#2

Jump to forum:
 
29th January 2009, 03:49am
#1
by HAMIDUDDIN
India
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 178
29th January 2009, 04:03am
#2
by BorgQueen
Adelaide Australia
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 5108

Bh3.  dc... Bg2 mate.

Nice :)

29th January 2009, 04:15am
#3
by test1234
United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 7

this is just a test [ignore me]

29th January 2009, 09:52am
#4
by stm01
orissa India
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 392

nc

29th January 2009, 09:56am
#5
by Loomis
Durham, NC United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 3106
scarjo wrote:

Good example of "Zugzwang". Black  would rather skip a turn, but that's not allowed in chess.


Black still loses if he skips a turn, it's just not mate in 2.

29th January 2009, 10:14am
#6
by Nytik
Southampton United Kingdom
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 4694
Loomis wrote:
scarjo wrote:

Good example of "Zugzwang". Black  would rather skip a turn, but that's not allowed in chess.


Black still loses if he skips a turn, it's just not mate in 2.


He never said he wouldnt, the idea of zugzwang still applies as black loses much faster (and indeed has chances if he could skip.)

29th January 2009, 10:33am
#7
by Loomis
Durham, NC United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 3106

If skipping a turn is allowed it's still mate in 3 (b7+ Ka7 b8=Q+ Ka6 Qb6#). So I don't know what you mean that black "has chances if he could skip".

The idea of zugzwang is that you make your position worse by moving. Since it's forced mate either way, I don't see how his position gets worse. Unless you really believe that the "much" faster mate in 2 is worse than mate in 3.

29th January 2009, 12:22pm
#8
by Nytik
Southampton United Kingdom
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 4694

Indeed I do, Loomis, as any chess engine will inform you, mate in 2 is worse than mate in 3! Admittedly, I had not analysed the game to find the further mate-in-3.

29th January 2009, 01:10pm
#9
by Loomis
Durham, NC United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 3106

Is that how you get your rating so high? Winning in fewer number of moves? Winning is winning, it doesn't matter how many moves it takes. "The computer says so" just isn't convincing. No serious player ever got checkmated and said "well, at least I lasted X number of moves."

29th January 2009, 01:13pm
#10
by Nytik
Southampton United Kingdom
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 4694

I am aware of this Loomis, I was being slightly sarky when I used the computer as evidence for my rather silly comment earlier on in this thread.

29th January 2009, 04:39pm
#11
by Tiger-13
Sydney Australia
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 1277

nice one, vat am i saying...????????

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.