THE LEPUSCHÜTZ THEME

by Hans Peter Rehm, Germany

II. The Lepuschütz theme as main content of a moremover

In all of our #3 examples the Führung had a very obvious purpose. But the finer, deeper, and more unusual the purpose of the Führung the finer the problem.
In this section I collect the problems with the theme as main contents. This cannot be rigidly defined because often other mechanisms and themes happen (e.g. sacrifices). So you see here the problems for which I feel the theme is central and the other things are more used to make it deeper or more spectacular.

Problem Nr.5 caused a sensation when it appeared. It was the first presentation which became famous because of the theme. Solvers found the introduction 1.Ra1 Ra1:+ 2.Kb7 Rh1 unbelievable because it is difficult to spot what White has achieved by this apparently nonsense introduction. But 2 more fine sacrifices (these in fact are taken from an earlier problem by Walter Grimshaw) reveal that it is essential to guard c6: 3.Rf7+ Ke6: 4.Sd5!! Kd5: 5.Rf4#. The Probespiel for the Führung is 1.Rf7+? Ke6: 2.Sd5 Kd5: 3.Rf4+ Kc6 (demonstrates why one needs the Führung Ka6-b7).
The move 1.Kb7? is not a "try" in the modern technical sense since there are several refutations. Nevertheless its existence is indispensable for demonstrating that 1.Ra1 Ra1:+ has the only reason to win a tempo. So in German we have different words for "tries not necessarily uniquely refuted but necessary for demonstrating the logic of the solution" (Probespiel) and for tries which might have nothing to do with the logic of the solution but are uniquely defeated (Verführung). (From now on I will use the more precise German word.) For the logical school an appropriate Probespiel is required. This can but need not be a try in the usual sense (normally it is preferred if it is, but this is not so important). For the ideal logical presentation of our theme we need 2 Probespiele; the first to provide a logical foundation for the Führung, the second to prove that the only reason for allowing the check is to win a tempo.
This problem is so much better than the threemovers we have seen. The type is K/R-guard of a flight. I hope the reader sees from this example that it is much more important how a specific theme or type is shown that simply that is shown.

The first presentation I could find is Nr.6.
1.Ra2+? Qa2: 2.Qb4??, 1.Ke7? Qe1+ or Qe4+, 1.Bf5: Qf5:+ 2.Ke7 Qb1 3.Ra2+. Type K/Q-walk out of later pin. A nice economical position with all necessary Probespiele, but the key piece is out of play which makes the sacrifice 1.Bf5: less spectacular. Erich Zepler was a pioneer for many ideas. This is not so well known because he had the habit not to make big business out of his inventions, did not write articles about them, and left it to others to exploit them. So this first example of our theme is the only one he made.

Nr.7: 1.Bg5? h2, 1.Kf3? h2!, 1.Re8 Re8:+ 2.Kf3 Kg8 3.Bg5. Same type as Nr.5 (K/R-guard of a flight) more economical but less deep.

Nr.8: 1.Bd4? Qd4:+, 1.Ka3?, 1.Rg4 [2.Rg7:] Qg4:+ 2.Ka3 Qg7 3.Bd4 Qd4: 4.f8Q. Type K/Q-walk out of later check.

Nr.9:  1.Bf3? Qf8: 2.c7 Qf3:+, 1.Kh4? Qf8:!, 1.Bc8! Qb3+ 2.Kh4 Qb4+ 3.Bg4+ Qb8 4.Bf3 Qf8: 5.c7+ Qf3: 6.c8Q. Type K/Q-walk out of later check. This charming problem uses the same mate finish as the previous one.

Nr.10: 1.Rc3:? dc3 2.Re4: Qe1 3.Be7+ Kc7 4.Rc4 Kb6, 1.Ka7? too slow. 1.Rh3 Qh1 2.Kb8 Qb1+ 3.Ka7 Qh1 4.Rc3: etc. Type: K/Q-guard of a flight. By the thematical introductory move and the nice moves of the black queen on the 1st row Johandl finds his own way to present the theme.

Nr.11: 1.Bh2? Rh2:, 1.Ka1?, 1.Rh8 Rh8: 2.b8Q Rb8:+ 3.Ka1 Rh8 4.Bh2 Rh2: 5.Qf1:. Type: K/R-walk out of later pin. The author tried to get a deeper combination preparing the thematical check by another sacrifice. For my taste the result is only average since Rb8 and Pb7 are out of play. The basic matrix was used later more successfully (see Nr.33 and Nr.34).

Nr.12: 1.Sd3? Rd2+, 1.Ka3? too slow, 1.Kb2 [2.Qg2+ 3.Qg1+] Rb8+ 2.Ka3! [3.Qe2+] Re8 3.Sd3 [4.Qf2] Re2 4.Qh1. Type: K/R-walk out of later check. This first class miniature was derived from problem Nr.28. Therefore I believe that "after Lepuschütz" is necessary. In fact Kraemer acknowledged that the creative part had been done by Lepuschütz and had sent the problem to a paper without an own Informal tourney. But at that time there was the ring-tourney for all problems from all German papers and there he could not avoid winning a prize.

Nr.13: After 1.Re5+? Kd4: 2.Qc3+ Kc3: the Re5 is pinned. To walk out of this pin by 1.Kg4? is much too slow (e.g. 1... d1Q and White can resign). Hence 1.Kf5! Qd3+ 2.Kg4 Qb5! 3.Re5+ etc. Compare this problem with Nr.5. Which is the better one? Apart from the different type (K/Q-walk out of later pin) the sacrifice in the first move has been avoided. So the key is less spectacular but perhaps more subtle. But I prefer the two sacrifices in Nr.5 to the more brutal sacrifices of the queen since one of them is without check. On the other hand the pin is more subtle than an unguarded square. In summa: The problems seem of equal (top) quality.

Nr.14: 1.Ba4? Se1 2.Sd5 Bf3:!, 1.Rh8 [2.Rh4:] Rh8:+ 2.Ka7 Rh4 3.Ba4 Se1 4.Sd5 Ka2: 5.Sc3. Type K/R-walk out of later pin.

Home

weiter