Zugzwang
A position where any move you make worsens your situation — the compulsion to move is itself the problem.
Published 2026-02-01 | Last verified 2026-02-12
Professor Archer says: Zugzwang is one of those ideas that makes chess feel almost philosophical to me. In life, we generally assume that having options is good and that doing nothing is a missed opportunity. But in chess, there are moments where the very obligation to act is what destroys you. I find that deeply fascinating. It is the game teaching us that sometimes, the wisest course of action — if only it were available — would be to do nothing at all.
Understanding Zugzwang
Zugzwang is one of the most elegant concepts in all of chess, and it runs counter to almost everything we intuitively believe about games. In most competitive situations, having the initiative and being able to act is an advantage. But in zugzwang, the tables are turned entirely: the player who must move is the one who suffers.
The word comes from German and translates roughly to "compulsion to move." In chess, you cannot skip your turn. If it is your move, you must make one, even if every available option makes your position worse. When all of your legal moves lead to a deterioration of your position, you are in zugzwang.
Zugzwang appears most frequently in the endgame, where there are fewer pieces on the board and fewer options available. With a full complement of pieces, it is almost always possible to find a useful or at least neutral move. But when the board is stripped down to kings and a few pawns, the obligation to move can become a fatal burden.
The practical importance of zugzwang cannot be overstated. Many endgames that appear drawn are actually winning for one side because they can maneuver their opponent into zugzwang, forcing a concession that decides the game.
A Classic Zugzwang Position
Consider this textbook position. White's king is on f1, Black's king is on f3, and Black has a pawn on f2. It is White's turn to move.
White is in complete zugzwang. The king must move, but every square is a disaster. Moving to e2 or g2 allows Kg2 followed by pawn promotion. Moving to e1 or g1 allows Ke2 or Kg2 with the same result. There is simply no square where the white king can go without allowing the black pawn to queen.
If White could somehow pass the turn and force Black to move instead, the position would be drawn, because Black would have to move the king away from defending the pawn, and White could capture it. But chess does not allow passing. The compulsion to move is the entire problem.
This is the purest form of zugzwang: a position where doing nothing would hold the draw, but every legal move loses. Study this position carefully, because once you understand it, you will start to see zugzwang patterns everywhere in your endgames.
White to move is in zugzwang. Every king move allows the f2 pawn to promote.
Mutual Zugzwang and Reciprocal Positions
Some positions feature what is called mutual zugzwang: whoever has to move loses, regardless of colour. These are particularly important in theoretical endgames because they determine the boundary between a win and a draw.
In a mutual zugzwang, if it is White's turn, White loses. If it is Black's turn, Black loses. The position itself is perfectly balanced; only the move obligation tips it one way or the other. This connects directly to the concept of opposition — in many king-and-pawn endings, the critical positions are mutual zugzwangs where having the opposition means your opponent is the one who must move and therefore lose.
Recognising mutual zugzwang is a skill that comes with practice and study. The key indicator is when both sides have a limited number of moves, all of which concede something important. Typically the kings are locked in a standoff near pawns, and any king move by either side grants the opponent access to critical squares.
Triangulation, which I mentioned when discussing opposition, is the technique most commonly used to reach these mutual zugzwang positions with the right player to move. By maneuvering your king in a triangle, you effectively lose a tempo and hand the move to your opponent, tipping the mutual zugzwang in your favor.
Zugzwang Beyond the Endgame
While zugzwang is predominantly an endgame phenomenon, it occasionally surfaces in the middlegame as well. These middlegame zugzwangs are rare and spectacular, and they often feature in collections of brilliant games because they defy our expectations about positions with many pieces.
A famous example occurred in the game between Friedrich Saemisch and Aron Nimzowitsch in Copenhagen, 1923. Nimzowitsch gradually restricted all of Saemisch's pieces until White had no constructive move left — a positional masterpiece that demonstrated zugzwang with a nearly full board of pieces. Such games are exceptional, but they illustrate that the principle extends beyond bare king-and-pawn positions.
In practical play, you are far more likely to encounter zugzwang in simplified positions. The fewer pieces on the board, the greater the chance that all available moves are harmful. This is one reason why strong players are willing to trade pieces when they sense a zugzwang is possible: simplification increases the likelihood that the opponent will run out of useful moves.
My advice is to treat zugzwang not as a trick but as a strategic goal. When you have a stable advantage in the endgame, ask yourself: "Can I arrange the pieces so that my opponent has no good move?" If the answer is yes, you may be closer to victory than you think.
Questions About Zugzwang
Can zugzwang happen in the opening?
In theory, any position could be zugzwang, but in practice, the opening has far too many pieces and far too many useful moves for zugzwang to occur. It is virtually unheard of in the opening phase. Zugzwang becomes relevant as pieces are exchanged and options narrow, primarily in the endgame.
How do I force my opponent into zugzwang?
The usual technique is to improve your own position as much as possible, then use triangulation or waiting moves to hand the turn to your opponent at the critical moment. First restrict their pieces, then arrange for them to move when every option is harmful. This requires patience and precise calculation.
Is stalemate related to zugzwang?
Yes, they are related. Stalemate is an extreme form of zugzwang where the player has no legal moves at all and is not in check. In zugzwang, the player has legal moves but all of them are bad. Stalemate ends the game in a draw, while zugzwang continues the game but under duress.
Professor Archer says: When you recognize zugzwang in your own games, you have reached a meaningful level of chess maturity. It means you can see not just what moves do, but what the absence of a good move means. My challenge to you: the next time you reach an endgame, ask yourself, "Is my opponent in zugzwang?" You may be surprised how often the answer is yes — or how close you can maneuver them to that condition.
Quick Quiz
What is the defining characteristic of zugzwang?
- The player has no legal moves at all - That describes stalemate, not zugzwang. In zugzwang, the player has legal moves, but all of them make the position worse.
- The player must move, and every available move worsens their position (Correct) - Correct. Zugzwang means the compulsion to move is itself the problem. The player would prefer to pass, but the rules require a move, and every option is harmful.
- The player's king is in check with limited escape squares - Being in check with limited escapes could be checkmate or simply a check. Zugzwang does not require the king to be in check — it is about every move being undesirable.
- Both players agree the position is a draw - Zugzwang is not an agreement. It is a concrete position where one side is worse specifically because they must move. Zugzwang positions are often decisive, not drawn.