I put my opponent in check. He is forced to move his queen to block the check. Rook takes queen for checkmate.
I know zugzwang is forcing your opponent to make a move that ruins his position. But is the situation I described also zugzwang?
If not, does it have a term?
This would not be considered a zugzwang because you are forcing a specific reply. The name for your example is simply “forced mate”, or “mate in 2”.
The term zugzwang is used when a player is not forced to make a specific reply, but has no available moves that do not worsen his position. One way of thinking about zugzwang: If you would rather “pass” than move, you are in zugzwang.
OK. Thanks.
Now let’s there was no mate involved. Say my opponent was forced to move his queen, but could recapture the rook with his king and avoid mate. Is there a specific term for a player being forced to block a check with a piece when it is absolutely the only move they can make?
Moderator Mode: Off
That would still be a “forcing move”. The player is forced to make that move thus it is a forcing move, or a move that forces the player to make that move.
Understand that your move would be the forcing move, not the situation the person in Check would be in. That person would be in a forced situation.
Got it. Thanks!
One of the easiest ways to understand Zugzwang is to understand that’s it’s impossible for king & rook to mate the bare king if the “pass” option is added to the rules of chess.
E.g.:
White: Kf7, Rg6
Black: Kh7
White to play plays the waiting move 1.Rf6 (for example). Now if Black could reply 1…“pass”, then there’d be no way for White to make progress!
Ditto many of the otherwise trivial wins in king and pawn vs. king.
Zugzwang, which I understand is this:
Say you make a move, now the opponent could reply with 2 or more different moves (aka, no forced moves), but no matter which move he does, his move will allow you a winning line of play.
Or the opposite, if your opponent has you in zugzwang.
There is one VERY important addition. In Zugzwang, the opponent would be much better off if a pass (no move at all) was an allowable option.
The following are a couple of examples of the difference, with black to play in both.
A) White Kf6, Pe6. Black Kf8. If black could pass then Pe6-e7 would be met by Kf8-e8 and Kf6-e6 stalemate=draw. Since black has to move, Kf8-e8 is met by Pe6-e7 Ke8-d7, Kf6-f7 and the pawn queens for the win.
Thus, A is Zugzwang (black is better off passing)
B) White Ke5, Qa2, Rb3. Black Ke1. Black has the option of Ke1-f1 or Ke1-d1, both of which lose to Rb3-b1 mate. However, if black passes with the king staying on e1 there is STILL Rb3-b1 mate.
Thus B is NOT Zugzwang (black is no better off passing than not passing).
I really appreciate everyone’s input. Nothing like a good conversation on zugzwang!
I understand the basic concept of zugzwang. What puzzled me was:
Zugzwang (to my knowledge) roughly translates to ‘forced to move’.
Therefore, does a ‘forced move’/’forced sequence’ fall into the category of zugzwang?
Apparently not.
But let me say this, the ‘forced move/forced sequence’ is such a cool happening, and so utterly satisfying or completely humiliating (i.e. when you or your opponent is forced to block an unavoidable checkmate with a piece because that’s the only legal move you can make), I think it deserves its own cool, exotic term! Let me throw one out there…
Zugscheisse – when a player’s only legal move in a ‘forced move/forced sequence’ is to in vainly block a checkmate with his queen.
OK, you can go first…
In The Pleasures of Chess by Assiac (a book several decades old), the author points out that there is no exact translation of the German term zugzwang. A contest was held to find such a word, and the winner was “move-bound”. Not too bad, I’d say.
Bill Smythe