Mate in 4

1.Ke2 threatens 2.Kf3 3.Kg4 and 4.Sf3. The sole defence 1...Bh4 aims for stalemate (2.Kf3 g5+ 3.Kg4 ??) but fails to 2.Rg5 Bxg5 3.Sxg5 Kxg1 4.Sf3. Zepler quoted the Orlimont (the pseudonym of Ernst Krieger) in his Selected More-movers column in The Problemist in 1966. Being one of the great composers of the New German School Zepler was very strict on purity of logic. He felt that 1.Ke4 ought to be a thematic try which failed for one reason only, namely the failure to guard f1 and f2 (1.Ke4? Bh4! 2.Rg5 Bxg5 3.Sxg5 Kxg1). The fact that there is a second refutation 1.Ke4? Bg5! 2.Kf3 Bxe3 3.Kg4 Bxg1 ruined the problem for him.

Thanks to Jacob Hoover for pointing out the problem by Stuart Green, which attempted to improve on Orlimont’s setting (the solution is identical). 1.Ke4? is now a genuine try (1...Bg5? 2.Sxg5 Kxg1 3.Sf3+ K any 4.Rb2, but 1…Bh4!). There is another try 1.Bb7? threat 2.Bf3 3.Bg4, refuted by 1...Bg5! Many composers would still regard the problem as seriously flawed, because the white bishop plays no direct role in the solution, though it is interesting that judge Robin Matthews made no mention of this, but said that he would have placed it higher had it not been for the existence of the Orlimont. Zepler felt that the flawless logic of the solution provided adequate compensation.

Gordon Stuart Green

Commended, The Problemist, 1977

Mate in 4

Dafydd Johnston: I’m not sure what Zepler didn’t like about this, but it looks good to me. Of the king’s two routes to g4, 1.Ke4 fails to the stalemate defence, which is provided for by 1.Ke2 followed by a nice zugzwang.