If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Mr. Li's reference is to R. Hamilton's efforts to have chess games copyrighted.
Does anyone know Mr. Hamilton's opinion on how copyright of chess games would be interpreted if two players inadvertently played through a game that had already been published?
As I understand it, the copyright applies to the right to publish the game in question; two other players would have no restrictions on playing the exact same moves at a later date.
Hello Mr. Bleau,
A nice endgame problem. I am probably missing something, as I keep working it out to a draw with the black king fending off the knight. How many moves did it take to get from point A, starting position, to point B, the zugzwang question position? Just the number of moves, if you don’t mind.
Hello Mr. Bleau,
A nice endgame problem. I am probably missing something, as I keep working it out to a draw with the black king fending off the knight. How many moves did it take to get from point A, starting position, to point B, the zugzwang question position? Just the number of moves, if you don’t mind.
It takes one move for the f6-pawn to get to f7; then two moves for the K to get to e8; then two moves for the N to get to e7. So I guess the answer is 5 moves?
My apologies Mr. Torrie, I only just noticed your post.
The problem is a very nice example of a knight dominating the bishop. The knight controls some squares directly and others indirectly through checks to the king.
Here's the solution:
1 Ke7 Kh7 2 f7 Ba3 3 Ke8 Kg7 Now if the K can get to f6, he will control the blocking square e7. 4 Nc4 Bc5 5 Nb6 Ba3 (for example) 6 Nd5, preventing 6...Kf6 and heading for e7.
I agree with you. The shortest route from ‘A’ to ‘Z’ is five moves. For instance: 1.f7+ Kg7 2.Ke7 Ba3+ 3.Ke8 Bb4 4.Nc6 Bf8 5.Ne7
This is just a possibility. The ‘Z’ position may have been attained in seven moves: 1.f7+ Kg7 2.Ke7 Ba3+ 3.Ke8 Bd6 (instead of Bb4) 4.Nc4 Bc5 5.Nb6 Ba3 6.Nd5 Bf8 7.Ne7
I like this variation with the fancy footwork of the knight. It limits the bishop while denying the black king the f6 square.
But the stipulation is “White to play and win”, and unfortunately neither of these variations is forced. If 3…Kf6 in either, black has an easy draw.
Suppose white plays 1.Ke7. We can construct another possible 7 move variation: 1.Ke7 Ba3+ 2.Ke8 Kh7 3.f7 Kg7 4.Nc4 Bb4 5.Nb6 Ba3 6.Nd5 Bf8 7.Ne7
If I were writing an article, I’d dramatize these moves “1…Ba3+, a hasty check that gives away the draw”…. “6.Nd5, the white knight dominates the board and black is zugzwanged.”
This endgame study is delightful. I went from ‘this is an easy win’, to ‘this is a difficult win’, to ‘this is a draw’.
Just last night I found it in Fine’s Basic Chess Endings, Position No. 220. Apparently it’s from Kling and Horwitz 1851. Fine considers the win an exception due to the proximity of the defending king, which is otherwise a drawing factor.
The seven move line you give is similar to one I posted above. I think the waiting move 2…Bc1 is a spoiler.
If you like these types of endings consider the following position that intrigued me awhile back: white, Kg1, Ng4; black: Kg3, Bf4, pawn g2. It also comes from Fine; a sideline of position No. 223 which Fine considered a draw because 1…Kf3 is met with 2.Ne5+! Actually it is black to play and win.
I believe I have tracked down the inspiration for your post, namely position no. 135 in Jeno Ban’s ‘The Tactics of End-Games’ in a chapter on ‘Closing of Lines’. Attributed to Kling and Horwitz, 1851, the main variation goes: 1.Ke7 Kh7 2.f7 Ba3+ 3.Ke8 Kg7 4.Nc4 Bb4 5.Ne3 Bc5 6.Nd5 Bd6 7.Ne7 1-0
What is significant here is the note added by Mr. Ban after the finish.
“The piquancy of the finish lies in the fact that after 6…Bf8 too the winning move is 7.Ne7!”
This is the starting position you presented us with, Mr. Bleau. Now for the coincidence with regard to your Zugzwang question, Mr. Ban continues:
“From this we can see that Black was in Zugzwang. It is worth noting, however, that the Zugzwang is the result of White’s knight (and also the king) blocking the way. Thus the line interference makes its effect in another sense as well.”
It may be the translation, but there is enough ambiguity here to make one want to ask the question: is this a Zugzwang?
I believe I have tracked down the inspiration for your post, namely position no. 135 in Jeno Ban’s ‘The Tactics of End-Games’ in a chapter on ‘Closing of Lines’. Attributed to Kling and Horwitz, 1851, the main variation goes: 1.Ke7 Kh7 2.f7 Ba3+ 3.Ke8 Kg7 4.Nc4 Bb4 5.Ne3 Bc5 6.Nd5 Bd6 7.Ne7 1-0
What is significant here is the note added by Mr. Ban after the finish.
“The piquancy of the finish lies in the fact that after 6…Bf8 too the winning move is 7.Ne7!”
This is the starting position you presented us with, Mr. Bleau. Now for the coincidence with regard to your Zugzwang question, Mr. Ban continues:
“From this we can see that Black was in Zugzwang. It is worth noting, however, that the Zugzwang is the result of White’s knight (and also the king) blocking the way. Thus the line interference makes its effect in another sense as well.”
It may be the translation, but there is enough ambiguity here to make one want to ask the question: is this a Zugzwang?
From the Oxford Companion to Chess: "Zugwang, a German word, now anglicized, for a position in which whoever has the move would obtain a worse result than if it were the opponent's turn to play."
If this definition is accepted, then the concluding position of the Horwitz/Kling study is not a true zugzwang because White wins regardless of who is on move.
On the other hand, the fundamental meaning of the German word "zugzwang" is "compulsion to move." In practice the term has obviously acquired a wider, secondary meaning that applies to the player who is on move. In that sense Black loses the Horwitz/Kling position because he is in zugzwang; that is, he is forced to move, giving up his bishop and allowing White's pawn to queen.
Any dispute about the applicability of the term zugzwang to the Horwitz/Kling position is just a dispute about the meaning of the term zugzwang; that is, which definition is to be accepted.
Thanks for the link to the Zugzwang article. As it is lengthy I will have to give it a thorough reading later. I was not intending a linguistic analysis, but realized the possibility of this discussion heading in that direction. Rather I just wanted to offer what I believe to be the source of Mr. Bleau’s original post. Only Mr. Bleau can tell us if I have hit the mark.
With regards to the meaning of the word Zugzwang, I understand it as ‘an obligation to play a losing move’.
If I were to expand on Mr. Ban’s commentary it would be as follows: “After 6…Bf8 too… 7.Ne7!. From this we can see that Black – after 6.Nd5 (at least) – was in Zugzwang. It is worth noting, however, that the Zugzwang is the result of White’s knight (and also the – Black – king) blocking the way. Thus the line interference makes its effect in another sense as well.”
The “in another sense” I take to mean, in one variation the bishop cannot successfully reach f8, in the other it cannot leave.
I look forward to reading the Zugzwang article.
With regards to the meaning of the word Zugzwang, I understand it as ‘an obligation to play a losing move’.
That sounds like yet another definition of zugzwang. In the position WK/e6 WP/d7, BK/d8, Black on move is lost, but White on move cannot lose. By your new definition, White would not be in zugwang. But by the Hooper/Whyld definition he would be in zugwang because the compulsion to move brings him a worse result (a draw). Again, it is all about which definition one accepts. As soon as there is consensus about the definition, any dispute about a specific position dissolves almost immediately.
Last edited by Dan Scoones; Tuesday, 28th March, 2017, 04:19 PM.
Mr. Scoones, Thank you again for the link. Mr. Winter is obviously in a class by himself. He makes chess history entertaining and instructive. Nimzowitsch did a marvelous job of self promotion. It was a stroke of advertising genius to link the Immortal game with his Zugzwang performance.
Mr. Scoones, I would really like your opinion, do you think the condition “whoever has the move” to be applicable to an actual game of chess where the obligation to move alters? It seems to me that definitions that involve mutual zugzwangs are meaningless at a practical level. Your opponent on his turn may say, “Hey, we are in mutual zugzwang according to whoever has the move.” Do you respond, “Damn, that‘s right, now we both get zero,” or do you say, “Sorry pal, but it’s your move”?
Mr. Scoones, I would really like your opinion, do you think the condition “whoever has the move” to be applicable to an actual game of chess where the obligation to move alters? It seems to me that definitions that involve mutual zugzwangs are meaningless at a practical level.
Here is a simple example: White: K/d5, P/e4; Black: K/f4, P/e5. This is known as a "trebuchet." Whoever has the move loses because she must abandon her pawn.
Tweet
Comment