Answers.Body: <p>In a winning position, the best move is the one with the shortest depth to mate. So, the “worst winning move” would be the one with maximal depth to mate. So it seems reasonable to call it the move with maximal depth to mate. However, there are two important caveats:</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>If you repeatedly play these kinds of moves, then your depth to mate may increase, rather than decrease. Due to the 50 move and 3-fold repetition rules, you might actually draw on accident by playing these moves. At this point, these moves are no longer still winning, so some care needs to be taken.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>Practically speaking, there can be benefits to playing such a move over a move with lower depth to mate. For example, the “best move” might involve a tricky sacrifice, whereas the “worst winning move” might be a trade that leads to a simple, easily won endgame. If you can’t analyze the sacrifice fully, but are certain of the won endgame, it’s hard to call the safer play a mistake.</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T09:30:32.483Z
Answers.Text: But "the move with maximal depth to mate" is not really something anyone has ever used. It's about if such a term exists, not if we can make it up. Other than that, good explanation :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Miedema
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T21:45:17.303Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-03T21:45:17.303Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: DongKy
Answers.Body: <p>The short answer is no.</p>
  <p>In 25 years of chess experience I have never heard such a term. There isn't unless there is some definition somewhere in a shady club packed with sadists who love to mate with several knights!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T00:33:51.663Z
Answers.Text: Nakamura is surely part of that club!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rewan Demontay
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T09:28:22.610Z
Answers.Text: I am too actually, but only with a helpful opponent and smoking a lot of greens ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Miedema
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-05T04:00:31.823Z
Answers.Text: I heard a name from AI research I don't trust: minimum winning move. I don't think it applies to tablebases though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T19:38:56.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-04T00:33:04.297Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-04T00:33:04.297Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Miedema
Answers.Body: <p>Take note that without the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-move rule, choosing a worst winning move (i.e. one that leads to a losing position for your opponent with the maximum moves under best play) at each turn may lead to an infinite game rather than a win!</p>
  <p>But anyway, the move you suggest in your question is certainly not the worst winning move, as once you promote to a knight you will have to reach checkmate within 50 moves. A worse winning move is <code>h8=Q</code> and then to trap the opponent to 2 squares before dallying around with your pieces and then forcing the opponent to capture your bishop just before the 50-move rule kicks in, giving you another 50 moves to play cat and mouse before the finishing bite.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T13:23:13.720Z
Answers.Text: How so? It seems to me that it's crafty of you to write "*even* without". Without those rules, choosing a worst winning move can lead to a perpetual. For example, with wKh1 Qe1 bKb6, 1 Qh4 Kc7 2 Qe1 Kb6 is consistent with White always choosing a longest win and Black a longest loss (though there are alternatives for both players). But your desired conclusion relies on the repetition rule being absent. With those rules in place, the winner must avoid giving the loser an opportunity for a valid draw claim, and the winner accordingly wins after a finite number of moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T18:38:22.417Z
Answers.Text: @RosieF: I didn't mean to be crafty... I should not have used "even" there.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T06:18:31.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-04T18:38:32.103Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-04T18:38:32.103Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.Body: <p>There is no measure which distinguishes one winning move from another, other than perhaps number of moves (which is only important if that number could cause a draw).  Winning is winning.</p>
  <p>To define a score which differentiates winning moves, we would need an off-board metric.  Consider: if someone is actively trying to practice knight and bishop end games, this may be a <em>very</em> good move.  However, if one is trying to make the game shorter (which is a very typical metric, even if there is no draw in sight), it could be a poor choice compared to promoting to a queen.</p>
  <p>However, if I may draw from some non-chess history, I'd recommend a term from <a href="http://www.pbm.com/%7Elindahl/mel.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the story of Mel</a>.  Mel was a software developer in the age of drum memory.  Drum memory was a fascinating beast because all of the data was stored on a rotating drum that rotated at a very predicable rate.  If you knew how long your instruction would take, you could make sure that the next instruction's memory was right underneath the read-head when it was needed.</p>
  <p>Mel was known for doing delay loops where he would intentionally place the next instruction so that it just barely passed the head before it was needed.  Then the drum would have to do a full circle before reading the memory.  There were optimizers which would place the memory in the optimum place, but he sought the opposite.</p>
  <p>His term: it was the most pessimum location.</p>
  <p>I think that if you called this move &quot;the most pessimum winning move,&quot; you would at least get a few smiles when you explained it!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T17:18:26.057Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-04T17:18:26.057Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cort Ammon
Answers.Body: <p>Least best?</p>
  <p>It depends what you mean by worst.<br />
  Is that from your perspective or from the one of the person whose decision was to make that move you consider 'worst'.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T20:29:59.130Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-03T20:29:59.130Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Body: <p>What do people call a move which maintains a winning position but is the worst among all such moves?</p>
  <p>For example, h8=N+ is such a move in the following game:</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;8/7P/6k1/8/8/8/B1K5/8 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  
  1. h8=N+
  </code></pre>
  <p>I will not normally play such moves in serious games, but in casual games such moves might be good practice for endgame skills.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T19:38:53.647Z
Comments.Text: Engines call them _inaccuracies_.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew Chin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T19:49:33.453Z
Comments.Text: "Good enough" is the closest I can think of
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T20:49:12.160Z
Comments.Text: If while proceeds to win the game I would give it `?!`, but if white fails to convert I would give it `??`.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-03T23:02:23.860Z
Comments.Text: “Strategy without tactics” - Pun Tzu
Comments.UserDisplayName: Patrick McElhaney
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-04T08:26:05.780Z
Comments.Text: If it wins you the game, it's not a bad move. Not winning the game would be a worse move. If there was a faster way to win, perhaps it's a sub-optimal move.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mast
Tags: <endgame><terminology><winning>
Title: Is there a terminology for "the worst winning move"?
ThreadText: # Is there a terminology for "the worst winning move"?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-03)
  
  What do people call a move which maintains a winning position but is the worst among all such moves?
  For example, h8=N+ is such a move in the following game:
  [FEN "8/7P/6k1/8/8/8/B1K5/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  1. h8=N+
  
  I will not normally play such moves in serious games, but in casual games such moves might be good practice for endgame skills.
  
  **Tags:** endgame, terminology, winning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Engines call them _inaccuracies_.  
  > **username_2**: "Good enough" is the closest I can think of  
  > **username_3**: If while proceeds to win the game I would give it `?!`, but if white fails to convert I would give it `??`.  
  > **username_4**: “Strategy without tactics” - Pun Tzu  
  > **username_5**: If it wins you the game, it's not a bad move. Not winning the game would be a worse move. If there was a faster way to win, perhaps it's a sub-optimal move.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-08-03. Score: 8
  
  In a winning position, the best move is the one with the shortest depth to mate. So, the “worst winning move” would be the one with maximal depth to mate. So it seems reasonable to call it the move with maximal depth to mate. However, there are two important caveats:
  
  1. If you repeatedly play these kinds of moves, then your depth to mate may increase, rather than decrease. Due to the 50 move and 3-fold repetition rules, you might actually draw on accident by playing these moves. At this point, these moves are no longer still winning, so some care needs to be taken.
  2. Practically speaking, there can be benefits to playing such a move over a move with lower depth to mate. For example, the “best move” might involve a tricky sacrifice, whereas the “worst winning move” might be a trade that leads to a simple, easily won endgame. If you can’t analyze the sacrifice fully, but are certain of the won endgame, it’s hard to call the safer play a mistake.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: But "the move with maximal depth to mate" is not really something anyone has ever used. It's about if such a term exists, not if we can make it up. Other than that, good explanation :)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-08-03. Score: 8
  
  The short answer is no.
  
  In 25 years of chess experience I have never heard such a term. There isn't unless there is some definition somewhere in a shady club packed with sadists who love to mate with several knights!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Nakamura is surely part of that club!  
  > **username_7**: I am too actually, but only with a helpful opponent and smoking a lot of greens ;)  
  > **username_9**: I heard a name from AI research I don't trust: minimum winning move. I don't think it applies to tablebases though.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2020-08-04. Score: 2
  
  Take note that without the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-move rule, choosing a worst winning move (i.e. one that leads to a losing position for your opponent with the maximum moves under best play) at each turn may lead to an infinite game rather than a win!
  
  But anyway, the move you suggest in your question is certainly not the worst winning move, as once you promote to a knight you will have to reach checkmate within 50 moves. A worse winning move is `h8=Q` and then to trap the opponent to 2 squares before dallying around with your pieces and then forcing the opponent to capture your bishop just before the 50-move rule kicks in, giving you another 50 moves to play cat and mouse before the finishing bite.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: How so? It seems to me that it's crafty of you to write "*even* without". Without those rules, choosing a worst winning move can lead to a perpetual. For example, with wKh1 Qe1 bKb6, 1 Qh4 Kc7 2 Qe1 Kb6 is consistent with White always choosing a longest win and Black a longest loss (though there are alternatives for both players). But your desired conclusion relies on the repetition rule being absent. With those rules in place, the winner must avoid giving the loser an opportunity for a valid draw claim, and the winner accordingly wins after a finite number of moves.  
  > **username_10**: @RosieF: I didn't mean to be crafty... I should not have used "even" there.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2020-08-04. Score: 2
  
  There is no measure which distinguishes one winning move from another, other than perhaps number of moves (which is only important if that number could cause a draw). Winning is winning.
  
  To define a score which differentiates winning moves, we would need an off-board metric. Consider: if someone is actively trying to practice knight and bishop end games, this may be a *very* good move. However, if one is trying to make the game shorter (which is a very typical metric, even if there is no draw in sight), it could be a poor choice compared to promoting to a queen.
  
  However, if I may draw from some non-chess history, I'd recommend a term from [the story of Mel](http://www.pbm.com/%7Elindahl/mel.html). Mel was a software developer in the age of drum memory. Drum memory was a fascinating beast because all of the data was stored on a rotating drum that rotated at a very predicable rate. If you knew how long your instruction would take, you could make sure that the next instruction's memory was right underneath the read-head when it was needed.
  
  Mel was known for doing delay loops where he would intentionally place the next instruction so that it just barely passed the head before it was needed. Then the drum would have to do a full circle before reading the memory. There were optimizers which would place the memory in the optimum place, but he sought the opposite.
  
  His term: it was the most pessimum location.
  
  I think that if you called this move "the most pessimum winning move," you would at least get a few smiles when you explained it!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2020-08-03. Score: 1
  
  Least best?
  
  It depends what you mean by worst.  
  Is that from your perspective or from the one of the person whose decision was to make that move you consider 'worst'.
  
  
  ---
  
  