13047 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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?
Stalemate because it affects the classic K+P v. K endgame.
So does zugzwang.
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.
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. :)
Chessbazaar Reykjavik Championship set in Sheesham, 3.8" king
by jinnymer 3 minutes ago
8/26/2016 - Kouatly - Tsheshkovsky, Hoogovens 1988
by BryanCFB 7 minutes ago
5/29/2007 - Two Double-checks!
by kroomania 15 minutes ago
Money thugs in chess(Fide)
by CrimsonKnight7 23 minutes ago
by Whip_Kitten 24 minutes ago
Why Knowing Your Openings is Important at Higher Levels!
by Ashvapathi 25 minutes ago
If You Could Go to Dinner with Any Chess Player, Who'd You Pick?
by bunicula 29 minutes ago
Does most of the world really love the stalemate factor?
by Ashvapathi 37 minutes ago
Im addicted to chess.com help me
by Rob3rtJamesFischer 39 minutes ago
Your Best Win
by tigerche 41 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 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!