Employment management

The employment Steering is (sometimes abbreviated in solution meetings with "BL") a topic of chess problem . In the case of employment control, black stones are only forced (steered) to move for one reason: to “employ” them, so that Black cannot do anything against White's improvement in position. Employment steering systems have similarities with maneuvers that are known from the game of chess, for example the duration of chess or the repetition of the position .

The concept of employment control was introduced by Erich Brunner in 1930, but tasks of this type are older, including those by Brunner himself. They are not infrequently combined with spectacular chess provocations (Lepuschütz topic): White puts himself to chess in order to implement his plan. The topic has proven to be very fruitful in problem chess, but the name itself has been criticized for reasons of principle. Today one often speaks simply of the employment of blacks.

Conceptualization

The motif of black occupation in chess compositions has been around for a long time. The Encyclopedia of Chess Problems cites a position by Giambattista Lolli published in 1763 as an example . As an independent topic, however, it only came into focus with the establishment of the New German School of Chess Composition in the 20th century, whose main interest was the logical structure of chess problems (it is also referred to as the "logical school"). Chess composers of the New German School such as Friedrich Palitzsch systematized the maneuvers with which White forces black stones to move in order to achieve damage that enables mate in the given number of moves. These maneuvers have since been called indirect maneuvers or black stone steering . However, there are also steering systems of black stones that do not cause any damage, indeed no permanent change in position at all, and are still decisive for the matte. Erich Brunner , who was close to the New German School, has been composing assignments since 1910 that focus on the subject of such employment management . However, he first formulated it in the course of the invitation to tender for a themed tournament for chess compositions in 1930.

In the 6th international problem tournament of the Dresdner Anzeiger in 1930, chess problems were invited that show "direct maneuvers in 3, 4 or 5-move logical combination problems". The judge of this tournament was Erich Brunner. In an article that was printed in the Wiener Schachzeitung , he gave some hints on how to interpret the demands of the tournament. In this article he also referred to "a special type of control" which he defined as "pure employment control". He illustrated this type of steering with a composition of his own that he had published in 1914.

Erich Brunner
Deutsche Schachblätter , dedicated to
David Przepiorka in 1914

	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H
8th									8th
7th									7th
6th									6th
5									5
4th									4th
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H

Checkmate in four moves

Solution:

White's mate plan is 1. Qh8 mate, but that doesn't work because white rook h5 is in the way. Easy 1. Thg5? (threatens 2. Qh8 mate) would lead to the refutation 1.… b1S +! hit, and White would no longer be able to mate. Also the eviction victim 1.Rxd5 +? does not achieve the goal, as this enables Black to defend 2 ... Re5 after 1 ... Rxd5 2.Qh8 +.

To overcome the obstacle, it is necessary to better represent the white pieces, not black stones steer , but white stones lead . Such guided tours or direct maneuvers are what were asked for in the tender. In this case white has to change the function of the white rooks. During this direct maneuver, the black man is to be kept busy so that he does not have time for disruptive maneuvers.

1. Rh5 – h3! There is a threat of 2.Rxd3 + Bxd3 3.Rxd3 mate. Because of White's additional power on the 3rd row, 1.… b1S + is no longer sufficient: 2. Qxb1 Bxb1 3. Rxd3 + Lxd3 4. Rxd3 mate or 2.… Ra3 3. Qb2 + Rc3 4. Qxc3 mate. So the black tower has to intervene. He can afford that at the moment because the white player has given up the pressure on d5 in the key move.

1.… Ra5 – a3 2. Rg3 – g5. Since the black rook has left his post on the 5th row, 3. Rxd5 simply threatens to be mated, the rook has to go back.

2.… Ra3 – a5. The starting position has been reached again, with the one difference that the other white rook is now aiming at d3, namely the rook on the h-file, which was initially in the way. You can now make it disappear with an eviction victim:

3. Rh3xd3 + Bc2xd3 4. Qh1 – h8 mate.

Definitions

Brunner commented that in the above task the black rook was steered twice : on the first move away from the 5th row (covering d5), on the second move away from the 3rd row again (covering d3). However, the result is not, as with real steering, damage that White could exploit. "Black was only 'employed' by the steering, while White was now able to carry out the value-creating reallocation of his forces." Brunner defined this type of steering, which exclusively serves employment, as employment steering. In this case, the topic of employment control is linked to the topic of the (white) exchange towers , which also comes from Brunner.

In his book about Erich Brunner, Hans Klüver expressed the idea of ​​employment control as follows: “Black is [...] 'employed', which prevents him from developing his powers as desired. Black is 'held down' without causing him any direct damage. The damage is indirect: white can improve his position without black having time to prevent white. The essence of the BL lies in the prevention of disruptions. ”At the same point he also summed up the often-voiced criticism of the designation: steering always causes direct damage, so it is basically unjustified to even address employment steering as steering. Klüver therefore classified them under the "floating forms" between leadership and steering.

Werner Sidler brought the concept of speed gain into play in his problem chess dictionary under the keyword "employment control" : "A direct maneuver of a speed gain combination in the end goal : through mere 'employment' [...] White gets his own figure right." Or, like Herbert Grasemann wrote: "White wants to gain a decisive pace and for this purpose [...] must steal [the black] time by casually 'employing' him elsewhere."

These definitions have slightly different accents, but all place value on one thing: employment controls have the sole purpose of employing black people, of “stealing time” from them. As soon as the black moves bring about a change that helps checkmate, such as knocking away a disturbing white stone or reducing black power, there are real controls and no longer occupational controls. If one compares the position before and after the employment control, it is only the white traits that have brought about a change, while the black traits are "completely irrelevant" in the result .

Because of its origin in the New German School, the topic is often referred to in English texts with the Germanism "occupation". In the Encyclopedia of Chess Problems , a paraphrase is used as a keyword: "Decoy, to keep the opponent busy", for example: "Steering to keep the opponent busy". In their new edition of Grasemann's book, Hans Peter Rehm and Stephan Eisert suggested the term “keeping-busy maneuver” (for example: “employment maneuver”), which avoids the problematic term “steering”.

distribution

The idea of ​​mere employment of the opponent is not uncommon in principle, not even in game chess, even if there it is often connected with secondary purposes. Brunner already saw the "purest expression" of this idea in the well-known draw maneuvers of repetition of moves and continuous chess. It was unusual, however, to isolate such combinations and to present them in their pure form in a strictly logically structured chess problem as the essential content. As a minor ingredient, however, they are relatively common. Examples can be found in abundance in studies (for example in a well-known study by Paul Heuäcker ), but also in problems, especially in connection with pendulum maneuvers.

Herbert Grasemann wrote in 1981 that employment management had already "become common property" for the thirty to forty-year-olds at the time and "hardly appears as a fundamental idea", but as a construction aid to represent other topics, as an "important constructive marginal motif". However, there are further developments in employment control where this topic is still the main content of a chess composition.

Further developments

In 1958, Hans Küver stated that the management of employment in chess composition had almost become a fashionable topic. This is due not least to the compositions by Hans Lepuschütz , who combined the topic with chess provocation , a form of employment control for which Hans Peter Rehm suggested a name of his own: the Lepuschütz theme . Rehm's definition: “A certain lead would be successful if Black didn't have time to defend. That is why White allows a chess, and as a reaction to this chess the leadership is then successful. ”He adds that this paradoxical topic can only be realized if the chess-bidding move leaves Black with a weakness. After the check, Black therefore has to deal with this weakness first, often by taking back the chess-bidding move, and therefore has no time to refute the lead.

Hans Lepuschütz German chess newspaper , 1940

	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H
8th									8th
7th									7th
6th									6th
5									5
4th									4th
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H

Checkmate in five moves

According to Rehm, this problem was perceived as sensational because the solvers found it difficult to understand the seemingly pointless introduction with sacrifice and chess provocation. This is also due to the anything but obvious main plan with its two knight sacrifices.

Solution: White wants to play 2. Nd5 with 1. Rf7 + Kxe6! ( Into Drawing victim threatened twice 3. Sc7 and 3. Nf4 matt) checkmate Kxd5 3. Tf4. But that doesn't work yet because the black king still has the c6 escape square. The also not obvious attempt 1. Kb7? (Leading the king to b7) would remove this obstacle, but Black now has time to prevent the maneuver, for example with 1.… d5 or 1.… Rh8. That is why white begins with a spectacular employment control.

1. Ra2 – a1! Simply threatens 2. Rxh1 and 3.Rh6 mate. The main thematic variant is now:

1.… Rh1xa1 + 2. Ka6 – b7 Ta1 – h1. The rook has to go back because White otherwise mates with 3. Nd5 + Kf5 4. Rg5 + Ke4 5. Bh7, so the resulting weakness is that the rook no longer covers the h7-square. This means that only black time has been lost. The fact that Black also captured the white rook is meaningless for the white plan. The only relevant result of the employment control is that the white king could be led at speed to b7. Therefore, the main plan can now be implemented:

3. Rg7 – f7 + Kf6xe6 4. Ne7 – d5! Ke6xd5 5. Rf7 – f4 mate. A sample mat after removing all the white stones not required in the matte picture.

Secondary game: 1.… g2 2. Nd5 + Kf5 3. Rg5 + Ke4 4. Re1 +! Rxe1 5. Bh7 mate; 1.… Rh5 2. Re1 (threatens 3. Rf7 mate) Re5 3. dxe5 + dxe5 4. Nd5 + Kf5 5. Rg5 mate.

Rehm notes that the main board combination with the knight sacrifice on d5 comes from an older problem by Walter Grimshaw . What is meant here is probably a more frequently reprinted exercise by Grimshaw, first published in 1854 , in which the knight sacrifice on f3 has the same function as in Lepuschütz.

After the Second World War, Herbert Grasemann dealt with this topic and presented a series of compositions that show the "employment control in the three-man" (the title of an essay by Grasemann in 1947), i.e. with a more economical number of trains, because he had noticed that earlier tasks were always in four or more classes. Among other things, he succeeded in creating a peasant-less depiction in miniature , which was also extremely reduced in terms of material , with only seven stones. It also contains the chess provocation à la Lepuschütz.

Herbert Grasemann
Schach-Express , 1947
version

	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H
8th									8th
7th									7th
6th									6th
5									5
4th									4th
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H

Checkmate in three moves

Solution:

1. Ke4? (clears the e3-square for the queen) 2. De3 threatens mate. 1.… Bd2! or 1.… Bc3! covers this mate and also keeps an eye on the further mate field a5. But if the white king chooses a detour, he can keep the black bishop busy:

1. Ke3 – d4! Threatening 2. Qc5 mate and 2. Qa6 mate.

1.… Le1 – f2 +. After 1.… Bc3 + 2. Kxc3, mate on a5 cannot be prevented again. By chess, the bishop is currently relieved of cover.

2. Kd4 – e4! Now 3. Qa5 threatens mate. The runner is forced to return.

2.… Bf2 – e1 3. Qa3 – e3 mate. Also pattern matt.

It is noteworthy that the key initially excludes the thematic mate Qe3 because the king is in the way on d4. The target square of the second move can only be e4, because all other king moves allow a second check.

The detour of the white king (e3 – d4 – e4) is similar to a triangle maneuver , but has exactly the opposite purpose: In the triangle maneuver, the detour aims at losing speed so that White can hand over the obligation to move to Black. Employment control, on the other hand, aims to gain a relative speed: White makes one move more than would be necessary to reach the target field, but Black even loses two speeds because he is occupied by White's moves.

In an often reprinted composition, the Austrian Stefan Schneider combined the topic of employment control in Lepuschütz form with the white intersection of the Loyd-Turton . The task also clearly shows how employment control differs from real control.

Stefan Schneider
international match Austria – Switzerland 1977
1st place

	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H
8th									8th
7th									7th
6th									6th
5									5
4th									4th
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H

Checkmate in five moves

The strong black forces can hardly move in this barricaded position, in particular the rook h2 must always keep g2 covered to prevent the jumper matting on this field. But it is not that easy to crack the black bastion. The failed attempt 1. Re7? with the idea of ​​2. Qxe2 + Bxe2 3. Rxe2 + Kd1! shows that the white heavy pieces are in the wrong order. The rook, i.e. the weaker stone, would have to be in front so that in the end the queen on e2 mates. This could be achieved using the Loyd-Turton method, i.e. pushing the white queen back over the intersection e7 so that the rook can stand in front of her. 1. Qe8? but relieves the black queen and gives her time to take countermeasures, such as 1.… Qb2! 2. Re7 Qe5! How can white keep the black busy to get the regrouping at speed?

Solution:

1. Kb7 – a8! This unlikely move threatens 2. Rh7! The black rook is tied to the cover of g2 and may not capture. Black couldn't do anything against 3. Rxh2 and 4. Ng2. Immediately 1. Rh7? fails because in this case 1.… Rxh7 would take place with check and the rook could simply return afterwards. Therefore the white king has to go out of chess with foresight. In return, the chess command is now immediately possible, as with Lepuschütz, but also necessary to parry the threat:

1.… Rh2 – h8 + 2. Qe2 – e8! Threat: 3. Ng2 mate. If Black accepts this surprising queen sacrifice, the rook won't come back in time to cover g2: 2.… Rxe8 + 3. Ka7! (not 3. Kb7 because of 3.… Rb8 + 4. Kxb8 Bh2! and the knight is tied ) Ra8 + 4. Kxa8 and 5. Ng2 mate can only be prevented with a move by the knight f2, but then 5. Nd3 mate.

2.… Rh8 – h2 . The queen has come to e8 at speed and White can carry out his plan:

3. Rd7 – e7 , and against 4. Re7xe2 + Bd1xe2 5. Qe8xe2 mate there is no more defense.

Secondary game: 1.… f5 2. Rh7 Qb2, Da1 3. Rxh2 Qh8 + 4. Rxh8 Nf2 draws 5. Nd3 mate; 1.… b3 (with the idea of ​​2. Rh7 Da3 3. Rxh2 Qf8 +) 2. Qg3! (threatens 3. Nd3 mate) Rh8 + 3. Ka7 Ra8 + 4. Kxa8 and 5. Ng2 or Nd3 mate.

In the main variant, this is an employment control. Black only lost time with the rook moves, which White could use to switch. The secondary variant 2.… Rxe8 +, on the other hand, shows a real (composite) routing: the rook has been forced to move so far away from g2 that it can no longer make the way back. While in the main variant the white queen's move is the decisive change and the black moves have no effect in the result, in the secondary variant it is the black rook moves that make the difference to the starting position.

Erik Zierke and Ralf Krätschmer draw attention to the selection on move 1: White has to “anticipate and avoid any restraints along h2-b8”. So is 1. Kb8? because of 1.… Rh8 + 2. De8 Bh2! and 1. Kc8? because of 1.… Rh8 + 2. De8 Rxe8 + 3. Kb7 Rb8 + 4. Kxb8 Bh2! or 3. Kc7 Bh2! and 1. Kc6? because of 1.… f5! 2.Rh7 Qb2, Qa1 3.Rxh2 Qf6 +! unsatisfactory. They consider this "classic of the Lepuschuetz theme" to be suitable for attracting party chess players to problem chess, "because at first glance the first two white moves must appear completely absurd to them".

That the issue of employment Steering allows not only related to chess provocation impressive diagrams showing an award winning task Grasemanns of 1963. "A three-time Tower opposition as persecution motif proves to be refined employment guidance to enforce a pace eviction", comment Wolfgang Dittmann , Armin spirits and Dieter Kutzborski in her Grasemann book.

Herbert Grasemann
German Chess Newspaper , 1963 , 1st prize dedicated to
Hans Klüver
Version Arnold legs

	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H
8th									8th
7th									7th
6th									6th
5									5
4th									4th
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	G	H

Checkmate in six moves

Solution:

Without the white rook f1, mate would go in two moves: 1. Qg1 (threatens 2. Qg5 mate) Kxf4 3. Qf1 mate. The opening 1. Rh1? becomes with 1.… e2! 2. Qg1 e1D + answered sufficiently, is it similar with 1. Rd1? (with the idea of ​​the evacuation sacrifice on d5) e2 2. Rd5 + Rxd5 3. Qg1 e1D +. The white rook has to occupy the black rook, in fact pursue it , so that Black doesn't make defensive moves like e2 or Bxg7, and not just once, but three times.

1. Rf1 – b1! There is a threat of 2. Rxb5 + axb5 3. Qe5 mate or 2.… Kxf4 3. Qf1 mate.

1.… Rb5 – c5! The rook has to guard the 5th row (square e5), on 1st… Ra5 the evacuation victim already worked: 2. Rb5 +! and 3. Qg1. 1.… e2 is no longer enough because White can capture the rook: 2. Rxb5 + Kxf4 (2.… axb5 3. De5 mate) 3. De1 (threatens 4. Qf2 mate) e3 4. Re5 and uncoverable mate with 5. Dg3; if 3.… Ke3, then 4. Rb3 + Kf4 5. Qf2 mate. 1.… Bxg7 follows 2. Qxg7 (threatens 3. Qg5 mate) Kxf4 3. Rf1 mate.

2. Rb1 – c1! Rc5 – d5 On 2.… e2 3. Rxc5 + it goes on as above, the mates then happen on move 6.

3. Rc1 – d1! Rd5 – b5 (or 3.… Rc5, Ra5). The rook cannot go any further to the right (3.… Re5 4. Qxe5 mate). If 3.… e2, then 4. Rxd5 + Kxf4 5. De5 + Ke3, Kf3 6. Qg3 mate. Here it is enough within the number of moves because the rook on d5 already prevents escape via the d-file.

If you compare this position with the starting position, only one change has been achieved: White's rook has moved from f1 to d1 without Black being able to interfere. The black rook moves played no role at all for this result. Nevertheless, they had to be forced, because otherwise Black would have had time to prevent the white leadership .

Now the main plan works with the eviction victim:

4. Rd1 – d5 + Rb5xd5 5. Qa1 – g1! Kf5xf4 6. Qg1 – f1 with pattern mate .

In the discussion of the solution, the then problem editor of the Deutsche Schachzeitung , Werner Speckmann , wrote of an "often praised task", but expressed concerns about the "conceptual economy" and recommended a reduction to five moves (with sRb5 to c5). The repeated questioning of the black tower is a "purely external effect that brings nothing new". The judge Josef Breuer disagreed: “The compulsion that lies above the sT can only be fully expressed by the opposing movements of the two actors: 'You have to say it three times!' Here every move in the tower is accompanied by fear: Will it continue to e2? ”The prize awarded by Breuer was endowed with a total of 30 DM .

literature

• Erich Brunner : On the theory of direct maneuvers. Explanations to the 6th Internat. Problem tournament of the "Dresdner Anzeiger" 1930 . In: Wiener Schachzeitung , 1930, No. 11, pp. 174–176. On-line
• Hans Klüver : Floating forms . In: Hans Klüver: Erich Brunner. An artist and interpreter of the chess problem. Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau 1958, pp. 101–110
• Herbert Grasemann : Employment management in the three-move . In: Schach-Express , Vol. 1 (1947), pp. 246-248
• Werner Sidler: Employment control . In: problem chess. List of terms in alphabetical order. Self-published, Lucerne 1968, p. 18
• Herbert Grasemann: The "Employment Control". In: Herbert Grasemann: A Reverend's idea that made history . Self-published, Berlin 1981, pp. 27-29
• Hans Peter Rehm : The Lepuschütz Theme . In: Mat plus , No. 15 (1997), p. 73. Online
• Milan Velimirović , Kari Valtonen: Decoy, to keep the opponent busy. In: The definitive book. Encyclopedia of Chess Problems. Themes and Terms . Chess Informant, new edition, Belgrade 2018 (originally 2012), p. 131

Web links

• Giambattista Lolli's position from 1763 (studio no.28) on lolliscacchi.net
• A 1910 assignment by Brunner , which is believed to be his first employment control, on yacpdb.org
• Konrad Kummer: Employment management - an interesting multi-generational topic . In: Schweizerische Schachzeitung , vol. 57 (1957), p. 13
• Martin Hoffmann: What is employment management? . In: Schweizerische Schachzeitung , vol. 101 (2001), p. 30
• Heinz Gfeller, Beat Wernly: A steering system that isn't . In: K-Post , February 2015, pp. 6-7

Individual evidence

1. ^ Milan Velimirović , Kari Valtonen : The definitive book. Encyclopedia of Chess Problems. Themes and Terms . Chess Informant, new edition, Belgrad 2018, p. 131. See also Kari Valtonen: Modenan koulukunta - modernin tehtävätaiteen edelläkävijä . In: Tehtäväniekka 4–5 / 2013. Online , p. 4.
2. ↑ Friedrich Palitzsch: The distraction, the element of the indirect combination. Riemann, Coburg 1917.
3. ↑ Topic tournament . In: Wiener Schachzeitung , Vol. VIII (XXVII) 1930, No. 8, p. 128. Online .
4. ↑ Erich Brunner: On the theory of direct maneuvers. Explanations to the 6th Internat. Problem tournament of the "Dresdner Anzeiger" 1930 . In: Wiener Schachzeitung , 1930, No. 11, pp. 174–176, here: p. 175. Online .
5. ↑ Erich Brunner: On the theory of direct maneuvers. Explanations to the 6th Internat. Problem tournament of the "Dresdner Anzeiger" 1930 . In: Wiener Schachzeitung , 1930, No. 11, pp. 174–176, here: p. 175. Online .
6. ↑ On the subject of interchangeable towers, see for example Manfred Zucker : 60 Jahre Wechseltürme , in: Die Schwalbe , 1974, issue 30, pp. 240–242, online ; Arno Tüngler: 85 years of exchangeable towers , in: Die Schwalbe , 1999, issue 180, pp. 277–283, online .
7. ↑ Hans Klüver: Erich Brunner. An artist and interpreter of the chess problem. Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau 1958, p. 109.
8. ↑ Werner Sidler: problem chess. List of terms in alphabetical order. Self-published, Lucerne 1968, p. 18.
9. ↑ Herbert Grasemann: A Reverends idea that made history . Self-published, Berlin 1981, p. 27f.
10. ↑ Herbert Grasemann: A Reverends idea that made history . Self-published, Berlin 1981, p. 28.
11. ↑ For example in Hans Peter Rehm's description of the Lepuschütz topic: “A sequence of moves which just loses time but does not leave other vital effects after its completion is called 'Arbeit' in German. So we are concerned in our theme with a specific kind of employment which makes a leadership successful ”(Hans Peter Rehm: The Lepuschütz Theme . In: Mat Plus , 15, 1997, p. 73. Online on berlinthema.de).
12. ^ Milan Velimirović , Kari Valtonen : The definitive book. Encyclopedia of Chess Problems. Themes and Terms . Chess Informant, new edition, Belgrade 2018 (originally 2012), p. 131.
13. ↑ Herbert Grasemann: A Reverends idea that made history . Newly edited and expanded with an essay and a selection of recent problems by Hans Peter Rehm and Stephan Eisert. Editions Fee = Nix, Aachen 2014, p. 177.
14. ^ Brunner quote from Hans Klüver: Erich Brunner. An artist and interpreter of the chess problem. Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau 1958, p. 107.
15. ↑ Herbert Grasemann: A Reverends idea that made history . Self-published, Berlin 1981, p. 28.
16. ↑ Hans Klüver: Erich Brunner. An artist and interpreter of the chess problem. Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau 1958, p. 110.
17. ↑ See Hans Peter Rehm: The Lepuschütz Theme . In: Mat Plus , 15, 1997, p. 73. Online at berlinthema.de. Originally quoted in English: “A specific leadership would be successful if black had not time to defend. So white allows a check, and the leadership is successful as an answer to this check. "" Leadership "appears here as a German term for which there is no adequate translation.
18. ^ Hans Peter Rehm: The Lepuschütz Theme. In: Mat Plus , 15, 1997, p. 73. Part II. Online .
19. ^ Wolfgang Dittmann, Armin Geister, Dieter Kutzborski: Logical fantasies. Herbert Grasemann and his chess problems . De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1986, p. 30. Grasemann's essay appeared in: Schach-Express , vol. 1 (1947), pp. 246–248.
20. ↑ The indication "Version", abbreviated "V.", means in a chess composition that it was changed after the first print (original print), for example to remove secondary solutions or to optimize the position. This optimized position is then the version shown. In this case, the original print (all stones were one field further to the right, see the original task on the PDB server ) had a secondary solution that was eliminated by the corrected version.
21. ↑ See the analysis of the problem in Hans Peter Rehm: The Lepuschütz Theme . In: Mat Plus , 15, 1997, p. 73, online and Erich Zierke, Ralf Krätschmer: Stefan Schneider's chess problems . February 2013, version dated December 1, 2018, p. 96. Online .
22. ↑ Erich Zierke, Ralf Krätschmer: The chess problems of Stefan Schneider . February 2013, version dated December 1, 2018, p. 96. Online .
23. ^ Wolfgang Dittmann, Armin Geister, Dieter Kutzborski: Logical fantasies. Herbert Grasemann and his chess problems . De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1986, p. 144 (No. 109).
24. ↑ The original print (+ sSa8, –sBc7) allowed an alternative for White to continue after the 2nd move in the main line: 1. Rb1 Rc5 2. Rc1 Rd5 3. Rxc8 also leads to mate in six moves. This devaluating dual was not noticed either in the solution discussion or in the price report, but only in 1988, when a solver set his computer on the task (Hans Peter Rehm, Karl-Heinz Siehndel: Additions and Corrections to Logical Fantasies , Wolfgang Dittmann, Armin Geister, Dieter Kutzborski, de Gruyter, 1986. In: Die Schwalbe , Heft 243 and 245, 2010, online ). The version shown here, which eliminates the dual, comes from the editor of the fairy tale chess section of the swallow , Arnold legs. He published it in issue 253 of the Schwalbe (August 2011). The correction can be found online here .
25. ^ Comment largely based on Wolfgang Dittmann, Armin Geister, Dieter Kutzborski: Logical fantasies. Herbert Grasemann and his chess problems . De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1986, p. 144 (No. 109).
26. ↑ Deutsche Schachzeitung , 1964, issue 2, p. 78 (solution discussion); Issue 11, p. 379 (price report).