THE LEPUSCHÜTZ THEME
by Hans Peter Rehm, Germany
III. Doubling the theme
Doublings of the theme are very rare (in parallel variations as well as in one variation).
I believe a lot could be done in this (admittedly difficult) field.
23. A. Wassilenko
cm Die Schwalbe 1992 |
The next Nr.23 is an extension of Nr.4 to 4 moves, but
I believe this is well justified by the finer play with dual avoidance.
1,Rf4?, 1.Rf3? too slow. 1.Rf7 Qh6+ 2.Rf4+ Re6 3.Sf6+(Sc3+?) Sf6: 4.Qc4# 1... Qh3+ 2.Rf3+
Qe6 3.Sc3+(Sf6+?) 4.Qe4# 1... cb5:/Sg7/Rb4/c4 2.Qa8+/Sf6+/Sc3+/Qa8. Type R/Q-closing
of black line + R/Q-advance. The type "closing of black line" is only
in this (and the next) problem. I felt that the construction should be improved.
24. Hans Peter Rehm
(after A. Wassilenko)
Die Schwalbe 1993 |
Nr.24: 1.Sf3+? Bf3: 2.Qd4+ Sd4:, 1.Rc3? too slow as is 1.Rd3? 1.Rg3
[2.Rg5+ hg5 3.Qg5: 4.Bf4:] Qc1+ 2.Rc3 Qf4 3.Sf3+ (Sc6+?) Bf3:,ef3+ 4.Qd4# 1... Qf1+ 2.Rd3+
Qf4 3.Sc6+(Sf3+? ef3+!) Sc6: 4.Rd5. Type R/Q-closing of black line + R/Q-advance.
25. Hans Peter Rehm
2.pr Schweizerische
Schachzeitung 1963 |
Nr.25: 1,Kb3? too slow, 1.Kc3 Ba5+ 2.Kb3 Bd8 3.gh3!
[thr.(f5) 4.Bf1 Ke4 5.Se5 f4 6.Bg2+] f6! 4.Kc3(4.Kc2?) Ba5+ 5.Kc2 Bd8 6.e4+ Kd4: 7.Se6. In
order to get a threat forcing f7-f6 we need an additional guard on c4; having forced f6
the guard of d3 has to be restored. Both is done with the thematical manoeuvre. Type K/B-guard
of a flight square + K/B-guard of a flight square. The elegant mechanism was also
used in collaboration with my friend Stephan Eisert.
26. Stephan Eisert &
Hans Peter Rehm
1-2.pr Die Schwalbe 1967 |
Nr.26: Instead of nice model mates we tried to make
deeper reasons for doing the thematical pendulum. Who would suspect in the diagram that
the position of Kf6 is bad because the diagonal h8-d4 is closed? But 1.ab6? is refuted
only by 1... Bf2!! 2.b7 Be3: 3.b8Q Bd2:, which without Kf6 could be answered by 4.Qh8:+
Kd5 5.Qe5#. So 1.Ke6 Bc8+ 2.Ke7 Ba6 3.ab6 [4.Sf5+ Kd5 5.Rc5#] cb6 (not Bf2?). The
Probespiel of Führung Ke7-f6 back is now 4.b5? cb5? 5.Ke6, but 4... Sg6+ Bg6: cb5, and
6.Ke6 is not strong enough since Sf5 closes the bishop's line. (Black forced the critical
move Bb1:g6). But after 4.Ke6 Bc8+ 5.Kf6 Ba6 6.b5 Black has only 6... cb5 7.Ke6 Bc8+
8.Rc8: 9.Sf5#. By walking out of the line White walks into a check which allows Black to
force a critical move. Type K/B-line opening + K/B-walk out of check.
27. Stephan Eisert &
Hans Peter Rehm
4.pr Europe Echecs 1974 |
Nr.27: 1.g4? h1Q!, 1.Kd6 Bf8+ 2.Kd7! [3.Rf4+] Bh6 3.g4
[4.Sf2+] h1S 4.Kd6 Bf8+ 5.Kc6 Bh6 6.Sc5+ Ke5: 7.Rf5. Here our aim was to make the king's
pendulum less obvious because now it grants a flight (d5). Type K/B-walk out of
pin + K/B-guard of flight square. At first sight Kc6-d7 is done to guard e6. But
this is not correct thinking because it would not be necessary to control e6: after 1.g4?
we need no guard on e6 by the white king (threat 2.Sc5:+). The guard only compensates the
loss of control of c,d5. Thus White is forced to exchange his threat 2.Sc5: for the weaker
one on f2 for which there is a direct defence h1S. By the switchback the stronger threat
is restored.
From these examples the reader may learn that the same basic mechanism leads to rather
different problems if the logic for doing things is different.
I cannot resist to cite here a wonderful problem which is not strictly thematical, but
close to the spirit of the theme.
28. Milan R. Vukcevich
1.pr The Problemist 1980 |
Nr.28: 1.Bb8? Rc3: or cb3 (Probespiel, not try!), 1.c4?
again too slow (b1Q or Se2). We need a lot of Beschäftigung before these moves become
strong enough. 1.Se6 Bf2+ 2.Sc5 Bg3 3.Sd7 Bf2+ 4.Sb6 Bg3 5.c4! Bc4: (now forced because of
the threat 5.Sd5: Bf2+ 6.Se3 Be3: 7.Ka8 8.g4#) 6.Sd7 Bf2+ 7.Sc5 Bg3 8.Se6 Bf2+ 9.Sd4 Bg3
10.Kb8 b1Q 11.Se6 12.Sf4+ 13.g4#. A lot of moving around after checks causing a weakness.
The only thing "missing" is that the Probespiel for the Führung is absent
(playing the move without check). But this is more by chance. If the knight d4 would have
power to do the moves 1.Sd4-c5, Sc5-b6 etc (say S+fers) the problem would present our
theme correctly 4-fold.
Some will perhaps suggest not to ask for the Probespiel of the Führung in our theme. But
then the theme becomes less clear-cut: problems where a white king runs away (being
constantly checked) would be thematical if one of the checks causes a weakness in black's
position.
|