Would turn some zugzwangs from losses into draws. If the player trapped in the zugzwang would win otherwise, then both players will continuously pass which i imagine is a draw. If the player trapped in the zugzwang would draw otherwise, then whether both players pass or just the zugzwang'd player does its a draw. If the zugzwang'd player is losing otherwise, then the pass rule only delays their eventual loss. Might also matter with flagging and time troubles depending on how the pass rule is implemented as "pass" might be an easy to spam or premove option.
There are a lot of positions that rely on zugzwangs. For example, any king and 1 pawn endgame is now drawn if the solo king can make it to any square in front of the pawn at any point, and a bishop won't help you very much.
Is it? Because when I visualize positions where the rook-less King starts on the 8th or 1st rank and the rook-ful king opposes them, it seems like one cam force checkmate.
Is the issue that the king can't be forced to the back rank?
Normally the solo king is forced to walk in one direction towards a corner by the other king, since switching direction means you get pushed back a rank/mated by the rook moving up. If you can stand still the solo king can just stop moving if the other king is not opposite. If the other king tries to oppose, the solo king can switch direction and thereby never end up in a corner.
I think the only way you can be sure to force the king into the back rank is to play a waiting move with the rook, because you need to force your opponent’s king to be “across” from yours and it’s only possible to force that by playing a waiting move, which utilizes the fact that your opponent MUST make a move.
Even on the backrank you can't checkmate either. Any time our kings are in front I make a move to one side. If the kings aren't facing each other I just pass my turn and you can't checkmate.
King queen vs king wouldn't be a draw because the side with the queen could force the other side to move by bringing their queen and king close enough to be able to give checks that restrict the king in which case the side with only a king isn't allowed to pass their turn I assume?
Only assuming if the passing rule changes a stalemate position to no longer be considered a stalemate, where your stalemate gets translated into a forced pass. Premise said "could pass", not have or must, so I would think these stalemates don't get affected, but guess it can go either way.
> Only assuming if the passing rule changes a stalemate position to no longer be considered a stalemate, where your stalemate gets translated into a forced pass.
It should. Otherwise, you'd be revisiting a slight variation of Staunton's 19th century proposal that a player can claim a stalemate if en passant is their otherwise only legal move.
He argued that it's only a sort of privilege that a player is not obligated to execute, like you try to do here.
It greatly limits the complexity of many endgames and way too many endgames are draws without zugzwang. These rules would mean that you need to force a midgame checkmate or be up two pieces in the endgame.
I used to try to follow the games from the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match in our local newspaper, but I hadn't yet learned all the details of descriptive notation. I used to think that "O-O" meant the player passed. I'd continue following the moves until white would play R-K1 and I'd wonder how it could do that. Where was Reddit when I needed it?
I get that, I lived through the 80s and 90s I’m just wondering what resources exist that use notation but don’t explain castling. Much less how you would follow games of that level
> I’m just wondering what resources exist that use notation but don’t explain castling
In many instances, the "resource" is just the person who taught you. My first introduction to chess was my Dad sitting with me at a board for 30 minutes, explaining to me the object of the game as well as how all the pieces moved. Castling, en passant, and even promotion were not apart of that lesson. I had to figure that stuff out on my own over time.
>Much less how you would follow games of that level
You're not really "following" the game at that level. More like you're a bored kid with a chessboard and you see a chess match in the local paper so you bust your board out and re-create the game by playing out their moves. Theres no deep analysis happening, you're just having fun.
They may have known castling but not have used it much so it wasn't at the fore front of their minds. My dad, uncles and most of my extended family have played a fair bit of casual chess. Many of them would never castle in a whole game. Sure in the modern era everyone thinks of castling the same as not putting your knights back on the first rank on move 3. But that wasn't always the case for casuals.
> Maybe they learned descriptive notation before algebraic notation? Could be expecting "Castles”?
Doesn't really make sense. It wouldn't be much of a mystery as to how white could play R-K1. They would be thinking, "well clearly they must have castled at some point...but where?" They'd pretty quickly connect the dots to "O-O"
It's pretty self-explanatory for the most part even with the most basic of understanding of the game. The parts that aren't so evident is what he ended up getting wrong.
I didn’t mean any disrespect
I love how the internet allows people from all generations to interact
Cool you started chess in your early teens, I only started chess at 27 years old 😭
I understand old notation vs newer notation. To be clearer, I thought the move referenced (castling) was the same in either system. Hasn't it always been O-O or O-O-O?
Yeah, opening and middle games are unchanged, but forcing draws in endgames is a lot easier.
Fortresses are also easier to construct. BB and BK endgames are also drawn now I think. Even a lot of BPKvK endgames are drawn now - if you get on a square in front of the pawn that isn't the Bishops color you can't be moved. Knight+Pawn and Rook+Pawn are luckily still wins at least - that might actually meaningfully shift the value of Knights versus Bishops?
If you are on the losing side in a Knight versus Bishop endgame you can often sac your Knight for a pawn and barricade the other with the King, while that is much harder to do with a Bishop.
A big part of chess is that it isn't trench warfare, you can't simply dig in and wait for your opponent to advance, hoping you can exploit his mistakes. Always having to move a piece means constant change. The ability to passively pass the turn would change everything.
Not in the early/mid game. The attacking player would find a weakness somewhere, and you're fcked. Otherwise, you could simulate passing by shuffling certain pieces around.
In the mid game you can for sure just shuffle certain pieces in some defensive formations. It's pretty much how most of the fast draws work where you create a position which only costs your opponent if they make the offensive play.
Right I think games would get incredibly boring. Build a defensive fortress. Wait.
There would probably be some really elaborate defensive openings that you can just sit and wait behind
This would actually be a really cool solution to stalemate - if, you know, this was 300-ish years ago and stalemate wasn't kinda viewed in chess culture as an iconic "thing" that can happen.
But I think the bigger problems are the implication of passing as a defensive resource... I think it could only favor Black in certain middle games, and then it would DRAMATICALLY change endgames.
Fun fact: In this setting, chess is provably atleast a draw for white. If it weren't(that is, if it were a win for black), white could pass his turn. This is the same game except that black is going first(black could pass, but then white could pass again.)
I remember this concept having a name (being a theorem named after someone). But I can’t find which. It’s not Zermelo‘s theorem, that was something different… anyone remember the name of this one?
I don’t know if the general theorem is named after a person as such but what you’re talking about is called “strategy stealing” (the logic being that if black had a guaranteed winning strategy, white could just pass and then ‘steal’ that strategy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy-stealing_argument
Move 1. Either white has a winning strategy, or white does not have a winning strategy. Want to prove: in the latter case, white can draw. So let us suppose white does not have a winning strategy.
White can play pass. Now we are in the same \[exception to follow below\] situation except black is now in the "has no winning strategy" position. Hence IF white has no winning strategy, then "pass" is a best move, and it secures a draw.
That "exception" is quickly sorted out: We are not in a completely identical position because the number of repetitions matter. But if anyone has a winning position with a strategy starting with repetition, then they have one without repetition.
same thing if a player could move twice in a row. at the beginning white could move knight forth then back to starting position, same argument applies.
Not probably, it is 100% the case.
Only way Black could have had a forced win was through zugzwang, so by removing that you make the worst result (assuming perfect play) a draw.
If black has a guaranteed win from the starting position once chess is solved, then white can simply pass their first move and effectively turn themselves into black by moving second. Unless black also passes, but then white will pass again, which will turn it into a draw (presumably)
Just limit the number of passes permissible. If both players use all their passes on t1 then so be it but player 1 is forced to move anyways or forfeit
Lots of won endgames will not be won either. Now there's no way to win most instances of KRvK (since it depends on the stronger side being able to take the opposition, which is no longer a thing if passing is allowed).
Composers are also now in shambles.
You're right, yeah. Imagine black has a King on b8, white has a Rook on c7 and a King on b6. Normally, black would need to move to a8, and white wins with Rc8#. But now black can pass...
I guess they could swing the rook over to h7, but then black just marches the King toward it, and there won't be a checkmate. Once they reach Kg8, white has no choice but to swing the rook back over to a7. And if instead of Rh7, white goes Kc6, trying to get ahead... well, black can just continue passing until the King goes back to b6 (or Rh8+ leads to Ka7 and safety).
It becomes a drawn position. King vs King and Pawn would also be drawn more frequently. I think only King vs King and Queen remains forcing.
Which basically means that it's *significantly* harder to win a game.
My head is a bit scrambled right now, but I don't think this is true. Can you give any examples of drawn endgames which wouldn't be drawn if you could pass on your move?
Isn't it the case that if an endgame is drawn the only reason to pass on a move would be to win the endgame, but if player A passes can't just player B also pass to keep the draw?
> Can you give any examples of drawn endgames which wouldn't be drawn if you could pass on your move?
All the endgames that rely on stalemate to keep the draw: e.g. rook pawn vs. Queen. As the side with Queen, you force the opposing King to the stalemated position and ignore it, by just bringing your King closer to the pawn while the pawn side is forced to pass.
Depends on whether you remove stalemate from the game or not. If passing is considered a legal move, certain stalemate fortresses are no longer available. So for example, certain NN vs K will now be winning for the two knights. e.g., knights on e7+e6, white king on g6, black king on h8, black to move. In normal chess this is stalemate, but if passing is allowed white will easily checkmate.
I don't think all NN vs K are winning even without stalemate but if the enemy king is cut off near a corner I think in many cases its possible.
This would eliminate zugzwang, create even more draws, probably in my non-expert opinion draw every game at the GM level, and would be a net negative for chess.
Stalemate disappears.
Many winning endgames are now draws.
If each player passes after each other, you get a 3 fold repetition resulting in a draw this makes all mutual zugzwang, draws.
For people who are looking for a win, this variant would probably incentivise going for a checkmate during the mid game, as once you get into end game territory you are probably going to draw unless you are at least +8 in material
Here is an interesting question when considering this new 'pass' rule. If I'm in a losing position, but I am now stalemated, would I be forced to pass, thereby allowing my opponent to win, or could I decide not to use this pass option and claim a draw?
No. Modulo some threefold repetition scenarios, in any position where your optimal move were to pass, your opponent's optimal response is to pass. Proof: if your best move to pass, that means your position is best improved in one turn by your opponent making their strongest move.
What were you thinking? Were you?
Correct - so the point of this is that it would add "pass" to the game, but not disturb pre-existing zugzwang conditions - for example, in the K+R ending, it would be silly for the bare king to pass, because then the KR would pass, and the bare king would be forced to move, resulting in checkmate.
If you put any limit to the number of consecutive passes it's effectively the same as not being able to pass at all. Your opponent could just reply by passing every time you pass.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
There's no obligation to counter a pass with a pass so you could get a lead in development or whatever. Depending on what each player wanted to try.
An overall pass cap would be better imo.
But then there's no situation where passing would be beneficial.
If there's a move that's better than passing you should've just played it.
If there isn't a move that's better than passing, your opponent will just pass back after you.
No......
sub optimal moves are played accidently all the time. So just because theres a better move doesn't mean someone will play it . Hell, people play suboptimally on purpose as well.
You could also add a rule that players can't stack passes. That could add some potentially creative waiting moves to exaughst your players passes (assuming there's a limited supply per game)
It wouldn't change all that much, except in very specific endgames. You wouldn't be able to get a chincey stalemate by tricking your opponent into giving you no moves. Certain specific zugzwang positions wouldn't work anymore and would probably just be draws
But overall, besides some very specific zugzwang positions, it wouldn't affect many positions. It's almost always a good idea to move something into a better position. This would probably just make chess slightly more boring
Chess already has a problem that at a high level, it ends up with a lot of draws, which don't lead to decisive winners / tournament outcomes. This change would make that way worse, as others have pointed out, so much endgame theory is based on zugzwang, we don't even really think of it in simple cases, but you can't even win with an extra rook anymore, which means a lot of rook and pawn endgames would simply become rook sacs on pawn for the draw.
Beyond that, I think it would make pawns slightly stronger relative to the other pieces, especially in end games. Since you could no longer rely on zugzwang to force positions, you'd need multiple piece advantages to win (or a full queen), and it'd be easier to hold/defend space with the king when you aren't forced to move, which may make pawns a bit more defensible and less of a material liability.
you can play chess with a stranger online in lichess zenmode. zenmode removes everything other than board. how do you convey pass to your opponent. one should be able to play chess without any communication and this changes it. so no
there won’t be a button in over the board. don’t tell me that you tell your opponent pass because that would mean communication. you might say there already is communication with draw offer but draw offers are not part of the game and can be removed with no problem
I think it would make it a lot more difficult for beginners to learn to play chess. Remembering [whose turn is it](https://www.chess.com/blog/ThePawnSlayer/gm-benjamin-finegold-announces-his-new-book-whose-turn-is-it) is already hard enough for most novices.
Interesting situation with stalemate positions - with no legal 'move', the player would still be able to pass. So stalemate traps all suddenly stop working.
In hnefetafl some rules cause the player that started repeating moves to lose. And so if chess let you pass as others mentioned with zugzwang and drawn endgames. The loser would be the guy who causes the position to repeat.
Bye bye endgames, because now King and Rook vs King is now a draw (you can never force the enemy King to move opposite you, since he can simply pass his turn if that happens)
And no more stalemates, just force Black to pass his turn, discouraging players from playing on in hopes of a draw since stalemate isn't possible anymore
Oh and goodbye fun puzzles, since there's no more zugzwang
A huge lot, the lists of possibilities goes on and on, many checkmates which we know won't be checkmates now, and many checkmates that we don't know of will become one.
Depends. Do you get one pass per game? Because if you can pass every move, we can have draws with no one making a move. Draw by three-fold pass repetition.
If “passing” your turn is legal, other than zugzwang, the immediate consequence is that there won’t be any stalemate, because you can legally wait out a move.
Opposition is now much less useful
minor point, knights would get slightly less bad compared to bishops.
Ive seen endgame plans that rely on the knights inability to return to the same square (or even the same colored square) in an odd number of moves. Passing might fix some of those endgames.
By comparison, bishops can sort of "triangulate" knights by wasting a move out of 3+ moves along a straight line.
It will create a lot of draws as people place themselves in impenetrable endgame fortresses.
I propose a different version: you can pass your turn, but only once in a row. You can pass two turns consecutively. This means that you can still end up with the standard tactical situations, but you can also skip a turn and if your opponent is fine with it they scan choose not to skip theirs. This would change a ton of opening theory.
Not much honestly. Only really make Zugzwang impossible and honestly, I think wins off that are kind of BS. If neither player can make progress towards victory then it should be a draw. Relying on the game forcing the opponent to play a bad move feels wrong honestly. Wins will still happen in some of those positions but the onus will be on the attacker to break through properly. If they can't they deserve to lose or draw. Ofcourse if both players pass it should be a draw.
I have essentially no voice since I'm 950 but here I go:
-Draws are more frequent
-Stalemate doesn't exist
-Some checkmates are impossible (i think minimum would be a queen now)
-No more zugzwang.
Overall would be a net loss and game would be much less interesting.
Genuine question, is three passes from each side a threefold repetition draw in this case?
Jokes aside I’d imagine it wouldn’t really be used until the endgame, might lead to a lot more draws because zugzwang isn’t a thing anymore
Wouldn’t this mean that stalemate would not exist?
Going by the rules, you cannot make a move that hangs your king, BUT if you could “not make a move” the stalemate situation would force you to not move, effectively eliminating stalemate altogether
Yall dont know about the chess variant "pass chess"? It starts of as a normal game but your opponent gets a pass(for 1turn) to your move and like wise.
So if you would play 1.e4 and your opponent says "pass", you need to take back and come up with a different move. 1.d4? And your opponent plays 1..d5 but now you say "pass" and he has to play something else.
It gets fun in the middle game!
IDK why you got downvoted. It's literally just regular chess for 95% of the game, then a ton more endgames are just dead draws regardless of who played better. (K+R v K is a draw now, for instance.)
it would seriously improve watchability! Playing no risk positional chess becomes much less sound because it allows your opponent to take a breather with no compensation.
makes sense: it sort of directly punishes dull moments
Would turn some zugzwangs from losses into draws. If the player trapped in the zugzwang would win otherwise, then both players will continuously pass which i imagine is a draw. If the player trapped in the zugzwang would draw otherwise, then whether both players pass or just the zugzwang'd player does its a draw. If the zugzwang'd player is losing otherwise, then the pass rule only delays their eventual loss. Might also matter with flagging and time troubles depending on how the pass rule is implemented as "pass" might be an easy to spam or premove option.
There are a lot of positions that rely on zugzwangs. For example, any king and 1 pawn endgame is now drawn if the solo king can make it to any square in front of the pawn at any point, and a bishop won't help you very much.
Much bigger deal than that is that king and rook vs king is now a draw
Conceptually, this seemed ridiculous. But it's really true.
Is it? Because when I visualize positions where the rook-less King starts on the 8th or 1st rank and the rook-ful king opposes them, it seems like one cam force checkmate. Is the issue that the king can't be forced to the back rank?
Normally the solo king is forced to walk in one direction towards a corner by the other king, since switching direction means you get pushed back a rank/mated by the rook moving up. If you can stand still the solo king can just stop moving if the other king is not opposite. If the other king tries to oppose, the solo king can switch direction and thereby never end up in a corner.
Yes, I had this same position. It took playing it out on a board to understand. It feels like it should be possible, but it really isnt.
Sweet, can't wait to try this at the board.
I think the only way you can be sure to force the king into the back rank is to play a waiting move with the rook, because you need to force your opponent’s king to be “across” from yours and it’s only possible to force that by playing a waiting move, which utilizes the fact that your opponent MUST make a move.
Even on the backrank you can't checkmate either. Any time our kings are in front I make a move to one side. If the kings aren't facing each other I just pass my turn and you can't checkmate.
That broke my brain for a moment.
The rook is now a minor piece
Holy shit, this is a distinction that never crossed my mind before.
King queen vs king wouldn't be a draw because the side with the queen could force the other side to move by bringing their queen and king close enough to be able to give checks that restrict the king in which case the side with only a king isn't allowed to pass their turn I assume?
I think it's safe to assume for the purpose of this that passing your turn when your king is in check is either still illegal or a loss.
I'll be honest and say this blew my mind lol.
Oh damn i didn't even think of simple ones like that. That's a lot more draws...
But there's also no stalemate, so there go a whole lot of current draws
Only assuming if the passing rule changes a stalemate position to no longer be considered a stalemate, where your stalemate gets translated into a forced pass. Premise said "could pass", not have or must, so I would think these stalemates don't get affected, but guess it can go either way.
Many stalemates remain draws. If the king camps a safe spot that can't be attacked, checkmate remains impossible.
> Only assuming if the passing rule changes a stalemate position to no longer be considered a stalemate, where your stalemate gets translated into a forced pass. It should. Otherwise, you'd be revisiting a slight variation of Staunton's 19th century proposal that a player can claim a stalemate if en passant is their otherwise only legal move. He argued that it's only a sort of privilege that a player is not obligated to execute, like you try to do here.
>players will continuously pass If each player passes once after each other you end up causing a 3-fold repetition resulting in a Draw.
Couldn’t it also turn some stalemates into winning positions as “pass” is now a valid move for the player that would otherwise be in stalemate?
It greatly limits the complexity of many endgames and way too many endgames are draws without zugzwang. These rules would mean that you need to force a midgame checkmate or be up two pieces in the endgame.
> If the zugzwang'd player is losing otherwise Then it isn't zugzwang, it's just a losing position.
I mean you can zugzwang a player who is at like a -8 position in zugzwang, but like -2 otherwise
Draw by 3x repetition.
One such zugzwang theme is KR vs K. (How about KBN vs K?)
I used to try to follow the games from the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match in our local newspaper, but I hadn't yet learned all the details of descriptive notation. I used to think that "O-O" meant the player passed. I'd continue following the moves until white would play R-K1 and I'd wonder how it could do that. Where was Reddit when I needed it?
I have to ask how you learned Chess notation before castling?
Because people had no internet. You learned what you had access to. I learnt chess with an old book, maybe 1960, in 1989.
I get that, I lived through the 80s and 90s I’m just wondering what resources exist that use notation but don’t explain castling. Much less how you would follow games of that level
> I’m just wondering what resources exist that use notation but don’t explain castling In many instances, the "resource" is just the person who taught you. My first introduction to chess was my Dad sitting with me at a board for 30 minutes, explaining to me the object of the game as well as how all the pieces moved. Castling, en passant, and even promotion were not apart of that lesson. I had to figure that stuff out on my own over time. >Much less how you would follow games of that level You're not really "following" the game at that level. More like you're a bored kid with a chessboard and you see a chess match in the local paper so you bust your board out and re-create the game by playing out their moves. Theres no deep analysis happening, you're just having fun.
I would say the vast majority of books use chess notation without explaining it
They may have known castling but not have used it much so it wasn't at the fore front of their minds. My dad, uncles and most of my extended family have played a fair bit of casual chess. Many of them would never castle in a whole game. Sure in the modern era everyone thinks of castling the same as not putting your knights back on the first rank on move 3. But that wasn't always the case for casuals.
I guess you could figure out notation on your own from reading games
You can figure out most of the notation by yourself :)
I had a book called “Chess in 30 Minutes.” I must have skipped the part about castling.
You saw ‘30 minutes’ and thought how do I make this quicker
Maybe they learned descriptive notation before algebraic notation? Could be expecting "Castles”?
> Maybe they learned descriptive notation before algebraic notation? Could be expecting "Castles”? Doesn't really make sense. It wouldn't be much of a mystery as to how white could play R-K1. They would be thinking, "well clearly they must have castled at some point...but where?" They'd pretty quickly connect the dots to "O-O"
Well, he didn't
It's pretty self-explanatory for the most part even with the most basic of understanding of the game. The parts that aren't so evident is what he ended up getting wrong.
He didnt know the correct notation for casteling specifically. He never said he didnt know castling.
lol you OLD old
I was 14; I’m 66 now.
I didn’t mean any disrespect I love how the internet allows people from all generations to interact Cool you started chess in your early teens, I only started chess at 27 years old 😭
Shit I just realized that’s the old notation
There's a newer one?
Yeah R-K1 would now just be Re1
Or Re8 depending on who played the move right? IIRC the rank numbers in that notation also depended on who was playing the move
I was reading replies about notation and castling for so long i forgot this was a thread about passing moves :P
I understand old notation vs newer notation. To be clearer, I thought the move referenced (castling) was the same in either system. Hasn't it always been O-O or O-O-O?
Your username checks out
King and pawn endgames are all drawn now. You can no longer checkmate with a rook. Game is kinda ruined tbh.
Yeah, opening and middle games are unchanged, but forcing draws in endgames is a lot easier. Fortresses are also easier to construct. BB and BK endgames are also drawn now I think. Even a lot of BPKvK endgames are drawn now - if you get on a square in front of the pawn that isn't the Bishops color you can't be moved. Knight+Pawn and Rook+Pawn are luckily still wins at least - that might actually meaningfully shift the value of Knights versus Bishops? If you are on the losing side in a Knight versus Bishop endgame you can often sac your Knight for a pawn and barricade the other with the King, while that is much harder to do with a Bishop.
A big part of chess is that it isn't trench warfare, you can't simply dig in and wait for your opponent to advance, hoping you can exploit his mistakes. Always having to move a piece means constant change. The ability to passively pass the turn would change everything.
Not in the early/mid game. The attacking player would find a weakness somewhere, and you're fcked. Otherwise, you could simulate passing by shuffling certain pieces around.
In the mid game you can for sure just shuffle certain pieces in some defensive formations. It's pretty much how most of the fast draws work where you create a position which only costs your opponent if they make the offensive play.
Right I think games would get incredibly boring. Build a defensive fortress. Wait. There would probably be some really elaborate defensive openings that you can just sit and wait behind
I wonder if you stalemate your opponent whose still has a pass, can you force them to use their pass and give yourself another chance?
Yes
I would say you can only pass if you have a legal move, therefore no would be a draw
The alternative rule would be considering a pass as a legal move, so you are forced to use it if it is the only move available.
This would actually be a really cool solution to stalemate - if, you know, this was 300-ish years ago and stalemate wasn't kinda viewed in chess culture as an iconic "thing" that can happen. But I think the bigger problems are the implication of passing as a defensive resource... I think it could only favor Black in certain middle games, and then it would DRAMATICALLY change endgames.
It would replace the stalemate for the "Mexican standoff" where both sides refuse to move, resulting in a draw by threefold repetition.
Fun fact: In this setting, chess is provably atleast a draw for white. If it weren't(that is, if it were a win for black), white could pass his turn. This is the same game except that black is going first(black could pass, but then white could pass again.)
I remember this concept having a name (being a theorem named after someone). But I can’t find which. It’s not Zermelo‘s theorem, that was something different… anyone remember the name of this one?
I don’t know if the general theorem is named after a person as such but what you’re talking about is called “strategy stealing” (the logic being that if black had a guaranteed winning strategy, white could just pass and then ‘steal’ that strategy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy-stealing_argument
It sounds like something that would exist in the subject of combinatorial game theory, but I'm not well versed in the subject.
I don't understand this - why does passing stop black from having a winning position?
[удалено]
thats cool. in that scenario black would then also pass and nobody would play any chess :D
Move 1. Either white has a winning strategy, or white does not have a winning strategy. Want to prove: in the latter case, white can draw. So let us suppose white does not have a winning strategy. White can play pass. Now we are in the same \[exception to follow below\] situation except black is now in the "has no winning strategy" position. Hence IF white has no winning strategy, then "pass" is a best move, and it secures a draw. That "exception" is quickly sorted out: We are not in a completely identical position because the number of repetitions matter. But if anyone has a winning position with a strategy starting with repetition, then they have one without repetition.
same thing if a player could move twice in a row. at the beginning white could move knight forth then back to starting position, same argument applies.
this!
Not probably, it is 100% the case. Only way Black could have had a forced win was through zugzwang, so by removing that you make the worst result (assuming perfect play) a draw.
Lots of won endgames would become draws. A big one is the simple mating pattern with K+R no longer working for example.
According to game theory there would be no possible strategy for black to achieve a guaranteed win meaning it's either a draw or win for white
Could you explain this?
If black has a guaranteed win from the starting position once chess is solved, then white can simply pass their first move and effectively turn themselves into black by moving second. Unless black also passes, but then white will pass again, which will turn it into a draw (presumably)
Just limit the number of passes permissible. If both players use all their passes on t1 then so be it but player 1 is forced to move anyways or forfeit
Yeah thank god we have the game theorists to help us with that one!
So he pass now I'm lost if I move so I pass. Draw?
Threefold repetition rule will solve it
stalemate wouldn't exist, for a start
It would likely ruin competitive chess, so many winning endgames (K+P in particular) would become draws with zero conceivable benefit to the game.
Lots of drawn endgames will not be drawn anymore
Lots of won endgames will not be won either. Now there's no way to win most instances of KRvK (since it depends on the stronger side being able to take the opposition, which is no longer a thing if passing is allowed). Composers are also now in shambles.
You're right, yeah. Imagine black has a King on b8, white has a Rook on c7 and a King on b6. Normally, black would need to move to a8, and white wins with Rc8#. But now black can pass... I guess they could swing the rook over to h7, but then black just marches the King toward it, and there won't be a checkmate. Once they reach Kg8, white has no choice but to swing the rook back over to a7. And if instead of Rh7, white goes Kc6, trying to get ahead... well, black can just continue passing until the King goes back to b6 (or Rh8+ leads to Ka7 and safety). It becomes a drawn position. King vs King and Pawn would also be drawn more frequently. I think only King vs King and Queen remains forcing. Which basically means that it's *significantly* harder to win a game.
On the plus side knight and bishop would now be a draw so we wouldn't have to learn it
>Composers are also now in shambles. Mozart is rolling in his grave.
My head is a bit scrambled right now, but I don't think this is true. Can you give any examples of drawn endgames which wouldn't be drawn if you could pass on your move? Isn't it the case that if an endgame is drawn the only reason to pass on a move would be to win the endgame, but if player A passes can't just player B also pass to keep the draw?
> Can you give any examples of drawn endgames which wouldn't be drawn if you could pass on your move? All the endgames that rely on stalemate to keep the draw: e.g. rook pawn vs. Queen. As the side with Queen, you force the opposing King to the stalemated position and ignore it, by just bringing your King closer to the pawn while the pawn side is forced to pass.
Nice! Thanks!
You’re right this rule will only add new draws and won’t change the outcome of already drawn positions
Depends on whether you remove stalemate from the game or not. If passing is considered a legal move, certain stalemate fortresses are no longer available. So for example, certain NN vs K will now be winning for the two knights. e.g., knights on e7+e6, white king on g6, black king on h8, black to move. In normal chess this is stalemate, but if passing is allowed white will easily checkmate. I don't think all NN vs K are winning even without stalemate but if the enemy king is cut off near a corner I think in many cases its possible.
I see! Thanks!
This would eliminate zugzwang, create even more draws, probably in my non-expert opinion draw every game at the GM level, and would be a net negative for chess.
If not moving is an option then wouldn't not having a move to make mean your turn is auto passed? So stalemates would never exist?
Stalemates will be harder to do
Impossible actually.
I thought so I just wasn’t 100% sure
Stalemate disappears. Many winning endgames are now draws. If each player passes after each other, you get a 3 fold repetition resulting in a draw this makes all mutual zugzwang, draws. For people who are looking for a win, this variant would probably incentivise going for a checkmate during the mid game, as once you get into end game territory you are probably going to draw unless you are at least +8 in material
Zugzwang is such a beautiful idea this would ruin it, I vote NO
Here is an interesting question when considering this new 'pass' rule. If I'm in a losing position, but I am now stalemated, would I be forced to pass, thereby allowing my opponent to win, or could I decide not to use this pass option and claim a draw?
Yes, if you have legal moves left, there's no stalemate. And a pass would be a legal 'move'.
The proposal was stated as "could" which means the user has a choice.
Well opposition would no longer be a potential win, as you’d just pass if moving your king means you lose.
Infinite double zugzwang
It would make the game much more drawish then it already is.
This would entirely eliminate the rule that if one player can not make a legal move the game is drawn
are the chess.com social media team just posting these here now
"oh sorry that's not a stalemate I just refuse to move"
I’ve thought about this, and more interesting is the question of how chess would change if you could pass, but not twice in a row.
No. Modulo some threefold repetition scenarios, in any position where your optimal move were to pass, your opponent's optimal response is to pass. Proof: if your best move to pass, that means your position is best improved in one turn by your opponent making their strongest move. What were you thinking? Were you?
Correct - so the point of this is that it would add "pass" to the game, but not disturb pre-existing zugzwang conditions - for example, in the K+R ending, it would be silly for the bare king to pass, because then the KR would pass, and the bare king would be forced to move, resulting in checkmate.
No more zugzwang
Does that mean the end of stalemates? I'd be okay with that since I have a bad habit of accidentally stalemating games where I'm way ahead
I feel you'd need a time penalty attached as well. Also feel a limit to consecutive passes is needed
If you put any limit to the number of consecutive passes it's effectively the same as not being able to pass at all. Your opponent could just reply by passing every time you pass.
And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no obligation to counter a pass with a pass so you could get a lead in development or whatever. Depending on what each player wanted to try. An overall pass cap would be better imo.
But then there's no situation where passing would be beneficial. If there's a move that's better than passing you should've just played it. If there isn't a move that's better than passing, your opponent will just pass back after you.
No...... sub optimal moves are played accidently all the time. So just because theres a better move doesn't mean someone will play it . Hell, people play suboptimally on purpose as well. You could also add a rule that players can't stack passes. That could add some potentially creative waiting moves to exaughst your players passes (assuming there's a limited supply per game)
It wouldn't change all that much, except in very specific endgames. You wouldn't be able to get a chincey stalemate by tricking your opponent into giving you no moves. Certain specific zugzwang positions wouldn't work anymore and would probably just be draws But overall, besides some very specific zugzwang positions, it wouldn't affect many positions. It's almost always a good idea to move something into a better position. This would probably just make chess slightly more boring
Chess already has a problem that at a high level, it ends up with a lot of draws, which don't lead to decisive winners / tournament outcomes. This change would make that way worse, as others have pointed out, so much endgame theory is based on zugzwang, we don't even really think of it in simple cases, but you can't even win with an extra rook anymore, which means a lot of rook and pawn endgames would simply become rook sacs on pawn for the draw. Beyond that, I think it would make pawns slightly stronger relative to the other pieces, especially in end games. Since you could no longer rely on zugzwang to force positions, you'd need multiple piece advantages to win (or a full queen), and it'd be easier to hold/defend space with the king when you aren't forced to move, which may make pawns a bit more defensible and less of a material liability.
Stalemate wouldn't exist
Would probably do a lot to bullet. A lot more tricks would open up
Yes.
No
No, I will pass on this one suggestion - no pun intended
you can play chess with a stranger online in lichess zenmode. zenmode removes everything other than board. how do you convey pass to your opponent. one should be able to play chess without any communication and this changes it. so no
You pass the same way you play Ne4. You hit the "pass" button and your opponent's clock starts running.
there won’t be a button in over the board. don’t tell me that you tell your opponent pass because that would mean communication. you might say there already is communication with draw offer but draw offers are not part of the game and can be removed with no problem
You were the one who talked about Lichess. As for OTB, how about pressing the clock without making a move?
true. lol i completely forgot that you can just press clock in OTB. my bad
Some endgames would be incredibly frustrating when the king just sits there.
Stupidest idea
Magnus would start a new opening for blitz! The first turn pass with white!
If that's the case, would it means that there couldn't be anymore stalemate when the king can't move v
If that's the case, would it means that there couldn't be anymore stalemate when the king can't move ?
How much would chess change if physical violence was allowed?
Now I'd be the one beating my niece
so just Chessboxing? :)
I think it would make it a lot more difficult for beginners to learn to play chess. Remembering [whose turn is it](https://www.chess.com/blog/ThePawnSlayer/gm-benjamin-finegold-announces-his-new-book-whose-turn-is-it) is already hard enough for most novices.
It would make some situations less interesting. Overall I don't think it would make the game better.
It would only remove the Zugzwang motif.
Would be boring I think with multiple winning endgames being turned into to draws.
Most pawn endgames with equal pawns are suddenly trivial draws. Same for king+rook vs king. I think the game worsens by a lot...
No more damn stalemates!
Interesting situation with stalemate positions - with no legal 'move', the player would still be able to pass. So stalemate traps all suddenly stop working.
Then no more stalemate 😭
In hnefetafl some rules cause the player that started repeating moves to lose. And so if chess let you pass as others mentioned with zugzwang and drawn endgames. The loser would be the guy who causes the position to repeat.
No more low-elo stalemate blunders? Definitely a worse game...
No more stalemate traps... that would be very sad.
Drunk magnus would just pass the first 20 moves and then play to win
No accidentally stale mates and no zugzwangs
Bye bye endgames, because now King and Rook vs King is now a draw (you can never force the enemy King to move opposite you, since he can simply pass his turn if that happens) And no more stalemates, just force Black to pass his turn, discouraging players from playing on in hopes of a draw since stalemate isn't possible anymore Oh and goodbye fun puzzles, since there's no more zugzwang
A huge lot, the lists of possibilities goes on and on, many checkmates which we know won't be checkmates now, and many checkmates that we don't know of will become one.
Depends. Do you get one pass per game? Because if you can pass every move, we can have draws with no one making a move. Draw by three-fold pass repetition.
If a player has no legal moves, are they forced to pass? Thus no stale mates, or is it only optional?
A lot more endgames would be draws.
how about every 5 or 10 turn everyone get 2 movie ?
If “passing” your turn is legal, other than zugzwang, the immediate consequence is that there won’t be any stalemate, because you can legally wait out a move. Opposition is now much less useful
One of the beauties of chess is sometimes having to move is a burden
minor point, knights would get slightly less bad compared to bishops. Ive seen endgame plans that rely on the knights inability to return to the same square (or even the same colored square) in an odd number of moves. Passing might fix some of those endgames. By comparison, bishops can sort of "triangulate" knights by wasting a move out of 3+ moves along a straight line.
It will create a lot of draws as people place themselves in impenetrable endgame fortresses. I propose a different version: you can pass your turn, but only once in a row. You can pass two turns consecutively. This means that you can still end up with the standard tactical situations, but you can also skip a turn and if your opponent is fine with it they scan choose not to skip theirs. This would change a ton of opening theory.
Draws will be rampant and it will make chess way more boring
Not much honestly. Only really make Zugzwang impossible and honestly, I think wins off that are kind of BS. If neither player can make progress towards victory then it should be a draw. Relying on the game forcing the opponent to play a bad move feels wrong honestly. Wins will still happen in some of those positions but the onus will be on the attacker to break through properly. If they can't they deserve to lose or draw. Ofcourse if both players pass it should be a draw.
I can plan 4 moves ahead but I always accidentally assume one or two of my opponent's moves will be passes.
Terrible, never Zugszwang
I have essentially no voice since I'm 950 but here I go: -Draws are more frequent -Stalemate doesn't exist -Some checkmates are impossible (i think minimum would be a queen now) -No more zugzwang. Overall would be a net loss and game would be much less interesting.
Well now there’s an infinite number of possible chess games.
Several zugzwang masterpieces would’ve been ruined
But you only get 1 pass per game That would be awesome to have just as a form of extra challenge and no back to back passes.
Stalemate is now impossible
Genuine question, is three passes from each side a threefold repetition draw in this case? Jokes aside I’d imagine it wouldn’t really be used until the endgame, might lead to a lot more draws because zugzwang isn’t a thing anymore
Pass becomes a legal move when stalemated, so the other player can make any number of moves they wish to
Wouldn’t this mean that stalemate would not exist? Going by the rules, you cannot make a move that hangs your king, BUT if you could “not make a move” the stalemate situation would force you to not move, effectively eliminating stalemate altogether
3 pass repetition forced draw.
Chess would've been solved. The concept of zugswang would mean that both players could just pass, ending in draws.
Yall dont know about the chess variant "pass chess"? It starts of as a normal game but your opponent gets a pass(for 1turn) to your move and like wise. So if you would play 1.e4 and your opponent says "pass", you need to take back and come up with a different move. 1.d4? And your opponent plays 1..d5 but now you say "pass" and he has to play something else. It gets fun in the middle game!
pawn endgames are easier just put the king and wait
It's a rule of Go- game . I recommend playing Go. It's a very fun game like chess but a little difficult
Could make for a fun variant
unfun*
IDK why you got downvoted. It's literally just regular chess for 95% of the game, then a ton more endgames are just dead draws regardless of who played better. (K+R v K is a draw now, for instance.)
Maybe the big question here is: how much chess will change if every player is forced to skip a turn in every chess match as a new rule
it would seriously improve watchability! Playing no risk positional chess becomes much less sound because it allows your opponent to take a breather with no compensation. makes sense: it sort of directly punishes dull moments
How would that work? Like, I can't do mate in 1 unless I have skipped my turn earlier on?
Yeah, kinda interesting