THE LEPUSCHÜTZ THEMEby Hans Peter Rehm, Germany

5. Hans Lepuschütz Deutsche Schachzeitung 1940 

#5 
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 Ka6b7).
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/Rguard
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.
6. Erich Zepler 1.pr Johann Berger MT 1935 

#4 
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/Qwalk 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.
7. Gerald Sladek 1.cm Clube de Xadrez Sao Paolo 1956 

#4 
Nr.7: 1.Bg5? h2, 1.Kf3? h2!, 1.Re8 Re8:+ 2.Kf3 Kg8 3.Bg5. Same type as Nr.5 (K/Rguard of a flight) more economical but less deep.
8. Hans Lepuschütz Arbeiterzeitung 1950 

#4 
Nr.8: 1.Bd4? Qd4:+, 1.Ka3?, 1.Rg4 [2.Rg7:] Qg4:+ 2.Ka3 Qg7 3.Bd4 Qd4: 4.f8Q. Type K/Qwalk out of later check.
9. Dieter Kutzborski 1.pr Europe Echecs 1971 

#6 
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/Qwalk out of later check. This charming problem uses the same mate finish as the previous one.
10. Alois Johandl 1.pr Schach 1975 

#7 
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/Qguard 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.
11. Hans Lepuschütz 4.pr Schach Magazin 1947 

#5 
Nr.11: 1.Bh2? Rh2:, 1.Ka1?, 1.Rh8 Rh8: 2.b8Q Rb8:+ 3.Ka1 Rh8 4.Bh2 Rh2: 5.Qf1:. Type: K/Rwalk 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).
12. Ado Kraemer (after Hans Lepuschütz) Die Welt 1949 

#4 
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/Rwalk 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 ringtourney for all
problems from all German papers and there he could not avoid winning a prize.
13. Hans Lepuschütz Josef Halumbirek 1. pr Deutsche Schachzeitung 1942 

#5 
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/Qwalk 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.
14. Hans Lepuschütz 1.pr Schach Magazin 1947 

#5 
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/Rwalk out of later pin.
Home  weiter 