[Gehinnn]

Well, applying "zugzwang" means you only win because the opponent has to do a move and cannot skip their turn.

When black has a winning strategy, black already applies "zugzwang" for white's very first move: Black only wins because white has to make a move. If white could skip, black would not win.

> Edit: it may be that the statement "without Zugzwang" implicitly (or perhaps by definition) means you are allowed to skip moves?

Yes. It's not well defined, but I'd say a non-zugzwang win is a win (or rather a winning position) where you would also win when your opponent can skip their turn. A zugzwang win is a win that is not a non-zugzwang win.

[franknstein]

Ahh okay I think I get it now, you are saying if chess is win for black, that immediately implies zugzwang for white from starting position. In the same way, chess being a win for white implies zugzwang for black starting position.

So chess being a win for one side is equivalent to starting position being zugzwang for the other side.

It's obvious now, but so interesting to me, I never thought about it that way! Thanks for taking time for explaining yourself.

[Gehinnn]

White could win without zugzwang! Because white starts. After the first move, the position is no longer symmetric, so it doesn't help black to skip to switch sides.