3 ms·
And from that we can conclude that when someone has nothing to lose (and/or nothing they expect or hope to win) - one can not be “in Zugzwang”. That is, they mi
by ronilan 7y ago
And from that we can conclude that when someone has nothing to lose (and/or nothing they expect or hope to win) - one can not be “in Zugzwang”. That is, they might be moving, but their situation can not get worse.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Scarblac 7y agoWell, a position with say a bare king and against a king and a rook is only lost because of zugzwang. If it was an option to pass, the side with the rook would not be able to force checkmate.
- ronilan 7y agoI wasn’t thinking specifically about chess, more broadly about life. For example in the case you presented the side with the bare king is not “in Zugzwang” cause his position can’t get worse. See, right now they are stuck in this useless position, but once the other side forces a checkmate they can finally end the stupid game and go home do something enjoyable...