Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

You are confused about both "zugzwang" and "Hobson's choice."

"Zugzwang" does not mean that all choices are bad.  It means that the
compulsion to act is a disadvantage. Such situations are extremely rare:
usually some form of inactivity or transferring the necessity to act
onto another can occur.  Still, the phrase *is* used in studies of
international relations and in military history.

"Hobson's choice" is not between awful ones.  It is the choice between
having whatever (one) thing is offered or taking nothing at all.  The
whole point is that Hobson did not offer a choice between bad horses;
you could take the one he offered or do without.

If "zugzwang" describes a situation, then using "Hobson's choice" would
be an error.  If there exists a way to avoid acting, then "zugzwang" is
wrong.  Further, an apparently bad result in a particular situation can
be part of a winning strategy.  It is for this reason that, for example,
the choice between folding and throwing more money in the pot when
holding a losing poker hand is not a zugzwang situation.  Unlike chess,
where the compulsion to move can create a crippling situation, folding
on these hands is part of a longer-term winning strategy.

I've heard it used very rarely in a non-chess context, but in those
cases it was always used by a chess-player and usually to another
chess-player.  "Hobson's choice" isn't a very exact repalcement, since
in zugzwang you have several choices but they all have a bad result;
in a Hobson's choice you have only one choice: take it or leave it,
and it may not have a bad result.  "Lose-lose" or "no-win" might be a
better replacement for "zugzwang."