Answers.Body: <p>Here are some zugzwang positions which have been shown in answers to earlier threads:</p>
  
  <pre><code>4k3/8/3P1P/8/8/3p1p2/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>First to move loses (posted by GloriaVictis at <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15977/symmetric-zugzwang-positions">this question on symmetrical zugzwangs</a>).</p>
  
  <pre><code>8/8/8/3pK3/2kP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The "trebuchet" (posted by Evargalo in the same thread).</p>
  
  <pre><code>3k4/3P4/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Posted by Simon Louchart in <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1673/how-can-i-identify-zugzwang-opportunities">this thread</a>.</p>
  
  <p>Here is a Q v RPP zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[Title "KQkrpp position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "kr6/1pK5/pQ6/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  1... Rc8 2. Kxc8 a5 3. Qxb7#
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Seeing as a KBP v K position has been posted in another answer, here's an example of such a position which really is a zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[Title "KBPk position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "kB6/8/1PK5/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  1... Kxb8 2. b7 Ka7 3. Kc7 Ka6 4. b8=Q Ka5 5. Qb3 Ka6 6. Qa4#
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-02T05:54:58.497Z
Answers.Text: I guess John Beasley must have observed that the last position 
  cannot legally arise with Black to move . . .
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-02T07:57:02.077Z
Answers.Text: @NoamD.Elkies  Have I missed anything? White could've just captured something, or else (working backwards from the diagram) Kd5-c6 Kb7-a8.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-02T15:51:57.043Z
Answers.Text: Sorry I goofed: it can't legally arise with *White* to move, i.e. with Black having moved last.  (Ka7-a8 or Ka7xa8 would require an impossible double check.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T07:27:04.700Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-06T09:37:37.917Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-04-06T09:37:37.917Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.Body: <p>Zugzwang is a situation where every single one of a player's moves loses, but if he didn't have to move then he'd be fine.</p>
  
  <p>Consider this position:</p>
  
  <p>White King on d5, White pawn on e4, Black King on f4, Black pawn on e5.</p>
  
  <p>Whoever's move it is loses. If it's White's move then he must move his King away, and Black takes the e4-pawn. White does not want to move, but he's not allowed to skip a turn.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T18:35:27.237Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-06T18:35:27.237Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.Body: <p>Zugzwang, <em>compulsion-to-move</em>, is where a player is forced to disadvantage their position, or obscure their strategy, tactics, or attacks by moving. </p>
  
  <p><strong>Example #1</strong>   </p>
  
  <pre><code> 8/8/8/3pK3/2kP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>In this position each King aims to protect its pawn, but if it's white to play, white is forced to move away since the pawn's movement is restricted and c6 is guarded by the pawn. Checkmate in 15 (WTM)</p>
  
  <p><strong>Example #2</strong></p>
  
  <pre><code>3k4/3P2K1/8/8/8/7B/8/8 b - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>This is a more active puzzle, but a checkmate in 9 for white (BTM)</p>
  
  <p>King c7</p>
  
  <p>1... Kc7 2. Bf5 Kb6 3. d8=Q+ Kc5 4. Qd3 Kb4 5. Qd4+
  Kb3 6. Kf6 Ka3 7. Qc3+ Ka2 8. Qb4 Ka1 9. Qb1#</p>
  
  <p>King e7</p>
  
  <p>1... Ke7 2. Bf5 Kd6 3. Kf6 Kc5 4. d8=Q Kc4 5. Ke7
  Kc3 6. Qd3+ Kb2 7. Qc2+ Ka3 8. Qc3+ Ka2 9. Qb4
  Ka1 10. Qb1#</p>
  
  <p>Black is forced to move the king from d8 with e7 and c7 both leading to checkmates in perfect checkmates in 9</p>
  
  <p><strong>Example 3</strong></p>
  
  <pre><code>5Kbk/6pp/6P1/8/8/8/8/7R w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>White to move. Mate in 2. This one uses rh6 to lock the h7 pawn leaving only the bishop able to move, which forces it to abandon it's defense of the h7 pawn leading to rh7 checkmate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T07:22:59.240Z
Answers.Text: Your 1st example isn't really zugzwang, because White wins with or without the move. In your 2nd, as you say, White wins with the move but it's a draw with BTM. Every White move is check so in what sense is this zugzwang?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T08:41:48.743Z
Answers.Text: The 1st example would be better with the black king on c5, when it would be mutual zugzwang (the one whose move it is will lose the pawn and game). I don't see any zugzwang in your second example.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T08:44:46.573Z
Answers.Text: I fixed the 1st to be mutual, and the second fixed with black to move away from restricting pawn. Sorry for the inconvenience
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheAutomaton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T09:29:29.693Z
Answers.Text: I still don't see how your new second example (KBPk) is zugzwang. WTM wins in 8 or 9 whether Black's king is on c7, d8 or e7.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T10:07:10.163Z
Answers.Text: @RosieF The new second example is zugwang. If black was allowed not to make moves (to pass), there is no way white can promote the pawn because black would just leave the king on d8 (and white has no checks to make black move the king.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T19:47:22.787Z
Answers.Text: @RosieF White's king is invincible on that square. If he could stay there he couldn't be attacked
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheAutomaton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T05:37:22.277Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-06T08:43:05.227Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-04-06T08:43:05.227Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheAutomaton
Answers.Body: <p>An interesting point: without zugzwang, you could not win with only a rook (assuming no other pieces than kings) - you would need two bishops at least. That just shows how much is this &quot;rule&quot; (obligation to move) important.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-01T21:48:28.400Z
Answers.Text: If the rules allowed to give up a move, you could not force KR-K mate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ferazhu
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-01T12:35:59.083Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-12-01T12:35:59.083Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ferazhu
Body: <p>What is the zugzwang? I have read this term in chess book but the term not much clear to me. Anyone know to to use this and what are the advantage of this?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T10:59:10.387Z
Comments.Text: I don't see any reason for downvoting this question whatsoever. It is totally legitimate, and it is not at all difficult to understand what the poster is asking for.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T11:00:40.997Z
Comments.Text: If you hover over the "down vote" button it says "This question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful". If you had made the effort to use Google or even search this site then you would have had your answer. Your question shows zero research effort and is useless. Hence the down vote from me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T11:01:41.390Z
Comments.Text: Note that *all* of these user's questions show little research effort or none at all.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T11:09:01.050Z
Comments.Text: And this user never responds properly to any of the nice answers he has received
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T11:42:56.840Z
Comments.Text: @Laska i am trying to figure out about answers so that why i didn't replay but sure i will responds on answer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pankaj Bisht
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T11:50:40.330Z
Comments.Text: @PankajBisht: there is a lot of wonderful free information available already on e.g. Google. The best way to use stackexchange resources is to read up the background first, and then ask follow-up questions that you can't find answers for elsewhere. So for example off the top of my head: "Why are mutual zugzwangs important to endgame theory?" This approach is not just a more efficient use of our time, it's also that we don't like to build up replicated material in stackexchange. Good luck!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T19:09:26.663Z
Comments.Text: Sorry, but for a beginner "Why are mutual zugzwangs important to endgame theory?" is so way over their head as to be close to meaningless. This guy is having problems understanding a chess term. Why is it off topic to explain, to provide a good answer for others who are understanding the use of what is quite a subtle concept in chess?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-06T20:37:29.040Z
Comments.Text: @IanBush because we're not trying to duplicate [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-14T09:44:01.063Z
Comments.Text: I see every reason to downvote, but no reason to close as being off-topic. This is clearly a question about chess. It's a bad question, but it's on-topic.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Tags: <strategy><theory><terminology><zugzwang>
Title: What is zugzwang in chess?
ThreadText: # What is zugzwang in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-06)
  
  What is the zugzwang? I have read this term in chess book but the term not much clear to me. Anyone know to to use this and what are the advantage of this?
  
  **Tags:** strategy, theory, terminology, zugzwang
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I don't see any reason for downvoting this question whatsoever. It is totally legitimate, and it is not at all difficult to understand what the poster is asking for.  
  > **username_2**: If you hover over the "down vote" button it says "This question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful". If you had made the effort to use Google or even search this site then you would have had your answer. Your question shows zero research effort and is useless. Hence the down vote from me.  
  > **username_3**: Note that *all* of these user's questions show little research effort or none at all.  
  > **username_4**: And this user never responds properly to any of the nice answers he has received  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 i am trying to figure out about answers so that why i didn't replay but sure i will responds on answer.  
  > **username_4**: @PankajBisht: there is a lot of wonderful free information available already on e.g. Google. The best way to use stackexchange resources is to read up the background first, and then ask follow-up questions that you can't find answers for elsewhere. So for example off the top of my head: "Why are mutual zugzwangs important to endgame theory?" This approach is not just a more efficient use of our time, it's also that we don't like to build up replicated material in stackexchange. Good luck!  
  > **username_5**: Sorry, but for a beginner "Why are mutual zugzwangs important to endgame theory?" is so way over their head as to be close to meaningless. This guy is having problems understanding a chess term. Why is it off topic to explain, to provide a good answer for others who are understanding the use of what is quite a subtle concept in chess?  
  > **username_3**: @IanBush because we're not trying to duplicate [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang).  
  > **username_6**: I see every reason to downvote, but no reason to close as being off-topic. This is clearly a question about chess. It's a bad question, but it's on-topic.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2018-04-06. Score: 7
  
  Here are some zugzwang positions which have been shown in answers to earlier threads:
  4k3/8/3P1P/8/8/3p1p2/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
  
  First to move loses (posted by GloriaVictis at this question on symmetrical zugzwangs).
  8/8/8/3pK3/2kP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  
  The "trebuchet" (posted by Evargalo in the same thread).
  3k4/3P4/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  
  Posted by Simon Louchart in this thread.
  Here is a Q v RPP zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:
  [Title "KQkrpp position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "kr6/1pK5/pQ6/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  1... Rc8 2. Kxc8 a5 3. Qxb7#
  
  Seeing as a KBP v K position has been posted in another answer, here's an example of such a position which really is a zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:
  [Title "KBPk position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "kB6/8/1PK5/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  1... Kxb8 2. b7 Ka7 3. Kc7 Ka6 4. b8=Q Ka5 5. Qb3 Ka6 6. Qa4#
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: I guess John Beasley must have observed that the last position  cannot legally arise with Black to move . . .  
  > **username_7**: @NoamD.Elkies  Have I missed anything? White could've just captured something, or else (working backwards from the diagram) Kd5-c6 Kb7-a8.  
  > **username_8**: Sorry I goofed: it can't legally arise with *White* to move, i.e. with Black having moved last.  (Ka7-a8 or Ka7xa8 would require an impossible double check.)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2018-04-06. Score: 5
  
  Zugzwang is a situation where every single one of a player's moves loses, but if he didn't have to move then he'd be fine.
  
  Consider this position:
  
  White King on d5, White pawn on e4, Black King on f4, Black pawn on e5.
  
  Whoever's move it is loses. If it's White's move then he must move his King away, and Black takes the e4-pawn. White does not want to move, but he's not allowed to skip a turn.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2018-04-06. Score: 3
  
  Zugzwang, compulsion-to-move, is where a player is forced to disadvantage their position, or obscure their strategy, tactics, or attacks by moving. 
  Example #1 
   8/8/8/3pK3/2kP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
  
  In this position each King aims to protect its pawn, but if it's white to play, white is forced to move away since the pawn's movement is restricted and c6 is guarded by the pawn. Checkmate in 15 (WTM)
  Example #2
  3k4/3P2K1/8/8/8/7B/8/8 b - - 0 1
  
  This is a more active puzzle, but a checkmate in 9 for white (BTM)
  King c7
  1... Kc7 2. Bf5 Kb6 3. d8=Q+ Kc5 4. Qd3 Kb4 5. Qd4+
  Kb3 6. Kf6 Ka3 7. Qc3+ Ka2 8. Qb4 Ka1 9. Qb1#
  King e7
  1... Ke7 2. Bf5 Kd6 3. Kf6 Kc5 4. d8=Q Kc4 5. Ke7
  Kc3 6. Qd3+ Kb2 7. Qc2+ Ka3 8. Qc3+ Ka2 9. Qb4
  Ka1 10. Qb1#
  Black is forced to move the king from d8 with e7 and c7 both leading to checkmates in perfect checkmates in 9
  Example 3
  5Kbk/6pp/6P1/8/8/8/8/7R w - - 0 1
  
  White to move. Mate in 2. This one uses rh6 to lock the h7 pawn leaving only the bishop able to move, which forces it to abandon it's defense of the h7 pawn leading to rh7 checkmate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: Your 1st example isn't really zugzwang, because White wins with or without the move. In your 2nd, as you say, White wins with the move but it's a draw with BTM. Every White move is check so in what sense is this zugzwang?  
  > **username_11**: The 1st example would be better with the black king on c5, when it would be mutual zugzwang (the one whose move it is will lose the pawn and game). I don't see any zugzwang in your second example.  
  > **username_10**: I fixed the 1st to be mutual, and the second fixed with black to move away from restricting pawn. Sorry for the inconvenience  
  > **username_7**: I still don't see how your new second example (KBPk) is zugzwang. WTM wins in 8 or 9 whether Black's king is on c7, d8 or e7.  
  > **username_11**: @RosieF The new second example is zugwang. If black was allowed not to make moves (to pass), there is no way white can promote the pawn because black would just leave the king on d8 (and white has no checks to make black move the king.  
  > **username_10**: @RosieF White's king is invincible on that square. If he could stay there he couldn't be attacked  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2021-12-01. Score: 0
  
  An interesting point: without zugzwang, you could not win with only a rook (assuming no other pieces than kings) - you would need two bishops at least. That just shows how much is this "rule" (obligation to move) important.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: If the rules allowed to give up a move, you could not force KR-K mate.  
  
  ---
  
  