tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post4170263095790060654..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Ronan Bennett's other diagramTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48522112292381211572007-11-18T22:04:00.000+00:002007-11-18T22:04:00.000+00:00Unfortunately I wasn't able to speak to the FM as ...Unfortunately I wasn't able to speak to the FM as by the time I finished my game there were only a few minutes left in the Scotland-Italy match...ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-42600988128625165582007-11-18T21:53:00.000+00:002007-11-18T21:53:00.000+00:00Aaargh. 2... Qe8+ and Qxa4. Never mind.Aaargh. 2... Qe8+ and Qxa4. Never mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-12056569523933861012007-11-18T21:12:00.000+00:002007-11-18T21:12:00.000+00:001. Qg4 with the threat of Qc8+ looks pretty stron...1. Qg4 with the threat of Qc8+ looks pretty strong as well.<BR/><BR/>1... Qf8+ 2. Kh7 and Qg8 or Qc8<BR/><BR/>1... Kd8 2. Qf5 <BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-84975433696448236742007-11-18T21:00:00.000+00:002007-11-18T21:00:00.000+00:00I'm pretty sure I'd have found Qh6. It's pretty o...I'm pretty sure I'd have found Qh6. It's pretty obvious when you consider the lack of alternatives, so a simple process of elimination method gets there.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-54578046044049595332007-11-17T13:20:00.000+00:002007-11-17T13:20:00.000+00:00The stalemate is beautiful - but not actually nece...The stalemate is beautiful - but not actually <EM>necessary</EM>, since you can also just play the perpetual after 8...Qf2+, with any queen interpositions leading to the drawn K&P ending as usual.<BR/><BR/>Conceptually maybe we could say that stalemate is the opposite of zugzwang - black is saved because it's his move, and he has no move; whereas white to move would win.<BR/><BR/>Look forward to the results of your experiment on the FM. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-14858541268894587862007-11-17T13:03:00.000+00:002007-11-17T13:03:00.000+00:00That looks possible to me. Of course it's necessar...That looks possible to me. Of course it's necessary to see something very clever: that after 5.Qe6+ Kd8 6.Kf7 Qa7+. 7.Kf8 Qc5+ 8.d6 Qf5+! with va stalemate (there's also a stalemate sacrifice after 8...Qf2+).<BR/><BR/>I don't know that an FM <I>would</I> see 1.Qh6, actually: I think it's really hard to see. It'd be interesting to run it as an exercise, but even then of course you're telling people there's something there. Mind you, 1.d4 might be a useful decoy in that respect.<BR/><BR/>I might see an FM later today - perhaps I'll ask him...<BR/><BR/>About an hour after I'd originally posted, I realised that I could have posted the puzzle position as an exercise, and then done the whole post, incorporating the solution, the next week. Never mind eh.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-6995600750968679502007-11-17T12:36:00.000+00:002007-11-17T12:36:00.000+00:00Ah, thanks, yes 6 Qe8 is strong there.Interestingl...Ah, thanks, yes 6 Qe8 is strong there.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, I plugged your diagram 2 into Crafty and after a while it abandoned Qf4 and suggested that black should simply go straight for ...Qxd4 Qxd6+ Ke8. This is now a much improved (for black) version of your diagram 3. If eg Qc6+, simply Ke7, and if Qc7+ Ke8, then Qxa5 or d6 allows perpetual with Qg4+. (Queen exchanges no longer favour white: the K&P ending is drawn.) White can't approach his king to help the pawn promote without just getting pushed back by checks. (He can nudge the black king to d8 and play Kf7, but then Qa7+ etc.) So it seems that black can hold after all. Crafty's eval creeps ever downwards in the += range. <BR/><BR/>Of course Qh6 instead of d4 in the first place is convincing. Perhaps an FM or better would see this quite naturally.<BR/><BR/>I think "pure" zugzwang is probably most often a feature of composed positions or simple thematic ending ideas like the one you gave; but there's no harm in using it as a slightly less accurate description of practical positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-83452178246240945162007-11-17T09:08:00.000+00:002007-11-17T09:08:00.000+00:00To be honest Richard the post is probably too long...To be honest Richard the post is probably too long anyway (which is why there's a nice short one today). I probably ought to have split it into at least two parts and possibly three.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-59879961585103366642007-11-16T23:42:00.000+00:002007-11-16T23:42:00.000+00:00In answer to one of Richard's many earlier posts.....In answer to one of Richard's many earlier posts... in the strict definition, zugzwang is always mutual zugzwang.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13388819916739249013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-42843417384609873052007-11-16T19:53:00.000+00:002007-11-16T19:53:00.000+00:00And finally, apologies for clogging up the comment...And finally, apologies for clogging up the comments, which clearly wouldn't have been necessary if i'd bothered to read the whole of the original post!!!<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-34726705528736757652007-11-16T19:34:00.000+00:002007-11-16T19:34:00.000+00:00Hmm. Debating with myself, it appears there is in...Hmm. Debating with myself, it appears there is indeed <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang" REL="nofollow">some debate</A> about whether the Nimzovitch game was in fact zugzwang (although the ability to shuffle the king seems to be a bit irrelevant). I think i'd better withdraw from this one...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-75187475901546366692007-11-16T19:26:00.000+00:002007-11-16T19:26:00.000+00:00The immortal zugzwang game is not invalidated from...The immortal zugzwang game is not invalidated from being zugzwang simply because Nimzovitch, had he had the move, could have played Kh7, say, in the final position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-12810025258529760832007-11-16T19:22:00.000+00:002007-11-16T19:22:00.000+00:00On second thoughts "mutual zugzwang" would mean ne...On second thoughts "mutual zugzwang" would mean neither player has a move that doesn't make their position worse.<BR/><BR/>But i stand by the argument that "zugzwang" on its own has nothing to do with the difference between whether a player has, or does not have, the move.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-49583926695210299872007-11-16T19:20:00.000+00:002007-11-16T19:20:00.000+00:00Aren't you confusing "zugzwang" with "mutual zugzw...Aren't you confusing "zugzwang" with "mutual zugzwang"?<BR/><BR/>I don't believe it is a requirement for basic zugzwang for the player defending to be losing whether or not they have the move. Simply that they have no move that doesn't make their position <I>worse</I>. <BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-2441913568329497442007-11-16T14:00:00.000+00:002007-11-16T14:00:00.000+00:00That's kind of what I think - except with the ride...That's kind of what I think - except with the rider that you don't necessarily have to lose when you're in zugzwang, it just means something unpleasant happens as a result. But although obviously I've been aware of the term for more than thirty years, I don't know whether or not this sort of thing has been discussed, and by whom.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-37228879501727038402007-11-16T13:56:00.000+00:002007-11-16T13:56:00.000+00:00Personally I'd say it was zugzwang if you would lo...Personally I'd say it was zugzwang if you would lose because you had to move, but perhaps not a pure zugzwang (which as you suggest would only exist if you would be OK if you didn't have to move)<BR/><BR/>Fence sitting? Me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-12666196436895705572007-11-16T13:25:00.000+00:002007-11-16T13:25:00.000+00:006.Qe8 (I admit my computer saw this) and if 6...Qx...6.Qe8 (I admit my computer saw this) and if 6...Qxd4 then 7.Qb8+! is stronger than 7.Qb5+.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-82473209827843474012007-11-16T10:59:00.000+00:002007-11-16T10:59:00.000+00:00I agree that your third diagram must be won for wh...I agree that your third diagram must be won for white, but I'd like to be more convinced that we get there inevitably from diagram 2. Black does not help by checking right away. Say 3...Qf4 4 Kh7 Kc7 5 Kg6 (I presume is the plan you had in mind, to play Qf6 next) 5...Kb6, and what then? Eg 6 Qf6 Qe4+ 7 Kg7 (Qf5 Qe8+) Qg4+ etc. How does white make more progress?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-20571717152010217482007-11-16T09:46:00.000+00:002007-11-16T09:46:00.000+00:00I find myself in the rather unusual position to me...I find myself in the rather unusual position to me at least of being a purist, then!Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.com