Answers.Body: <p>Although <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfmate" rel="noreferrer">selfmate</a> is a popular type of chess problems, the concept you have described simply would not work in a chess game played from the starting position; your opponent would need to cooperate with you if you want to get yourself mated. This means that any game played by chess players of any skill level would almost certainly end in a draw under your rules, which unfortunately makes your question moot.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-02-16T01:40:13.730Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-02-16T01:40:13.730Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sid
Answers.Body: <p>This is actually interesting, as there is a certain counter-intuitive way to win. If you end up with a huge material advantage, in some positions you can force your opponent to checkmate you.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-05-02T00:00:39.670Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-05-02T00:00:39.670Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ericw31415
Answers.Body: <p>I write this as an answer (even if it doesn't contribute that much, but it would get too long).</p>
  <p>If you ask any expert of the selfmate genre in problem chess, he will give you an immediate enthusiastic yes: Selfmate strategy is much more complex than n#. Here is an especially glaring example: Motive inversion. In &quot;normal&quot; chess, you will never make a move that hurts yourself, with only one exception: if you play for stalemate. In selfmate, you might play moves with positive and with negative aspects, even with both at the same time, and to top it, White might use <em>the exactly same motive</em> that Black used to parry a selfmate threat (say, unpinning a piece of his to harmlessly interpose a check), and use it for his own good (whoops, now the unpinned piece must mate). I googled a <a href="http://www.chess.internetsolutions.at/camgam/camgam01792s_geloest.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">random example</a> - try understanding the strategies of both sides without getting a knot in your brain!</p>
  <p>That said, in a practical game, you probably don't need such fine details. Follow the advice of ericw31415 and user11382: win all the material of your opponent, except a safely blocked pawn. Then force your own mate by zugzwang. The minimum material needed is KQB/KP. If your opponent still has major force, say a Q, the &quot;standard&quot; strategy in long s# is &quot;checking the opponent into place&quot; until you can give the decisive check that immediately forces selfmate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-30T18:52:20.100Z
Answers.Text: Great answer, helps visualize how one might actually do it. So once you accrue a material advantage, is the idea to check the opp King and force pawn moves while placing your King in a position where the pawn can deliver smothered mate? Can you provide an example starting from e.g. KQB (or more material if it helps) vs KP, against an opponent who will try to avoid mating you? (If this seems a lot of work for an extension, I could open a new question for it)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-30T18:54:44.867Z
Answers.Text: Also the humility about lack of contributing with this answer is misplaced - the top-voted and accepted answer seems to have shallow consideration and in this case like it could be outright wrong. (One assumes that it is possible to accrue a large material advantage against an unwilling but substantially weaker opponent. We need only prove that with this advantage we can force a selfmate.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-05-01T08:08:33.247Z
Answers.Text: @MobeusZoom: The Schwalbe Problem Database https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/?langw=DE can be searched for such problems. (G='s#' finds only selfmates, and the number of pieces can be fixed too.) I'm too lazy at the moment, my bath waits :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-23T09:00:27.273Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-23T09:00:27.273Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Body: <p>I have seen variations of other board games or strategy games where the aim is to actually 'lose' the game by forcing your opponents to make moves. Applying this concept to the rules of chess, would it require a completely different set of skills and thinking to let your opponent checkmate you first? Is the variation of moves and the analysis of the moves different if the winning objective or condition is reversed?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-02-16T01:47:43.083Z
Comments.Text: The point from the answer of @Sid below is right; playing by the standard rules of chess, neither opponent would be able to compel the other to checkmate. (E.g. `1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8` etc.) The question would make more sense if asked about how the skills used in standard chess relate to those needed for success in [losing chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_chess), which among other rule changes features compulsory capturing.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-05-02T10:47:38.750Z
Comments.Text: The headline asks about more or less skills. The detailed question asks a different question, about whether skills are different. Please clarify.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-04-22T23:58:58.973Z
Comments.Text: @Laska thanks for pointing this out. I have made the update to the question accordingly :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael Lai
Tags: <rules><theory><checkmate><chess-variants><selfmate>
Title: Theoretically, is the analysis of the moves more complex if the objective is to be the first to be checkmated?
ThreadText: # Theoretically, is the analysis of the moves more complex if the objective is to be the first to be checkmated?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-02-15)
  
  I have seen variations of other board games or strategy games where the aim is to actually 'lose' the game by forcing your opponents to make moves. Applying this concept to the rules of chess, would it require a completely different set of skills and thinking to let your opponent checkmate you first? Is the variation of moves and the analysis of the moves different if the winning objective or condition is reversed?
  
  **Tags:** rules, theory, checkmate, chess-variants, selfmate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The point from the answer of @username_3 below is right; playing by the standard rules of chess, neither opponent would be able to compel the other to checkmate. (E.g. `1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8` etc.) The question would make more sense if asked about how the skills used in standard chess relate to those needed for success in [losing chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_chess), which among other rule changes features compulsory capturing.  
  > **username_2**: The headline asks about more or less skills. The detailed question asks a different question, about whether skills are different. Please clarify.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 thanks for pointing this out. I have made the update to the question accordingly :)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-02-16. Score: 7
  
  Although [selfmate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfmate) is a popular type of chess problems, the concept you have described simply would not work in a chess game played from the starting position; your opponent would need to cooperate with you if you want to get yourself mated. This means that any game played by chess players of any skill level would almost certainly end in a draw under your rules, which unfortunately makes your question moot.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-05-02. Score: 5
  
  This is actually interesting, as there is a certain counter-intuitive way to win. If you end up with a huge material advantage, in some positions you can force your opponent to checkmate you.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2021-04-23. Score: 4
  
  I write this as an answer (even if it doesn't contribute that much, but it would get too long).
  
  If you ask any expert of the selfmate genre in problem chess, he will give you an immediate enthusiastic yes: Selfmate strategy is much more complex than n#. Here is an especially glaring example: Motive inversion. In "normal" chess, you will never make a move that hurts yourself, with only one exception: if you play for stalemate. In selfmate, you might play moves with positive and with negative aspects, even with both at the same time, and to top it, White might use *the exactly same motive* that Black used to parry a selfmate threat (say, unpinning a piece of his to harmlessly interpose a check), and use it for his own good (whoops, now the unpinned piece must mate). I googled a [random example](http://www.chess.internetsolutions.at/camgam/camgam01792s_geloest.htm) - try understanding the strategies of both sides without getting a knot in your brain!
  
  That said, in a practical game, you probably don't need such fine details. Follow the advice of username_4 and user11382: win all the material of your opponent, except a safely blocked pawn. Then force your own mate by zugzwang. The minimum material needed is KQB/KP. If your opponent still has major force, say a Q, the "standard" strategy in long s# is "checking the opponent into place" until you can give the decisive check that immediately forces selfmate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Great answer, helps visualize how one might actually do it. So once you accrue a material advantage, is the idea to check the opp King and force pawn moves while placing your King in a position where the pawn can deliver smothered mate? Can you provide an example starting from e.g. KQB (or more material if it helps) vs KP, against an opponent who will try to avoid mating you? (If this seems a lot of work for an extension, I could open a new question for it)  
  > **username_6**: Also the humility about lack of contributing with this answer is misplaced - the top-voted and accepted answer seems to have shallow consideration and in this case like it could be outright wrong. (One assumes that it is possible to accrue a large material advantage against an unwilling but substantially weaker opponent. We need only prove that with this advantage we can force a selfmate.)  
  > **username_5**: @username_6: The Schwalbe Problem Database https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/?langw=DE can be searched for such problems. (G='s#' finds only selfmates, and the number of pieces can be fixed too.) I'm too lazy at the moment, my bath waits :-)  
  
  ---
  
  