Stories from the Beauty of Problems

[Hans Jung]

One of the deepest thinkers in chess was Emanuel Lasker. In his Manual of Chess one part explores The Aesthetic Effect in Chess. He may have been the first to delve deeply into this subject with several examples. Quoting from Secrets of Spectacular Chess: 'According to Lasker rhe aesthetic effect in chess depends on the achievement of the pieces. The ideal is when the pieces achieve a difficult task of vital importance (in chess terms) and can do so in one way only. The greater the achievement, the closer to the ideal - the stronger the aesthetic effect. Economy is clearly important since if fewer pieces can accomplish the same task, the greater the achievement. '

[Hans Jung]

E. Ratner, Emanuel Lasker's Lehrbuch des Schachspiels, 1926, White wins.

[Hans Jung]

Incredible that the position above in post 47 wins for White. White has a bishop and two knights but he is about to lose one of the knights. Nevertheless : 1.Be2! The only square!

1.Bd3, kb7+ 2.Kg2, Bd4 3.Nb3, Bxe5 4.Na5+, Kb6! 5.Nc4+, Kc5 6.Nxe5, Kd4 wins one of the remaining two pieces. so therefore the main path of the problem is: 1.Be2, Kb7+ 2.Kg2, Bd4

3.Nb3, Bxe5 4,Na5+, Ka8 (the only square since 4...Kc8 is followed by 5.Bg4+ and Nc6+)

[Hans Jung]

from the diagram above in post 48 the following moves are played: 5.Nc6, Bd6 6.Ba6, g5


The black king is in a box and now all remains is for the white king to do a long walk.

[Hans Jung]

The king walk follows: 7.Kf3, Bf4 8.Kg4, Bd2 9.Kf5, Bf4 10.Ke6, g4 11.Kd7, g3 12.Kc8, g2 13. Bb7 checkmate.

[Hans Jung]

I'm reminded of this endgame from a London simultaneous Loman - Lasker, 1903, 34.Rf8+, Kxf8 35.gxh7, Rc1+ 36.Kf2 , Rc2+ 37.Kg3, Rc3+ 38.Kg4, Rc4+ 39.Kg5 which leads us to the diagram in the following post.

[Hans Jung]

The eye popping move 39...Rh4!! stops the paased pawn on h7. Why? 40.Kxh4 g5+!! 41.Kxg5, Kg7 0-1

[Hans Jung]

Here is Timman's take away from it. He composes a deep study that shows a similar theme. Timman, 2011, White to play and draw. White plays desperate measures.

1.Ne4!! dxe4 2.Rh5! Kxh5 3.g4+ Kxg4 4.Bxe4 White stops the H pawn and saves the draw.

[Hans Jung]

Timman 2008, White to play and win. This was Timman's masterpiece study composition based on the Lasker-Loman theme. It won second prize in The Problemist.

[Hans Jung]

In the diagram in post 54 White is up a piece but there are all sorts of counterplay .

The study solution goes: 1.Rd1, a3

2.bxa3, Ra4+

3.f4!, Rxf4

4.Kg3, Rd4

5.Rxd4, e2 many tricks by Black but White has a deep combinative answer.

6..Rd6+, Kh7 (6....cxd6 7.Ba5 wins)

7.Rh6+, Kxh6 White offers the rook twice and Black must accept, otherwise there will be a mating net.

8.Bg5+, Kxg5

9.f4+ and now we see why the pawn sacrifice on move 3.

and 10.Kf2 and White wins.

[Hans Jung]

I've always been intrigued by two pawns on the sixth vs a rook. The old adage says: two pawns on the sixth win against a rook.

The next was an eye-opener for me:

Prokes, 'Schachvarlden' 1939, White to play and draw.

[Hans Jung]

Solution to post 56: The situation looks hopeless as the white king is too far from the action, but wait!

1.Kg4, e2

2.Rc1+, Kd4

3.Kf3, d2

4.Rc4+!!!, Kxc4

5.Kxe2, Kc3

6.Kd1

Move 4.Rc4+ is known as the Prokes maneuver.

[Hans Jung]

Timman writes further: "My interest in the Prokes Maneuver was aroused by Tim Krabbe. In the summer of 1992 we met on an estate in the south of France. Misha Tal had just died, and I was analysing games for an 'In Memoriam'. After I had showed Krabbe a couple of findings, he started talking about the 'Double Prokes'. From that moment on it seemed as if my chess understanding had changed. A fascinating world opened itself before my eyes. Was it really possible that such an ingenious idea could be doubled in a study? Krabbe had thought up this:

Krabbe 1992, White to play and draw.

1.Rh1, e3 2.Kf3, Rc1 3.Rxc1, exd2 4.Rc4+, bxc4 5.Kxe2, c3 6.Rf1, Rb1 7.Rxb1, c2 8.Rb4+, Kxb4 9.Kxd2 with a draw.

[Hans Jung]

The idea is fantastic, but this construction contains many flaws. Krabbe realized this all too well. He asked me to make a version that worked. I toiled over this for days. The Double Prokes turned out to be a head-spinning task. My intuition told me I could make an award winning study of it, but I couldnt come up with a good version. All the studies I published in the 1990's turned out to be incorrect. Not untl 18 years later did I manage to make a good, solid version.

Timman/Krabbe 1992/2010, White to play and win.

In fact, all the elements of Krabbes scheme have been retained. Only here White has two highly dangerous passed pawns, which forces Black to act quickly. White's first move is forced.

1.Rh1, e3

2.Kf3, Rc1

3.Rxc1, exd2

4.Rc4+, bxc4

The first Prokes Maneuver

5.Kxe2, c3

6.Rf1, Rb1

7.Rxb1, c2

8.Rb4+, Kxb4

The second Prokes Maneuver

9.Kxd2 and wins.

[Hans Jung]

Timman again: "In June 1993, I was in Moscow, where a blitz tournament was held in the memory of Misha Tal. I was working on a study that would feature the Prokes Maneuver via a hidden mechanism. Eventually it worked out, and I decided to dedicate the study to Tal. I give the new version that I composed 29 years later.

Timman 1994/2023, White wins (in memory of Misha Tal)

1.Ke2, Rb1 2.Rxb1, c2 3.Rxg6, fxg6 4.Nf4+, Kg4 5.Nh5!!, Kxh5 6.g4+!, fxg4 7.Rh1!!, c1=Q 8.Be1+, Kg5 9.Bxd2+ and White wins.