Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a couple leaders felt the compulsion to move. Taiwan is a similar situation: the best policy is "strategic ambiguity", which is holding for now, but is a bit of an unstable equilibrium.
More relevant to a business site, this is the situation many large corporations find themselves in. Say you're Google and you own an immensely profitable monopoly. The very best thing you can do is nothing; anything you do risks upsetting the delicate competitive equilibrium that you're winning. If you're an executive, how do you do nothing? You can't very well hire thousands of employees to do nothing and pay them to do it. But if you don't have thousands of employees, and your job is doing nothing, how do you justify the millions that they're paying you?
The strategy many executives use is to set different parts of their organization at odds with each other, so that they each create busywork that other employees must do. Everybody is fully utilized, and yet in the big picture nothing changes. Oftentimes they will create big strategic initiatives that are tangential to the golden goose, spending billions on boondoggles that don't actually do anything, because the whole point is to do nothing while seeming like you need thousands of people to do it. And the whole reason for that is because most people are very bad at sitting still, and so if you didn't pay them a whole lot to do nothing useful, the useful stuff they'd be doing would be trying to compete with and unseat you. (You can also see this in the billion dollar paydays that entrepreneurs get when they mount a credible threat of unseating the giant incumbent.)
Geopolitically, the no-action move is rarely unavailable. The motivation to do something rash like start a war out of the blue is often down to the decision of a single person. That leader may have political reasons to do it but they aren’t being forced to do it, as they would in a turn-based game.
That’s a bit cynical to view every corporate action through that lens. There’s certainly the innovator’s dilemma, and plenty of busy work, but to your Google example, plenty of tasks and developments are needed to keep the thing running.
Detect and counter black hat SEO, build or acquire a new product you can spread ads to (Maps, YouTube), create a chatbot that can eventually get ads if search is supplanted. These things support or maintain that monopoly/equilibrium you’re talking about.
>Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a couple leaders felt the compulsion to move. Taiwan is a similar situation: the best policy is "strategic ambiguity", which is holding for now, but is a bit of an unstable equilibrium.
This isn't the case at all.
Obama HAD a deal with Iran that Trump tanked in his first term. Israel did not have to respond to a terrorist attack with genocide. Trump could have said No to Netanyahu who clearly threatened to attack Iran with or without us, it turns out we could indeed put pressure on them not to attack, but TACO.
Everything that's happening in the middle east is a series of blunders by fools.
And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Hamas could choose not to kill 800-some civilians and take 250 hostages, etc.
why would Iran not make a nuke when America keeps bombing countries that don't have nukes, and avoids bombing countries that have nukes (most notably North Korea)? They have all the incentives to have a nuke so they'll stop getting bombed. Obama negotiated to avoid this but Trump ripped it up and fined them, so they're definitely not going to trust any agreements with the west ever again. From their perspective, their only path to not getting bombed to shit involves having several nukes. It's quite rational for them to do that.
In old-school chess AIs, zugzwang is also of interest because it can break null-move pruning[0], which is a way to prune the search tree. "Null move" just means "skip your turn", and the assumption that skipping your turn is always worse than the optimal move. But in zugzwang positions, that assumption is wrong, so you have to avoid doing null-move pruning.
Stockfish's heuristic for "risk of zugzwang" is basically "only kings and pawns left over", alongside logic for "is null-move pruning even useful right now" [1]:
The metaphoric meaning of being under “Zugzwang” in German is very similar to “forcing someone’s hand”, from the perspective of the one whose hand is being forced. It means being forced to act, as opposed to not taking action.
It's kind of an illusion when you think about it. "Whose turn it is" is an inseparable part of the game state. If any move makes the game state worse this turn, then the game state was already bad before this turn.
In MTG control decks and a subset of that, prison decks are the prime and extreme example of that. Especially something like Lantern Control. It's not about winning, it's about trapping your opponent _not able to_ win.
I recently happened upon a comment (not on HN) that seemed to treat 'zugzwang' as a synonym for 'deadlock'. Possibly because 'zugzwang' sounds really cool and makes your inner voice sound intelligent to your inner ear.
More accurately, it’s being forced to move a specific piece despite disadvantages, because not moving it would result in an even worse outcome — as opposed to moving a different piece that you’d otherwise prefer to move. So it means being forced to move that piece instead of not moving it (instead of moving a different piece).
And that’s the generalized meaning in German, being forced to act with respect to a specific thing, where you’d normally prefer to leave it in its current state.
Differences being Zugzwang explicitly doesn’t allow a non-move, and I guess assumes a zero sum game? Whereas a Xanatos Gabmit is flexible enough to accommodate both non-moves, and a non-zero-sum setting.
Either way, for your opponent, all roads lead to ruin.
Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a couple leaders felt the compulsion to move. Taiwan is a similar situation: the best policy is "strategic ambiguity", which is holding for now, but is a bit of an unstable equilibrium.
More relevant to a business site, this is the situation many large corporations find themselves in. Say you're Google and you own an immensely profitable monopoly. The very best thing you can do is nothing; anything you do risks upsetting the delicate competitive equilibrium that you're winning. If you're an executive, how do you do nothing? You can't very well hire thousands of employees to do nothing and pay them to do it. But if you don't have thousands of employees, and your job is doing nothing, how do you justify the millions that they're paying you?
The strategy many executives use is to set different parts of their organization at odds with each other, so that they each create busywork that other employees must do. Everybody is fully utilized, and yet in the big picture nothing changes. Oftentimes they will create big strategic initiatives that are tangential to the golden goose, spending billions on boondoggles that don't actually do anything, because the whole point is to do nothing while seeming like you need thousands of people to do it. And the whole reason for that is because most people are very bad at sitting still, and so if you didn't pay them a whole lot to do nothing useful, the useful stuff they'd be doing would be trying to compete with and unseat you. (You can also see this in the billion dollar paydays that entrepreneurs get when they mount a credible threat of unseating the giant incumbent.)
Geopolitically, the no-action move is rarely unavailable. The motivation to do something rash like start a war out of the blue is often down to the decision of a single person. That leader may have political reasons to do it but they aren’t being forced to do it, as they would in a turn-based game.
That’s a bit cynical to view every corporate action through that lens. There’s certainly the innovator’s dilemma, and plenty of busy work, but to your Google example, plenty of tasks and developments are needed to keep the thing running.
Detect and counter black hat SEO, build or acquire a new product you can spread ads to (Maps, YouTube), create a chatbot that can eventually get ads if search is supplanted. These things support or maintain that monopoly/equilibrium you’re talking about.
Two teams, one digs holes, the other one fills holes. Maybe an advice by Keynes during the Great Depression.
people mock communism for this, but capitalism also does it all the time
>Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a couple leaders felt the compulsion to move. Taiwan is a similar situation: the best policy is "strategic ambiguity", which is holding for now, but is a bit of an unstable equilibrium.
This isn't the case at all.
Obama HAD a deal with Iran that Trump tanked in his first term. Israel did not have to respond to a terrorist attack with genocide. Trump could have said No to Netanyahu who clearly threatened to attack Iran with or without us, it turns out we could indeed put pressure on them not to attack, but TACO.
Everything that's happening in the middle east is a series of blunders by fools.
And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Hamas could choose not to kill 800-some civilians and take 250 hostages, etc.
why would Iran not make a nuke when America keeps bombing countries that don't have nukes, and avoids bombing countries that have nukes (most notably North Korea)? They have all the incentives to have a nuke so they'll stop getting bombed. Obama negotiated to avoid this but Trump ripped it up and fined them, so they're definitely not going to trust any agreements with the west ever again. From their perspective, their only path to not getting bombed to shit involves having several nukes. It's quite rational for them to do that.
Small correction: Israel has been doing a genocide continually since 1948 - it didn't start in 2023.
In old-school chess AIs, zugzwang is also of interest because it can break null-move pruning[0], which is a way to prune the search tree. "Null move" just means "skip your turn", and the assumption that skipping your turn is always worse than the optimal move. But in zugzwang positions, that assumption is wrong, so you have to avoid doing null-move pruning.
Stockfish's heuristic for "risk of zugzwang" is basically "only kings and pawns left over", alongside logic for "is null-move pruning even useful right now" [1]:
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-move_heuristic[1]: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/1a882ef...
The metaphoric meaning of being under “Zugzwang” in German is very similar to “forcing someone’s hand”, from the perspective of the one whose hand is being forced. It means being forced to act, as opposed to not taking action.
It's kind of an illusion when you think about it. "Whose turn it is" is an inseparable part of the game state. If any move makes the game state worse this turn, then the game state was already bad before this turn.
In MTG control decks and a subset of that, prison decks are the prime and extreme example of that. Especially something like Lantern Control. It's not about winning, it's about trapping your opponent _not able to_ win.
I recently happened upon a comment (not on HN) that seemed to treat 'zugzwang' as a synonym for 'deadlock'. Possibly because 'zugzwang' sounds really cool and makes your inner voice sound intelligent to your inner ear.
The difference to a deadlock is that a deadlock is a inability to move, the zugzwang is an obligation to move.
An obligation to move to your disadvantage.
The disadvantage is the fact that you're obligated to move. The outcome of the move is not determined though.
“Any legal move will worsen their position”, so the outcome of your move is determined to be inherently negative.
More accurately, it’s being forced to move a specific piece despite disadvantages, because not moving it would result in an even worse outcome — as opposed to moving a different piece that you’d otherwise prefer to move. So it means being forced to move that piece instead of not moving it (instead of moving a different piece).
And that’s the generalized meaning in German, being forced to act with respect to a specific thing, where you’d normally prefer to leave it in its current state.
The word has it's use outside the chess world though and there it is as I wrote it.
Do corporations get drawn to AI from a compulsion to make a move addressing it?
"Fear of missing out"
The only way to win is not to play.
Sounds a bit like a Xanatos Gambit
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit
Differences being Zugzwang explicitly doesn’t allow a non-move, and I guess assumes a zero sum game? Whereas a Xanatos Gabmit is flexible enough to accommodate both non-moves, and a non-zero-sum setting.
Either way, for your opponent, all roads lead to ruin.