Jun-15-11|| ||hedgeh0g: What a zugzwang!|
|Jun-15-11|| ||belgradegambit: Another nice tomb game here A Rasmussen vs R Robson, 2009|
|Jun-15-11|| ||fm avari viraf: May the King 'Rest in Peace, Eternally!"|
|Jun-15-11|| ||gauer: The has not been the only piece previously bottled up, where Bareev vs Piket, 2000 1-0 also involved targeted , similar to Nimzowitsch vs Hakansson, 1922 1-0, showing the offside pieces of a well-known hypermodern school advocate & author. Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923 0-1 & Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927 0-1 show a couple of his other famous wins & losses when those armies lost activity & mobility within their parade grounds.|
|Jun-15-11|| ||SuperPatzer77: <Kevin86 - Sep-20-08> <After 40axb6 axb6,white has nine pieces and ONLY ONE legal move...and after that 41 h3 gxh3},white has only two moves-both sucuumb to xg2#|
Like killing Dracula in his tomb!>
Yeah, you're absolutely right. White is in total zugzwang. White resigns in lieu of 40. axb6 axb6, 41. Qh3 gxh3 (Now White has two legal moves - Kh2 or g4) 42. Kh2 (or 42. g4) Qxg2# 0-1
What a lovely zugzwang by Robert Zuk!!!!
|Jun-15-11|| ||Lil Swine: Robert D. " Zuk- zwang". yeah I spelled it wrong|
|Jun-15-11|| ||PaulLovric: < Lil Swine: Robert D. " Zuk- zwang". yeah I spelled it wrong > I like the play on words: Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsu¢°ktsva©¯]) is a term usually used in chess which also applies to various other games. The term finds its formal definition in combinatorial game theory, and it describes a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move when he would prefer to pass and make no move. The fact that the player must make a move means that his position will be significantly weaker than the hypothetical one in which it was his opponent's turn to move.Thank Mr. Wiki|
but this is not a compultion to move here it is a compulsion to Die Mr. Bond
|Jun-15-11|| ||PaulLovric: very appropriate to name this game the Tomb game in the Halloween open too|
|Jun-15-11|| ||maxi: You expect me to talk, Goldfinger?
No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to move!
|Jun-15-11|| ||WhiteRook48: white was throughly crushed, but at what point did he go wrong?|
|Jun-15-11|| ||ounos: Hehe, so beautiful that looks like composed (which was not). After 31 white was in big trouble, and 32. Ng1 was a desperate, but very surprizing resource. It takes some time to convince oneself that the immediate 32. ...Rf2 does not kill, well, immediately. Then 33. Qc8+! (Not Qd8+), and if the knight moves, 34. Qe6+, or the king moves but it's a dead end (at a point, Kh5 will be met with g4+). So if black was careless, white would be able to offer significant practical resistance. But after h6, the position works like clockwork to completely suffocate white. That must have been painful.|
|Jun-15-11|| ||dotsamoht: For the record, the end of this game is NOT A ZUGZWANG. As <PaulLovric> correctly describes, Zugzwang is a very particular situation resulting from one player losing only because he must move.|
In other words, if it were not his move, a player in Zugzwang would draw.
The position in question is the much more common SQUEEZE, wherein one player just wastes time until the player being squeezed has to irrevocably weaken his position, resulting in a completely lost game. Even if the player being squeezed could skip his turn for just one move, he would still be lost.
Given this precise, technical interpretation of Zugzwang, it almost never arises in over-the-board encounters and is reserved for compositions.
However, given that it is a popular chess term that many have misapplied, it is no surprise to see this called a Zugzwang.
I know all this because the composer Robert Brieger used to go ballistic and foam at the mouth whenever anyone at the Houston Chess Studio would declare a position a Zugzwang when it was in fact a Squeeze.
|Jun-15-11|| ||weisyschwarz: "Harper is bizarre!"|
|Jun-15-11|| ||PaulLovric: < maxi: You expect me to talk, Goldfinger?
No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to move! > lol......Hal computer, 2001, stanley kubric, "this can only be due to human error|
|Jun-15-11|| ||PaulLovric: dotsamoht, you are so correct, about me being right< dotsamoht: For the record, the end of this game is NOT A ZUGZWANG. As <PaulLovric> correctly describes, Zugzwang is a very particular situation resulting from one player losing only because he must move. >|
|Oct-31-11|| ||FSR: <dotsamoht> I agree that the final position in this game is not zugzwang, since Black wins easily even if White is permitted to pass. If you removed the queen-side pawns and Black's knight it would be another story.|
I do not agree that zugzwang occurs only rarely in actual play. As Soltis has observed, many elementary mates, such as king and rook versus king, are won only because the losing side is compelled to move. Ditto with won king and pawn vs. king endings, queen versus rook, K+B+N v. K, etc. As Nunn has noted in his books on endings, there are large number of mutual zugzwang positions - where <each> side, on move, does worse than it would if allowed to pass the move. Probably the most famous such position is the trebuchet, featuring the rare full-point mutual zugzwang - whichever play is on move loses. (E.g. white pawn on e4, black pawn on e5, white king on d5, black king on f4.)
|Oct-31-11|| ||FSR: This game really should have been GOTD on Halloween. It is "The Tomb Game" - a good Halloweenish theme - and it was actually played in the Halloween Open.|
|Mar-22-12|| ||ColeTrane: this is epic|
|Apr-14-12|| ||Once: Sorry to disagree, but I think it is splitting hairs to say that this isn't a zugzwang.|
My understanding is that a zugzwang occurs when the compulsion to move forces a player to play a losing move. He would really rather sit on his hands and do nothing.
Roll on two moves from the end of the game and we get this ... 40. axb6 axb6
click for larger view
White only has one legal move - 41. Qh3. This is a move he would rather not play as it puts his queen en prise (and leads to unstoppable mate). If he could pass the move he would keep all his pieces, at least for the time being.
The disagreement seems to stem from the fact that white would also lose even if he could pass the move. In this position, if white did nothing for the remainder of the game, black would simply bring his knight over to the queenside, gobble all the white pawns, promote to queen(s) and mate.
But where does it say that it's zugzwang only works when the it's the <only> way to win?
As we have said many times before, there is no single codified and agreed definition of terms like zugzwang.
Robert Brieger may have one definition in mind, but there are equally many other chess players and writers who hold to a different definition.
For example, the definition in Wikipedia talks about zugzwang leading to the position being "significantly weaker". Interestingly, the wikipedia article (one of yours, FSR?) draws a distinction between the use of the term in game theory as opposed to real games:
"In game theory, it specifically means that it directly changes the outcome of the game from a win to a loss. The term is used less precisely in games such as chess; i.e., the game theory definition is not necessarily used in chess (Berlekamp, Conway & Guy 1982:16), (Elkies 1996:136). For instance, it may be defined loosely as "a player to move cannot do anything without making an important concession" (van Perlo 2006:479). Putting the opponent in zugzwang is a common way to help the superior side win a game. In some cases it is necessary to make the win possible (Müller & Pajeken 2008:173)."
As this is a game and not a composition, I'd call it a zugzwang.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·