< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-02-09|| ||whiteshark: Lasker's Manual of Chess says that without zugzwang you can't win this: |
click for larger view
That's why Lasker matters... :D
|May-02-09|| ||Calli: I suppose Lasker's "Emanual of Chess" is right, but only if Black passes some moves and not others. White could always check with Kings in opposition if Black always passed.|
|May-02-09|| ||Extremophile: You can't pass a move in chess. You are not allowed to move 2 times in a row. This is against the chess rules. You are giving us a definiton that violates the rules of chess. That definition is wrong right from the basis. |
Modern chess doesn't have a long history. It quite natural that some terms are still evolving. I think giving a defition that is used by most commentators is way better than giving a definition that violates the rules of chess.
|May-03-09|| ||acirce: *sigh*|
|May-03-09|| ||Domdaniel: In Marseillaise aka Double-move Chess, each player gets two moves in a row. Alekhine played it.|
Many mathematical proofs proceed by assuming the opposite of the thing to be proved, and reaching a contradiction.
|May-03-09|| ||alexmagnus: <You can't pass a move in chess. You are not allowed to move 2 times in a row. This is against the chess rules. You are giving us a definiton that violates the rules of chess. That definition is wrong right from the basis.> |
That is how it is defined. Every move loses but if you could violate the rules of chess and pass the move - and the resulting postion is not lost - then it is zugzwang.
|May-03-09|| ||alexmagnus: That is, a zugzwang is a position in which any move is worse than the (illegal) passing.|
<Extremophile> Show me at least one commetator who uses your definition.
|May-03-09|| ||Extremophile: I have been thinking about Lasker's comment on zugzwang. In the given ending, you are passing the move to the opponent but the passing move is not a hypothetical move; it is a real one. You need to make a waiting move with the rook to pass the move to your opponent.|
I am not giving a definition of zugzwang. However, according to your definition, Raymond Keene's comment on Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927 game is false. Furthermore, that is not the first time I have seen such a position being called zugzwang.
- If his comment is wrong, it is wrong according to whose definition of zugzwang? I would love to hear Ray Keene's comment on zugzwang. He is years of commentator, I think at least he must know what he is doing.
- The rules of modern chess are different than those when it is first invented? Isn't it natural that such a word also evolved considering the short history of chess?
- What would be a better word than a zugzwang to comment on that position?
|May-03-09|| ||alexmagnus: <Calli> explained why Nimzo vs. Capa isn't a zugzwang - because in case of a passing move black still wins (with Rc2!). It's entirely possible commentators missed that Rc2 move.|
Lasker said about the ending that if black were allowed to pass at ome moves, white couldn't win that ending (i.e. if there were no zugzwang (obligation to move)in chess, the ending would be drawn).
The word "Zugzwang" didn't have to evolve - not into something like you describe. By your "definition" every lost position is a zugzwang, which is of course wrong.
"That" position is simply a lost position. It would be zugzwang if there were no that Rc2 move in case of passing.
|May-03-09|| ||alexmagnus: <You need to make a waiting move with the rook to pass the move to your opponent.>|
Wrong. Lasker said that if black could pass the moves (literally!), white couldn't win with best play on both sides.
|May-03-09|| ||Confuse: A nice game. Can someone explain to me why white didn't play... 23. Bg5, which looks like it wins material simply? (Not to draw away from the zugzwang discussion, I was just curious)|
|May-03-09|| ||butilikefur: After 23. Bg5, Black can play Rf8 and White's queen is trapped.|
23. Ne2 stops this as 23...Rf8 24. Rc7+ Kxc7 25. Qxe7+ Kb8 26. Bh6 wins for White.
|May-04-09|| ||Extremophile: I see what you mean alexmagnus; I understand that definition. In this case, Nimzowitch's own immortal zugzwang(!) game, Samisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923 , isn't actually zugzwang either at the final position. However, it is Nimzowitch himself commenting on the position as zugzwang. He must have missed it, too (?!) I don't know in which year Nimzo made that comment but in this case it is a theoretician that makes the comment. |
If you don't call those positions zugzwang, I don't know how that gap can be filled in.
By the way, who gives that definition of zugzwang? As far as I see, Lasker just makes a comment on zugzwang; he doesn't give a definition.
|May-04-09|| ||alexmagnus: See the comments on the "immortal zugzwang game". f.x. this one:|
<It's certainly not a Zugzwang because if white were to pass his move, Black answers with 26...R5f3! 27. Bxf3 Rxf3, and White's queen is trapped. After this combination is played out black will end up with a one pawn advantage and will retain his crushing space advantage and a winning position
This is a bind.>
A <bind> is probably the word you are looking for.
|May-04-09|| ||alexmagnus: As for who uses "my" definition: I found the "chess without zugzwang" variant in Karpov's "Everything about chess". Quote (translated from Russian):
<A position in which every move loses is called a zugzwang. Chess without zugzwang has the same rules as classical chess with the addition of one move: the null-move. Really, there is no zugzwang in this game: one can always pass the move to the opponent>.|
|May-04-09|| ||Domdaniel: Shortly after his 1923 win against Saemisch, Nimzowitsch began to refer to the game as 'the immortal Zugzwang game', although I think he vaguely credited this name to 'somebody in Denmark'.|
He must have known that it wasn't a *true* Zugzwang - which normally only occurs in endings - but he was very much taken with the game as a sort of metaphorical zugzwang.
This difference between 'true' and 'metaphorical' zugzwang has persisted ever since. As we've seen, it can be a source of confusion.
|May-04-09|| ||whiteshark: Isn't <stalemate> a real zugzwang position, and, due to draw as forced result, the only exception, where zugzwang doesn't lose?|
|May-04-09|| ||alexmagnus: Stalemate is not a zugzwang - unless the <stalemated> player would win if passing the move.|
Actually there are many non-lost zugzwangs - drawn positions which would win if null-move were allowed.
|May-15-09|| ||Extremophile: Thanks for this nice discussion alexmagnus. As you are saying "according to "my" definition" there is no exact definition of zugzwang (please correct me if I am wrong). Since there is no exact definition it is still open to debate.|
|May-15-09|| ||ILikeFruits: naka got...
|May-17-09|| ||Confuse: <butilikefur> But after Rf8, Bxf6, and Bxh8 can follow... I still fail to see why Bg5 fails.|
|May-17-09|| ||butilikefur: haha, I didn't even calculate Bxf6 after Rf8.. but Bg5 doesn't win material. Black plays Qxf6 Qxf6 Rxf6 and it is an even endgame. Ne2 stops Black from simplifying to an ending and White keeps the initiative.|
|May-26-09|| ||Confuse: Haha I hope this game gets posted later as game of the day with the title "Zugzwang??" just to get people going ; )|
|May-28-09|| ||Confuse: <butIlikefur> Why would white play Qxf6? white would play Rxf6, and then black wouldn't be able to take with bishop because of the pin... if black plays Rxf7, then white plays Rxf7, and this is the plus in material I was referring to... :P Back to you.|
|May-28-09|| ||Confuse: I'd also like to point out that even if I was correct, the point is moot, and the line played was strong and winning in any case, and a fine game by Samsonskin. I hope he causes more upsets in the future : )|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·