14840 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Which would have a greater effect on endgame theory?
I'm not sure what you mean by Zugzwang being "gone". How would one get rid of it?
this won't look good for your trial checkmateibeatu.
For one thing, if there were no zugzwang, K + R vs K would be a draw.
Well, zugzwang just refers to the situation that when it is your move you have no choise but making a bad move. There is no other option in the position. So it is a typical situation where a player resigns (depending on how bad it is of course). You can't remove that it is your turn to move. It would make no sense.
It would actually mean that a lot of games could not be won, because in a game where there is a forced check mate in a certain number of moves there will be a zugzwang situation before the check mate. The end game theory would need to be totally re-written. Actually the whole idea of the game would need to be changed. It would be extreemly difficult to win a game and rather pointless to play it.
the question is, how many mates are forceable without zugzwang? i know K+R+R v K is easily forced, but what about K+Q v K?
normally won K+P endgames would be drawn without zugzwangtoo
Stalemate because it affects the classic K+P v. K endgame.
So does zugzwang.
stalemate is used in a far smaller amount of cases than zugzwang IMHO
I firmly believe that abandoning the Stalemate = automatic draw rule would create a much fairer game. Like it's handled in Chinese Chess e.g.
you're wrong. stalemate isn't used that much in real games apart from people blundering into it (thus it's their own stupid fault) but when it is used it's brilliant and shows that position is more important than material in chess and stalemate draws which are unavoidable are pure class
Don't know about class but my best result in chess came about in lightning chess where in a lost rook and pawn endgame I noticed that only my two rooks could move. I plonked one of the rooks down where it was en pris, my (good standard) opponent thought I had blundered and took the rook whereupon I kept moving my other rook next to his king for the couple of moves it took him to accept that his king could not escape the attentions of the rook and that stalemate was inevitable. Lightning is said not to strike twice but I would be sad to see even the remote possibility of something similar happening being lost. :)
How to improve from 1200?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 3 minutes ago
The queen sac & blundering after that
by achja 4 minutes ago
Playing extra-ordinary openings for more fun
by Mechkov 7 minutes ago
Am I too late to become a master?
by sonseray 8 minutes ago
Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?
by kantifields 10 minutes ago
Opening repertoire 4 patzers Best ones to get playable positions and quick wins!
by Till_98 13 minutes ago
Can someone please identify this opening? (beginner question)
by tmkroll 15 minutes ago
Bumping Old Threads
by kayak21 16 minutes ago
Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'
by Azukikuru 16 minutes ago
How many USCF national master are there?
by Zigwurst 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!