Zugzwang Mate?

@AsDaGo said in #10:

Perhaps, but I have never heard anyone use it as you are now. Furthermore, your usage of it doesn't make sense, because "zugzwang" is then the same thing as "losing," so we don't need the word at all.

Actually, you are 100% heard someone using the word "zugzwang" incorrectly.
Let's take a look at infamous Morphy's puzzle.

https://lichess.org/analysis/kbK5/pp6/RP6/8/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white#1

This is the solution to it: white must play Ra6!! to win. It is often called "a zugzwang". But this position is not a true zugzwang. Here, I made a position after Ra6!!, but it is White to play. Stockfish evaluates the position as mate in 9 after White plays Ra1, therefore it is not a true zugzwang (because even if it's White on move, position is won).

I am not trying to prove that I and author used the word "zugzwang" 100% correctly, rather that my and authors usage of the word is acceptable.

@chess_enjoyer00 said in #11:

Actually, you are 100% heard someone using the word "zugzwang" incorrectly.
Let's take a look at infamous Morphy's puzzle.

lichess.org/analysis/kbK5/pp6/RP6/8/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white#1

This is the solution to it: white must play Ra6!! to win. It is often called "a zugzwang". But this position is not a true zugzwang. Here, I made a position after Ra6!!, but it is White to play. Stockfish evaluates the position as mate in 9 after White plays Ra1, therefore it is not a true zugzwang (because even if it's White on move, position is won).

But the position is won for White because even if Black is allowed to pass once (and only once), they are still compelled to move eventually. If they are allowed to pass every move, then the position would not be won for White, therefore your example is indeed true zugzwang.

You are confusing zugzwang for mutual zugzwang. Here is a classic pawn endgame situation (called the trebuchet if I remember correctly) which is an example of mutual zugzwang: https://lichess.org/analysis/8/8/8/4pK2/3kP3/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1 Note that Black is winning because it is White's move, but White would be winning if it were Black's move. Not all zugzwang positions are mutual zugzwang though. In your example, it is zugzwang because White only because of Black's compulsion to move, though it is not mutual zugzwang, because, as you said, if you allow Black to pass once, White still wins.

I am not trying to prove that I and author used the word "zugzwang" 100% correctly, rather that my and authors usage of the word is acceptable.

No, it is not acceptable. It makes just as much sense to call this position zugzwang: https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNB1KBNR_w_KQkq_-_0_1 Any move White makes will result in a losing position. Therefore, by your definition it is zugzwang. Surely you see why this is absurd, right? You are redefining "zugzwang" to mean "losing."

@AsDaGo said in #12:

But the position is won for White because even if Black is allowed to pass once (and only once), they are still compelled to move eventually. If they are allowed to pass every move, then the position would not be won for White, therefore your example is indeed true zugzwang.

You are confusing zugzwang for mutual zugzwang. Here is a classic pawn endgame situation (called the trebuchet if I remember correctly) which is an example of mutual zugzwang: lichess.org/analysis/8/8/8/4pK2/3kP3/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1 Note that Black is winning because it is White's move, but White would be winning if it were Black's move. Not all zugzwang positions are mutual zugzwang though. In your example, it is zugzwang because White only because of Black's compulsion to move, though it is not mutual zugzwang, because, as you said, if you allow Black to pass once, White still wins.

From crtex:
Just FYI, this is not zugzwang. For zugzwang, it's required that the player in zugzwang could avoid losing if they had the ability to pass their turn, but they lose since they're forced to make a move. That's why you only really see this in deep endgames.

You appreciated his/her answer as a correct one and made your statements using this answer. And now you are saying that a losing position from Morphy's puzzle is actually a "zugzwang", which directly denies your statements.

No, it is not acceptable. It makes just as much sense to call this position zugzwang: lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNB1KBNR_w_KQkq_-_0_1 Any move White makes will result in a losing position. Therefore, by your definition it is zugzwang. Surely you see why this is absurd, right? You are redefining "zugzwang" to mean "losing."

As I said earlier, even if White makes their move, it is a won position with forced mate in 9 (this detail is very important).

Again, let's compare your example with my example and author's example. In my and author's examples, you have a direct way to win: staying with a rook on the a-file and capturing the queen or just keep pinning opponent's queen to a king. But in your example, Black can play any(!) move and still win. Therefore, it is highly absurd to call your position a zugzwang, but in my and author's example, it is acceptable (even knowing it is not 100% correct in both situations).

For the sake of clarification, and not trying to get into a semantics argument: the main point is that zugzwang is a situation where being forced to make a move is the key defining factor for losing a game, or perhaps allowing a pretty sequence.

In the Morphy example above, if the goal is to "win", then multiple moves work. If it's a mate in 2 puzzle (which it often is presented as), then Ra6 is a zugzwang solution.

The first position shown is just a losing position, and is not a Zugzwang. I just wanted to point out this basic fact.

@chess_enjoyer00 said in #13:

You appreciated his/her answer as a correct one and made your statements using this answer.

Of course I knew what zugzwang was before @crtex's answer, but I was hoping to understand why OP thought the position was zugzwang.

And now you are saying that a losing position from Morphy's puzzle is actually a "zugzwang", which directly denies your statements.

It is zugzwang, and there is no contradiction. Again, you are confusing zugzwang with mutual zugzwang.

Again, let's compare your example with my example and author's example. In my and author's examples, you have a direct way to win: staying with a rook on the a-file and capturing the queen or just keep pinning opponent's queen to a king. But in your example, Black can play any(!) move and still win. Therefore, it is highly absurd to call your position a zugzwang, but in my and author's example, it is acceptable (even knowing it is not 100% correct in both situations).

Ok, got it, any position which is winning but the winning side can still mess up is zugzwang.

Look, if you don't want to understand zugzwang, I can't force you. I'm done with this argument; this is ridiculous. I'll just leave you with this post from @derkleinejo: https://lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/this-should-be-the-game-of-the-month#6

@AsDaGo I've always thought that Zugzwang means that 'any possible move your opponent can make will be self-destructive & weaken their position' and it can be at any time in the game.

Just seen that IM Eric Rosen did a video on 'The immortal zugzwang'
That's that settled then :)

https://youtu.be/N4wmpCIiwBQ?si=GgB2JWNNvVPEKW0G

@Tuck_Fheory said in #16:

@AsDaGo I've always thought that Zugzwang means that 'any possible move your opponent can make will be self-destructive & weaken their position' and it can be at any time in the game.

Just seen that IM Eric Rosen did a video on 'The immortal zugzwang'
That's that settled then :) lichess.org/study/vABL2mXK

It makes sense to me to call that zugzwang, because, like you said, any one of White's moves worsens their position. However, in your game, h3 for example delays mate longer than passing the move, which would get mated in two moves. Sure, you could argue h3 doesn't really help since White will get mated anyway, but it certainly doesn't worsen the position. This is in contrast to the first game in the study you linked, when White would prefer to pass the move if they could.

@AsDaGo said in #15:

Of course I knew what zugzwang was before @crtex's answer, but I was hoping to understand why OP thought the position was zugzwang.

Well, if you want that answer, he probably used an inaccurate usage of the word "zugzwang", as I am.

It is zugzwang, and there is no contradiction. Again, you are confusing zugzwang with mutual zugzwang.

This is hilarious. By definition, "mutual zugzwang or reciprocal zugzwang refers to those special kind of situations where whichever side it is to move finds itself in a disadvantageous ( = zugzwang) position. It is like saying "You are confusing iPhone with a smartphone". In Morphy's position after Ra6!! , there is mate in 9 even if White has turn, therefore it is not a true zugzwang (which is again hilarious as @crtex explained the term in this way)

Look, if you don't want to understand zugzwang, I can't force you. I'm done with this argument; this is ridiculous.

I am also think this argument is ridiculous as there is no correct opinion: it is like arguing what is better to use - human weight or human mass - first is acceptable and also can be used, but not 100% correct (middle school physics :)), second is correct and is the most correct one.

It is actually so hilarious to argue about this because at some situations my usage of "zugzwang" is incorrect and in some (when no big accuracy is needed) is acceptable.
Let's say here (in this argument) your usage is better but mine still can be used sometimes.

It is more insane that it's no even mate.i wish I was 1300 ELO because your blunders are so insane. In my level the guy who makes blunder loses. It is losing unquestionably but no mate.

I rose my rating thinking chess would become more fun but actually it became more difficult. Now my games are like scaring of a ghost. Like I know one move is winning but I am scared of something and I don't play the move