On Feb 21, 3:24 am, "Jason 911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

No, because the initial position can never arise with black to move.
Nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for White.

That is faulty logic.

No, you're the idiot with the faulty logic "help boy". Anyone with a 7 year
old's level of reading comprehension

The creature known as Jason Repa clearly is lacking a proper
education in this area, the area of "logic and reason".

Here, for the record, is a simplified explanation which, it is
hoped, even the lowly creatures and simpletons might at least
begin to be able to comprehend:

----------

In order for the idea above to be considered "valid" from the
logical standpoint, it would be *necessary* for his stated reason
to be "true", and otherwise in all cases the "conclusion" to be
"false". This is so on account of him using the term "because".
Had he not used that term, I obviously would have responded
very differently.

In sum, he argued:

1) that the initial position in chess can not be a mutual
zugzwang, *unless* it is the case that Black can achieve
the identical position while having the move.

2) In addition, he argued that Black can in fact *not*
achieve the same position, while having the move.

And, *combining* these two conditions, he "concluded"
that no, it cannot be mutual zugzwang.

Of course, this is obviously a gross error, for there is
at least one other way for the initial position to be a
mutual zugzwang, and I dare say he quite carelessly
overlooked the possibility.




The initial position can NEVER arise with black to move.

Quite irrelevant, whether or not it may be true.

To sum up, both Mr. Richerby AND the imbecile known
as Jason Repa have much to learn about logic and reason.

Yet I imagine the creature will have grave difficulties in
learning anything, as it displays a certain lack of mental
faculty, along with a disposition which is anything but
conducive to learning. How unfortunate, for the creature
obviously has so much to learn!

-- help bot