Talk:Corresponding squares

About Lasker-Reichhelm position

According to the renowned Pawn Endings expert Ilya Maizelis, Emanuel Lasker composed this study and presented it in a series of conferences held in the USA in 1901. The position with White and Black Kings at a3 and a8 respectively, was published in the Manchester Evening News by Lasker. The same year, Augustus Reichhelm published a similar study in the Chicago Tribune. Reichhelm’s position was with White and Black Kings at a1 and a7 respectively, which improve the theoretical value of Lasker’s original position.
Maizelis who asked Lasker himself about this story, reports that Lasker claimed paternity of that study and admitted to have met Reichhelm in 1904 in Philadelphia where Reichhelm showed him his improvement.
Consequently, this position does not seem to result directly from a game between Lasker and Reichhelm, although it is not clear whether it could result from analyses from such a game. Another point to be elucidated is whether Reichhelm heard about Lasker’s study and merely improved it, or independently composed his own study from personal analyses based on a position from a presumable although unknown game between both players.

Source : Finales de Pions, Editions Hatier (1982), p218

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.87.4 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be right, even though the reference says that it is from a game. Neither ChessGames.com nor ChessBase have such a game in their database. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is terrible

This page gives a lot of examples with the corresponding square numbers already filled in. It gives exactly zero explanation of how to fill in those numbers. Useless to someone who doesn't already know the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.211.222 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is in the text. For instance, for the first example "Suppose the black king moves to the square labeled "1" near him (square c8). Then if the white king moves to the corresponding square (also labeled "1", square c6), he wins. Conversely, if the white king moves to the "1" square then the black king must move to the corresponding square to draw." The information about which positions are wins and which are draws is beyond the scope of this article, but it is covered in king and pawn versus king endgame, referred to in the first part of the paragraph. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the question refers to the very first sentence that is put in very general term about zugzwang. And that there is no definition or statement at that level, that could be then made more concrete in the examples. Rather than distributing the explanation with out a common description over the examples. Perhaps adding sub-headers in each examples tying back to the very first paragraph generality might help too. Or a reference to where such treatment supporting the first statement or others hinting at more general cases than the examples. I am also curious about the construction, it might help me not having to remember each case particular corresponding squares, but be able to reconstruct them too. It seems that it is an exact method. I do understand that such a tool is meant to be helpful while playing, and if the method complexity is greater than the object of its application, as player it may not be useful. So the question is perhaps a curiosity of methodology. Dbague (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)