One sometimes sees the claim that in every chess position, either White has a forced win, or Black has a forced win, or both players can force a draw.
While this claim is "morally" correct, it is technically not quite correct. To be pedantically correct, in the third case, we should say that both players can force at least a draw. The point is that there can exist positions in which neither White nor Black can force a win, but White can force Black to win, and Black can force White to win. In such a scenario, neither player can "force a draw" in the sense of guaranteeing that the game will not terminate in a win for either player.
My question is, has this observation been made before (most likely, by chess problem composers)? I would be surprised if the observation is original, but I have not seen anyone state it explicitly before.
Below is a position (with White to move) that I came up with to illustrate the point. The position is theoretically drawn, and this can be seen without tablebases; the only defense to Black's threat of 1...d1Q+ is 1.f4, after which Black can avoid defeat only with 1...d1Q+ 2.Qxd1 Qxf4+ or 1...Qxf4+ 2.Qxf4 d1Q+ with a draw in either case. But White can force Black to win with 1.Qg2+ Qxg2#, and if White tries to "force a draw" with 1.f4 then Black can force White to win with 1...Qg2+ 2.Qxg2#.
[FEN "8/8/8/8/6Q1/5P2/3p3q/5K1k w - - 0 1"]
I contacted Noam Elkies and he said he had not seen this stipulation before, but he noted that the (known) five-man minimum for a selfmate (see below) also achieves "my" task. White can selfmate with 1.Qg7+ Qxg7#. Either of the alternatives 1.Kf6 or 1.Kh6 leads to a tablebase draw, but also allows Black to selfmate with 1...Qg7+.
[FEN "6qk/4Q3/6K1/8/6b1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]