thegab03 wrote:
I think what you are pointing at is Zugzwang reciprocale!
Lol, I gave that as an example. The key point is that the side in zugswaqng would be better off if it were the other side's move.
Fork You!
Sort:
This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.
Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvɑŋ]) is a term originally used in chess which also applies to various other games. The concept finds its formal definition in combinatorial game theory. It describes a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move – the player would like to pass and make no move. The fact that the player must make a move means that his position will be significantly weaker than the hypothetical one in which it is his opponent's turn to move. In game theory, it specifically means that it directly changes the outcome of the game from a win to a loss. The term is used less precisely in games such as chess; e.g., the game theory definition is not necessarily used in chess (Berlekamp, Conway & Guy 1982:16), (Elkies 1996:136). For instance, it may be defined loosely, as "a player to move cannot do anything without making an important concession" (van Perlo 2006:479). Zugzwang is a common technique to help the superior side win a game and sometimes it is necessary to make the win possible (Müller & Pajeken 2008:173).
That was a great puzzle. I actually got this one from the start, but is was a very nice tactical setup!
Very fun to figure out...thanks!
Wow, you've really dug out this 9-year-old thread???
not so good, sorry, because according to material, it was evident that white was winning anyway......