Typeset and published by John Beasley,

7 St James Road, Harpenden, Herts AL5 4NX, England

Printed by Fastprint and Design,

9 London Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN37 6AE, England

November 1999

Publisher's notice. I have no authority to waive the rights of others, but as far as I am concerned
anything in this document may be reproduced without payment or formality; I ask only that there be
due acknowledgemeI1t.
 An outline of

THE THEORY.oF CHESS PROBLEMS

by

Josef Posplsil

(from Ceske ulohy fachove, 1 88 7 )

translated and edited by John Beasley, with a selection of problems

Translator's introduction . Although the exposition of Bohemian chess problem theory in Josef Pospfsil's book
Ceske ulohy sachove has long been recognized as one of the most important texts in chess problem history, there
appears until now to have been no readily available ve rsion of it in English. This has been a serious gap in the
problem literature of our language, and I hope the making of this translation will fill it. I have accompanied it by
a selection of problems from the book, kindly chosen for me by Vladimir Kos, and by a brief essay of my own
which looks back after the passage of a hundred years.
I am grateful to the library of the British Chess Problem Society for access to a copy of Ceski ulohy sachove,
and to J iff Jelinek for h ig hlighting the differences between the Czech of 1 8 87 and t hat of the p resent day. Jifi has
gone so far in his support as to send me a transcription of the entire text into modern Czech, which has proved
invaluable in elucidating some obscure passages. Literary fashion has c hanged both in Bohemia and in England
and I have simplified or eliminated some passages which seem unduly laboured or repetitive to a modern reader,
but I believe that everything which matters has been fully and faithfully reproduced.

Contents

Foreword by Antonin Kvicala 4

Introduction 5

1. The problem a s a chess creation 6

Content 6
Mainplay and variations 6
Originality 6
Correctness 7

2. The problem as a work of art 8

Purity of mate 8
Comparability of aims and means 8
The initial position 9
Artistic considerations affecting constuction 10

3. The problem as a puzzle 12

Difficulty I2

Conclusions 13

The Bohemian problem school 13

A selection of illustrative problems 14

Some comments from a hundred years on 20

-3-
 Foreword by Antonin Kvicala

Translator's note . This foreword was writte n by Kvicala, himself both a playe r and a problem composer, on behalf
of the Bohemian C hess Association in Praha (Prague) of which he was chairman .

'
Chess problems represent t h e pinnacle o f c hess art. And even though t h e problem i s t h e branch of chess that has
developed the most recently, it has flowered in a re latively short time in a way which few would have suspected.
Bohemian composers have not been backward in this development. On the contrary, as has been shown by
the developments of the last 25 and more particularly of the last 1 0 years , they are universally recognized as
deserving a large part of the credit. The Bohemian school, whose principles flow from the eternal and
inexhaustible sources of beauty and harmony, is now known the world over; and not only to specialists, but also
to the general e nthusiast to whom the solution or study of chess puzzles is providing a pastime ever more
enjoyable and fulfilling. And this fame is continuously increasing, due to the numerous chess publications which
everywhere pay gracious and unatTected homage to "the Bohe mian prob lem schoo l " .
However, even t h e compositions o f lasting value which this school has produced s o abu ndantly have been
scattered until now in newspapers and in foreign publ ications , and we have lac ked a collected work in which at
least a representative sample of its fruits could be displayed. Accordingly, the Bohemian Chess Association in
Praha, which is our chief national representative body fo r chess, has taken upo n itse lf the duty of prese nting the
results of these 25 years of successful development in the form of a collection of works each of which is both
original and meritorious.
This project , originally taken up within a very narrow circle, has come to fruition in the face of more than one
obstacle, and we believe it fully satisfies the resolution passed by the general meeting of our association in January
of this year.
This collection has been the responsibility of our leading composers, Jan Dobrusky, lan Kotrc, and losef
Pospisil. They have received enthusiastic support from Frantisek Moucka, who with lan Karel has unte rtaken the
technical and administrative burden. An introduction of premanent value , laying down the special principles of
the Bohemian school , has been contributed by losef Pospisil. And for the fact that this collection worthily
represents our best chess endeavours, which hitherto have been far better known abroad than at home, the
principal credit is due to the composers whose names appear above the individual diagrams.
We add that most of the problems here collected appeared during the period 1 868- 1 8 8 7 in our literary journals
whic h contain chess columns, in particular Svetozor, Humoristicki listy, Palecek, Zlatd Praha, and Svanduv d uddk ,

and in the sadly short-lived specialist magazine Sach-mat.

And may this co-operative work serve to honour and enrich the name of Bohemia in this international
tournament ground of inte llectual e ndeavou r!

Praha (Prague), December 1 8 87.

-4-
 An outline of

THE THEORY OF CHESS PROBLEMS

Jntroduction

Chess provides an almost inexhaustible flow of marvellous combinations. These combinations have a magical
impact on players encountering the game for the first time, and this attraction increases as their knowledge of the
game increases.
Every game of chess is made up from such combinations, sometimes simple and obvious, so metimes deeply
profound. Combinations also form the basis of chess problems. Certain positions from games, whose resolution
required particularly attractive play, went round the world and became the common property of all chess players;
and being thus broadcast, they awoke the natural desire to construct further positions, not this time dependent on
the accidents of actual combat , whose resolution requ ired surprising manoeuvres which were left for the solver to
discover. This we meet the origin of the c hess problem.
Of course, the objective of p ractical play is to win the game. Combinations may form the basis of play, but
they are not an end in themselves. Problems, having originated from play, at first presented winning manoeuvres
such as occur in games, and in this respect they had a certain didactic value. But for many centuries problems
were only the Cinderella of the game, and the vast majority of enthusiasts concentrated on the practical game.
However, the ideas that the practical game could provide for embodiment in problems were eventually found
to be too monotonous, too limited, and it became recognized that the seeking out of interesting combinations
from the inexhaustible well of c hess was an activity no whit less enjoyable than p laying an actual game. So the
problem entered a new and quite different epoch , one that has led to rapid development and expansion. Now the
aim of a p roblem was not to show something likely to be useful in practical play, but simply and solely to display
an interesting combination in a beautiful form.
In older problems, the germ of the idea was buried in a mass of commonplace and i rrelevant moves, often
disfigured by conditions foreign to true c hess; the idea was offered in settings which were pedantically game- like;
all these distracted attention from the manoeuvre which was the true purpose of the problem. In place of this, the
new epoch demanded only the most beautiful mating sequences in from two to five moves, and , in sharp contrast
to a normal game, no account was taken of the initial equilibrium of the forces. In this form, the modern
problem shows us all the most sophisticated manoeuvres of chess. Here, the combinations of practical play are
idealized, they become not only the basis of the p roblem but its sole aim; therefore it is natural to try and present
them cleansed from all irrelevant and disturbing influences, in a word to present them refined into perfect form.
Works which retain their p ractical aims, which demonstrate combinations of practical interest without regard to
refinement of form, are now distinguished from true problems, and they belong wholly to the theory of the
practical game.
Although the p roblem has thus become divorced from the practical game, it remains of course a true chess
creation. However, by its idealization of combinations, it becomes, to look on it yet another way, a work of an.
The concept of beauty occurs in all artistic work, be it a painting, a piece of music, or a literary composition;
each of these fields is governed by certain aesthetic laws, which have gradually evolved during many years of
practice and experience. So it is with the problem. As experts have penetrated more deeply i nto the secrets of the
game, certai n aesthetic rules peculiar to chess have emerged , and these show the direction in which the artistic
refinement of combinations should p roceed. By this means, the form of problems has gradually achieved a wholly
u nexpected level of perfection, entitling us to use the proud term problem art.
But here let us leave comparisons with other art forms, for we must not forget that the subject of a chess
problem is merely a game; it has no true basis in nature, and does not give any direct benefit to mankind.
However, only an expert can judge whether the title "art" is justified , and in our case this judge is the chess world ,
which has already firmly accepted it.
And we must not forget that a problem has yet another side. It is a puzzle; its solution is something initially
unknown , that the solver has to find. The combinations in a problem are concealed; the solver realises their
validity only when he has himself discovered them.
So we see that a problem has three aspects: a chess creation, a work of an, and a puzzle. Our exposition of its
theory will take account of all three characteristics.

-5-
 1. The problem as a chess creation

A. Content

[he contents of a chess p roblem are its combinations; but the number of possible chess combinations is so large,
md their forms so d iverse, that to describe them ill a few words is quite impossible. The theme of a problem rests
iOmetimes in a single surprising move , sometimes in a beautiful mate, sometimes in an interesting line of play
;panning several moves, but most often in a harmonious blending of individual moves and final result.
But if a complete and comprehensive analysis is out of the question, we can at least highlight the most
; ommon fundamental elements from which p roblem combinations are constructed.

One simple element is the decoying of a man away from a crucial square. Such a man has an important
jefe nsive role in its original position, and only after it has moved away can the solution proceed. This simple
motif is encountered very frequently, and plays a more or less important part in the majority of problems. The
converse motif also occurs, where a man is lured to a crucial square.
Another common motif is the freeing of a square so that another man can occupy it. Again, we also have the
converse manoeuvre, the blocking of a square in order to deny it to some other man. This is particularly common
in the creation of a mating position.
Yet another simple motive is line clearance, the removal of a man from a line so that another man can travel
along it. Here agai n we also find the converse motif, the limitation of the field of action of a man. And the theme of
a problem can also subsist i n demonstrating the particttiar powers of a single piece or the harmonious action of two or
more pieces, often culminating in sacrifices. These can 'be sometimes mere ly the means to the realization of a
theme, sometimes an end in themselves.
These are the most important elements from which problem themes are built. But a theme rare ly consists in a
single such manoeuvre. Usually it consists in an harmonious whole constructed from various elements, the most
outstanding of which form the p roblem's reason for existence.

B. Mainplay and variations

The idea of a p roblem is realized by a series of individual moves by the attacking and defending sides. By long­
established convention, the attacki ng side is always denoted by White .
The principal idea which the author wishes to show in his problem comes into existence only after certain
moves of the defe nder. This forms the most important part of the problem's content, its mainplay. But B lack also
has at his disposal a greater or smaller selection of other moves, each of which also allows White to achieve his
aim within the stipulated period. T hus we have variations, which can originate at any point i n the play. This
enhancement of p roblem content by the use of variations is very important.
Where the primary attraction of a problem lies in a particular variation, we can talk about the principal
variation of a p roblem. But often a p roblem contains additional variations of almost the same value, and in such a
case its true theme l ies in the harmonious blending of several attractive lines of play into a single whole.
Almost all problems contain side variations, which do not contribute to its thematic content. While t hese add
nothing to its artistic value, they may be important in increasing its difficulty. Even so, we shall not count a
problem as perfect when a single p retty line is accompanied by a whole raft of worthless variations; inevitably, the
comparison comes to mind of a pearl among rubbish.

C. Originality

The requirement of originality, so important in all artistic work, cannot be underesti mated even in the problem.
A genuinely new and original idea gives a problem value even in the face of constructional defects, the more so if
we take i nto account how d ifficult it is to achieve true origi nality.
Nowadays, when some thousands of diffe rent chess combinations have been presented as problems, it has
become necessary to seek o riginality not in the basic manoeuvres themselves, which are limited in number, but i n
finding different a n d eve r more perfect renderings. I n place o f intrinsic originality, w e have rather originality i n
t h e means o f realization. In t h i s sense, chess combinations are truly inexhaustible.
The greatest scope for variety and freshness of thought lies in problems whose theme consists in the blending
of several interesting lines of play i nto a unified whole. Clearly, no less originality lies in such a blend than i n
many problems where t h e so-called theme, if w e examine i t more closely, takes t h e form o f a manoeuvre which i s
infrequently seen because it is difficult or i mpossible t o realize along artistic lines, or even where the originality
lies merely in the u nsatisfactory form of the problem and in its complete disregard for normal artistic principles.
It is d ifficult to show something truly new in a single variation, and it follows that problem activity in the
future will concentrate more and more on harmoniously contrived sets of attractive variations. It is the chief
merit of our Bohemian problemists that composition of this nature has taken deeper root here than anywhere e lse
in the chess world. True, the principle is everywhere acknowledged that attractive variations enhance a problem,
but the true importance of this p rinciple is still imperfectly understood. Rather, we see the gross undervaluing of

-6-
many problems which feature several variations of equal value , on the grounds that they do not have a true
mainplay but only variations.
The requirement of originality places no light burden on the composer, but even so he must be on his guard
against banality, whether it lies in the use of hackneyed manoeuvres or in the automatic multiplication of
variations. He must give inject some fresh vigour into his work, either by the ideas he incorporates or by the
original ways in which he realizes them.

D. Correctness

From the name itself, it is apparent that without correctness a problem is nothing. I ncorrectness can take various
forms, be it incorrectness of content or incorrectness of position. A problem is incorrect in content if the solver can
avoid the author's intended p lay and solve it in another way, still reaching mate in not more than the given
number of moves.
A correct problem has only one first move which leads to the required result. I f there is more than one, the
problem has a complete additional solution, and it is not correct.
Avoidance of the intended play can also occur on the second or third move , in which case we say that the
problem has a partial additional solution. Such a solution invalidates the problem if it occurs in the mainplay or in
a thematically important variation, and devalues it if it occurs in a variation which would otherwise enhance the
artistic content of the p roblem. Howeve r, most problems also contain variations of no artistic value , and we call
additional solutions in such variations duals. Needless 10 say, they have no influence on the value of the problem.
A dual cannot detract from the beauty of a variation if there is no beauty to detract from.
(Translator's note. I have thought it appropriate to translate the Czech terms literally on their first
occurrence, but our modern English usage is cook for PospiSil's complete additional solution and dual for his partial
additional solution, duals being classified as significant if they bypass thematic play and insignificant otherwise , and to
avoid confusion I have rendered PospiSil's "dual" as "insignificant dual" in what fol lows. Modern Bohemian
usage is in fact somewhat d ifferent from PospiSil's, "additional solution" being used for a solution which diverges
at move I and "dual" for a solution which diverges later and bypasses some of the thematic play; non-thematic
play is normally ignored whether it is dualized or not.)
The deeper and more complicated problems can rarely be set without insignificant duals. The removal of
these duals is e ither not possible at all or possible only at an unacceptable artistic cost. The defending side usually
has at its disposal several bad moves, which present the attacker with several routes to his goal or allow him to
attain it in fewer than the required number of moves. To deny the defender such moves would be pointless or
even impossible. I nsignificant duals are also a featu re of problems employing mUltiple threats; also , in particular,
of four-movers , where their removal is often wholly impossible.
On the other hand, a problem cannot be considered perfect if thematic content which is less than outstanding
is accompanied by a mass of dualized variations. I n such a case , even " insignificant" duals lower the value of the
problem.
A similar effect is caused by an alternative mating move. If it occurs in an attractive pure mate which is part of
the thematic play, it destroys or at least reduces the value of the problem; but it is unimportant if it occurs in a
mate without artistic value , even if this occurs in the mainplay or in an important variation.
An inversion of moves, which sometimes occurs particularly in simple problems, is treated in the same way as
an additional solution o r dual.
This has dealt with correctness of solution; but the p roblem retains some connection with the parent game, in
that it is an idealization of a game, and it follows that legality of position is a further requirement. Of course, there
is no need to demonstrate the legality of eve ry problem position by playing a game to it; rather, the need is merely
to demonstrate when a position is impossible, for example one with Black pawns on f7, g7 , h7, and h5. Often the
demonstration consists in l ooking at the number of pawn captures that must have been made; if these exceed the
number of men missing from the other side, the position is clearly impossible. If it is not possible to demonstrate
impossibility by some such means, the position should be taken as legal . Again , we sometimes come across a
position such as the following: White Bc5 , Pb2, Pd2. Such a bishop could not have arisen other than by the
promotion of a pawn, and the position is called " relatively impossible". Such a p roblem cannot be regarded as
wholly correct, and the more strict of judges would not allow it to compete in a tourney.

-7-
 2. The problem as a work of art

A. Purity of mate

This requirement creates the first special rule of chess aesthetics. A mate is pure if each square in the king's field
is either covered by a single attacking man or blocked by a defending man. For example , the mate in the left­
hand diagram below is pure , because squares e6, d5 , and c4 are covered by the White bishop and by no other man,
d4 and e5 by the knight alone, c6 and d6 by the king alone , and c5 and e4 are blocked by B lack men and are not
covered by any White man. In contrast, the mate on the right is far from pure , because e5 and c5 are covered by
both queen and rook and c4 is both blocked by the B lack bishop and covered by the White king.

The principle of purity of mate does not perhaps go so far as to demand that every mate in a problem be pure ,
but t h e more pure mates a problem contains the higher is likely t o b e its aesthetic value . O n e condition that is
necessary, however, is that at least o ne mate in the mainplay be pure. And unless a variation results from some
special feature in the play, we regard it as significant only if it leads to a pure mate.
The theme of many problems consists in harmonious combinations of pure mates.
From time to time we come across examples where a mate is in principle impure, but can still be treated as
pure . This happens particularly in the case of mates given by double c heck. For example , in the left-hand
diagram below, where White has just given mate by Rf5 , the square d5 is doubly covered; but it is possible to give
such a mate the standing of a pure mate, or in other words the requirements of pu rity often apply only to the eight
squares surrounding the B lack king. (Translator'S note. This is indeed what PospiSil says. Nowadays, we regard
such a mate as pure only if both c hecks are necessary, as would be the case here were the B lack bishop on e6 to be
replaced by a B lack queen . )

A similar case arises when a pin i s necessary t o create t h e mate. T h e mate on t h e right is impure on account
of the square e4, but the necessity of the pin reduces the impression of impurity and in many cases such a mate
can be treated as equivalent to a pure mate.
I n many problems, where the main interest lies in the u nfolding of the solution and the mate is merely the
necessary termination of the play, even a complete absence of pure mates can often be overlooked; but such a
problem cannot be regarded as perfect, and so we often see reworkings of old ideas in a more artistic form.
The requirement of purity of mate is not an arbitrary rule imposed by the caprice of individuals, but rather the
result of an attempt to refine the play right up to the mating move. This idealization is based on the most refined
utilization of the position and of the available material, on the elimination of everything superfluous, and the
retention only of the necessary interplay between the attacking and the defending forces.

B. Comparability of aims and means

The refinement of combinational play leads to the further requirement of economy of means. The reason is
perhaps the same as above. The p rinciple manifests itself in numerous ways, but its most important requirement
is that every White piece stil l on the board s hould participate in the mate in the mainplay; should a piece not be
needed in the mate, it must be sacrificed at some point in the play. This requirement does not apply to the Black

-8-
men, nor to the White pawns and king.
It is of course u nrealistic to demand strict economy of force in every mating position in a problem, but the
minimum requirement is that at least one mate in the mainplay be economical. Of course it is better if the
remaining mates are economical as well. In problems whose theme is the harmonious combination of variations,
the requirement of economy applies to each of the,thematic lines.
But the principle of economy also demands that as much advantage as possible be taken of the powers of the
attacking men. The relative power of the pieces should show itself even in the guarding of the king's field in the
mate; the more powerful pieces should shoulder the greater part of the burden . Neglect of this p rinciple, unless
inherent to the theme of the problem, always gives a bad impression.
Economy applies most tellingly to the concept of beauty of mate. An unnecessary White pawn, sitting in the
B lack king's field , gives a most unfortunate impression to an onlooker of taste and discernme nt; similarly, the
presence of several White men in the mating field , even if they are needed to guard squares, does not conduce to
the most beautiful of mates .
The concept o f economy applies t o t h e whole of t h e solution; not only must t h e m e n b e used effectively in
the final position , they must also contribute to the play leading up to it. The less a man is used in the mate, the
more important a role it must fulfil in the preceding play.
Again, an unfortunate impression is given if a powerful man does not take an active part in the solution, but is
confined to passive guard duty. There must always be a balance between active and passive duty. A man which
p lays only an insignificant role in one variation must be.given a correspondingly greater role in another.
A further principle of economy is that of obtaining great resu lts from small means. The ideal is that rich and
attractive play should be produced by appare ntly insignificant force; if the author uses a lot of powerful men, we
demand correspo ndingly impressive results. We judge a problem more harshly when its content fails to match up
to the material used to construct it.
Obviously, the principle of economy of force does not apply only to the White men, but to some extent also to
the B lack.
The absolute requirement is that eve ry man on each side be necessary to the p roblem. The ratio of the men
on each side is irrelevant. We are not talking just of a victory for one side or the other, but of victory within a
given number of moves; the difficulty lies not in achieving the victory itself, but in clinching it as quickly as
possible. Nor does it matter if the side trying to hinder or delay victory disposes of relatively little force. It is
superfluous to attempt to equalize the forces of the two sides in a problem, or to give the defender a great
preponderance over the attacker; but it has to be said that a complete deficiency of force on the defending side
gives an unfortunate impression unless it is compensated by some point of particular thematic interest.
To eliminate a gross disproportion of force by adding unnecessary Bl a ck men is wholly to be condemned.
The most that is permitted is to replace a weak but necessary man, such as a pawn, by a stronger one.

C. Th e initial position

There are several artistic considerations affecting the starting position of a problem: the appearance of the
position in itself, its connection with the assumed game leading up to it, and its connection with the play leading
forward from it.
The importance of the starting position, which creates a kind of interfac e between the assumed introductory
game and the subsequent solution, is obvious. The position is the outward form of the problem . It m a kes the
initial i mpact on the judge or solver, and contributes significantly to his or her subsequent judgement by
awakening a frie ndly or hostile mood.
A position is attractive if there are not too many men on the board , either as a whole or in any particular
region. Rather, the p ieces should be evenly distributed , so that the attackers and the defenders alike have a free
'
range of action. Neither should too many men be open to capture , whether they be White or Black. In the same
way, too many pawns on the verge of promotion give an unfortunate effect; in particular, White pawns on th e
seventh rank are to be avoided as much as possible . Doubled pawns give a poor impressio n , and still worse are
tripled pawns and opposing pawns which are on the same file havi ng passed each other in play.
Additionally, the position must be easily and plausibly reachable in play; it should not betray such signs as
might lead the observer to try to prove illegality, because the moves needed to refute such an attempted proof are
likely to be the reverse of plausible. This applies particularly to implausible positions of the pawns and to the
presence of large numbers of men in the middle of the enemy camp.. On the other hand, if there are only a few
men on the board it hardly matters whether the majority of the White men occupy the lower fou r ranks and the
B lack men the upper fou r.
The position of the king is also important, and we prefer to see it in its own camp. We cannot regard a
position as attractive if the B lack king is surrounded by its opponents and is far from the pieces of its own side .
Similarly, the White king should not be placed in the middle of a group of B lack men.
All this being said , the requirement of plausibility need not be carried to extremes, We do not require the

-9-
assumed game to have featured e ither a good opening or first-class play. Such requirements might produce
positions which would be wholly plausible , but from an artistic point of view very unattractive .
The position should also be such as to give no clue to the solution. The men should have a wide choice of
moves, both in attack and in defence. The White men should not be placed at a distance from the battlefield , in
positions where they are clearly useless and from which they must be advanced as quickly as possible. A position
is u nsatisfactory if the final mating configurations are largely in place at the outset. A particular give-away to the
place of execution is a group of Black men conspicuously placed, and White pawns also frequently betray it.
A large number of White pawns is never conducive to a beautiful position, either from this point of view or from
that of the strict requirements of economy.

D. Artistic considerations affecting constuction

(i) Threat and waiting play

In a game , there are two ways in which the resu lt can be decided. Either the attacking side makes a threat of some
kind, and the defender, forced to cover this threat , allows some other winning continuation in its place, or the
result is decided by zugzwang: the defender, compelled to move by the rules of the game , has to make a choice
between weakening moves, and these either gradually erode his position or cause his immediate collapse. In
general, wins by threat occur in the middle game, and by zugzwang in the endgame.
So it is with the problem. The first move may be a direct threat , to which Black has various defences some of
which lead to the thematic variations. Alternatively, it ·may be a waiting move. Here , there is no question of
defence against a threat, because no threat exists; if the defending side were not forced to move , the attacker
could not give mate within the number of moves demanded. However, the r u les of the game do compel the
defender to move , and each of his possible moves al lows a winning reply .

The construction of a problem , be it a threat or a waiting problem, is palpably an i mportant criterion in the
judgement of its value ; it is the skeleton on which the problem is built. A threat exerts direct p ressure , more o r
less strong, whereas a waiting move eschews such direct pressure and offers something quite different, t h e delicate
control of the complete opposing force. The general principle of refinement of play naturally favou rs gentle
threats and waiting play, and deprecates mUltiple strong threats.
A single move threat, where the key threatens immediate mate , is not something we can commend, but it
-

would be wrong to disdain it entirely. There are themes which cannot be realized without such a threat. Such a
threat is of course a defect, but it is justified u ntil such time as a better setting is shown to be possible. However,
when we do need recourse to such a threat, it should be met by a large number of moves, so that neither the
keymove nor the threat itself is unduly obvious.
A threat should be as long as the stipulation allows, so a three-mover should featu re a two-move threat and a
four-mover a three-move threat, although in the latter case a two-move threat is also acceptable. It should also be
as gentle as possible; a quiet threat is always better than one which proceeds by checks.
It may happen that the first move of a problem creates more than one threat. Although we do not stigmatize
this as an irrevocable defect , in the case of the simpler problems, particularly three-movers , it is best eliminated as
far as possible. But complicated more-movers can often be realized only by the use of mult ip le threats. We assess
the construct ion accordi ng to the strongest threat , and the re main ing threats usually become part of the variation
play. More rarely, the threat also forms the mainplay. I n a problem where seve ral variations are effectively equal
in importance , the matter is neither here nor there , but othe rwise it is usually best for the mainplay to follow a
defensive move rather than to be threatened. And fu rther on in the solution there may be subvariations, which
may result either from threat or from waiting p lay.
All this reduces to the principle that a long, quiet, gentle threat is to be preferred to one which is short,
checki ng, and strong. Waiting play is clearly better still, always provided that the position is not such as to make
the need for a waiting move obvious to the solver.
The construction of a problem gives a c lear measure of a composer's technique , though natu rally o nly to the
extent that he attaches importance to the matter. A proble m in which an excellently contrived attacking force is
harmoniously u nited with ingenious use of the defensive force has always the stamp of a masterwork. Such
construction in depth can compensate for mediocre content, or, when combined with beauty and variety of content,
can create a true masterpiece. But just as it is a mistake to underestimate the value of construction, so it is an
equal m istake to overestimate it. Sometimes composers forget the importance of the content of a problem, and
devote all their attention to its form. Just as we do not like to see a beautiful idea in mean c lothes, so do we dislike
the opposite. Excellence of construction is not to be sought at the expense of other artistic principles. In particular,
waiting play is often attainable only at a cost in other directions. The majority of p roblem themes, particularly the
more comp licated themes, cannot be shown in waiting form; but where waiting play does not betray itself by the
various signs which are obvious to the eye of the expert, we have that very rare thing the work of a master.
,

Better, however, is a work which is harmon ious in all respects than one which is perfect i n one respect but
banal and aesthetically u nsatisfactory in another.

- 10 -
(ii) The nature o/the moves
The superficial character of the moves of the solution , as the bearers of the theme of the problem , ties up very
closely with both the content and the form of the problem.
The key is particularly important. It carries the greatest responsibility for making the problem difficult; and
as far as possible it should not merely be the first move of the solution, it should form a substantial component of
the theme.
It is not so much that the key should be apparently the weakest move on the board , superficially the least
attacking; rather, it should be surprising because of its apparent purposelessness. A good key does not harass the
Black king, take away some of the defensive moves of a Black man or attack him, or bring an important attacking
man nearer to the field of battle. A good key does the reverse of all this. In particular, we condemn a check or a
capture of a Black piece on the first move. Such problems, even if sometimes they e mbody an idea to which we
do not deny recognition, place themselves outside the framework of established chess aesthetics.
The capture of a Black pawn on the first move is something that we are willing to allow in case of need .
It usually occurs only in complex problems, where there is no other way of avoiding alternative solutions.
Of course , we cannot equip every problem with a goo d' key, but it is for the author at least to examine the
possibility of such a key and to see if it can be introduced without otherwise degrading the problem.
Nor is the quality of the subsequent moves an indifferent matter. Quiet moves are always p refe rable to checks;
captures and exchanges of pieces are too reminiscent of normal play, and we do not like them except of course
where the theme of the p roblem is the running down and capturing of a certain man . It is always good if the later
moves of the solution have the same qualities as the key, although of course the requirements here cannot be so
strict.
If we proceed by checks, their effect is softened if they are also sacrifices. Sacrifices always enhance a
problem, and they often form an important part of the theme. Even more does a sacrifice heighten the effect of a
quiet move . The main purpose of a checking move is to create the mating net or to force the Black king to the
decisive square .
The use of checking moves in the middle of the solution usually allows the greatest freedom in placing the
defending men, and hence leads to the most attractive starting position. This is their justification; but quiet
moves are decidedly to be preferred if they can be achieved without an adverse effect on the initial position.
The quality of the moves in side variations is of course irrelevant.
The nature of the final mat i ng move is the exact opposite of the key. Its nature has already been explained in
the section dealing with purity and economy in the mate. We can characterize it most simply by saying that it
must take the greatest possible advantage of the attacking force.

(iU) Length

Modern problems are constructed to a length of 2 to 5 moves. Longe r problems, formerly so strongly favoured,
are now completely eschewed. This reduction in length has led to a condensation and crystallization of problem
content and the elimination of everything superfluous, and it is usually obvious to the composer from the outset
how many moves his theme will demand. As a basic principle , it is appropriate here to say that a given idea is
always best set in as few moves as possible, and this is the principle that the author should always bear in mind.
It is often possible to condense and improve an idea by setting it in a different form.
Again , the defending side's moves must be used to d isplay the theme; they supply part of the introduction,
and save the need for so many moves by the attacker. Technical mastery usually lies in the proper use of these
two principles, which form pe rhaps the most difficult part of problem technique. It is one of the chief signs which
distinguish the work of the expert from that of the beginner. The smallest number of moves in which a theme can
be shown is obviously one more than the length of a checking sequence leading to mate. Of course , in many cases
it is desirable or even necessary to use more moves, and condensation of the theme needs to be reconciled with the
desirability of quiet moves in the solution. A quiet key, in particular, is never a superfluous addition, and the
harmonious blending of ai l the moves always brings a p roblem to life. To conceal a simple and too obvious idea is
a frequent reason for increasing the length of the solution, and increasi ng the number of thematic variations and
improving the construction p rovide further reasons.
The best lengths for a problem are three and four moves. Two-move problems normally offer too little scope
for depth and difficulty, while five-movers are unduly burdensome. Of course , the same artistic p rinciples are
valid for problems of all lengths, a po i nt part i cularly to be borne in mind in the case of two-movers.

- 11 -
 3. The problem as a puzzle

Difficulty

To attach the term problem to a c hess composition implies that not the least of its properties is the difficulty of
uncovering its solution. In this respect a p roblem i� like a puzzle, and the more d ifficult this puzzle is to solve and
the more obscu re the combinations that it embodies, the more perfect it will appear from this point of view.
Difficulty of solution is therefore commonly regarded as an important criterion in the judgement of a problem.
However, ofte n it is given all too much emphasis; many composers regard it as the most important or even the
only criterion , and other artistic considerations are u ndervalued or wholly ignored.
This extreme standpoint cannot be endorsed. It downgrades the c haracter of something which is primarily an
artistic creation, and whose puzzle aspect is only a part of its natu re. In the true sense of the word , a p roblem is
never a mere riddle. Put yourself in the position of the solver, and ask how much pleasure it gives him to unravel
a position whose solution is deeply obscure but otherwise without interest or merit. The answer is no p leasure at
all; rather, the waste of time provokes resentment. Can d ifficulty be regarded as an inherently good quality even
in such a case?
We therefore count difficulty as a desirable quality only when the solution that u nfolds is worthy of it.
A problem in which this principle is ignored may be an exceedingly demanding chess riddle, but it is not a true
product of the problem art. For this reason it is ridiculous to try and increase the importance of obscurity to the
detriment of other artistic qualities. It often happens that a position is deliberately and unnecessarily
complicated, where the multiplicity of material obscures the clear outlines of the position , and where the solver
needs a certain time to unravel what is going on. In other cases, a problem is deformed by the presence of a piece
which plays no role in the solution and exists only to try and lure the solver down false paths.
Two-movers, in particular, tempt even problemists of strict principle to such violations of the artistic nature of
the problem. To inject artificial and unnatural difficulty in this way is of course wholly despicable. True difficulty
flows from the nature of the solution itself; it is a natural consequence of true artistic work.
Constructional aspects are another source of difficulty, and it is the composer's duty to eliminate the slightest
clue from the original position. This applies particularly to partially prepared mating positions, indicated in
particular by groups of B lack men o r by White pawns, and unnaturally or awkwardly placed men. The originality of
the play also has an important influence. It is much easier for a solver to find a familiar line of play than one
which is striking or original; in particular, a hackneyed sacrifice often puts the solver on the right track, even if it
only occurs in a subsidiary variation.
Suitably placed White men, having a wide range of attacking options, contribute significantly to the
concealment of the solution, especially when some of the resulting lines of play appear to h ave the artistic
qualities that we expect of the solution itself. These delusive lines are called tries. In two-movers and three­
movers, in particu lar, they help the composer to increase the difficulty of his work.
The composer is also well advised not to give B lack the possibility of a strong counter-attack. The reply to
such an attack is usually easy to see , and this puts the solver on the track of the complete solution .
The proliferation of variations adds to the difficulty of a problem. The solver requires more time if he wants to
tie up all the loose ends. That said, of course some of the more obvious lines , if they are important, often put the
solver on the right track. And the nature of the individual moves of the solution is very important. It is much easier
for the solver to find checking sequences than unexpected quiet moves. The nature of the key is especially
important.
Depth of construction, delicate threats, and concealed defensive moves prevent the solver from quickly u n ravelling
the complete solution even when he has u ncovered the main idea.
Of course, difficulty of solution is a subjective matter, and depends on many different factors. To lat down
special instructions for solution would be wholly superfluous. The solver should seek guidance in all these aspects
by which the difficulty of solution is exaggerated.

- 12 -
 Closing remarks

The Bohemian problem school

The principles of p roblem construction about which we have been talking, which in essence are universally
acknowledged, did not arise at the arbitrary behest of individuals; rather, they are the natural outcome of many
years of practical work. A perfect problem will conform to all these principles. Of coure , it is not easy to achieve
perfection, and to create a work which does not awake in any way a wish that it could be improved . Such a work is
the fruit of natural talent, masterly skill, the right mood and su rroundings, and usually also a massive effort wholly
unsuspected by those who take delight in the results.
A composer who works within the spirit of these artistic laws will always produce work of quality, even though
the labour may be heavy. Conversely, failure to observe one or other of them will always devalue a composition.
Gross breaches o f a principle inevitably destroy the harmonious impression which we seek in all truly artistic
work, but more com mo n are cases where it is difficult or even impossible to satisfy every principle at once and we
must settle for weaknesses in one direction or another.
Thus we can forgive a problem minor constructional or aesthetic defects if it shows a particularly striking or
original theme, while a well-known theme can stand a fu rther airing if it is presented in a constructionally perfect
or more intensive form; a rich problem with many the matic variations can stand weaknesses of construction.
We do not seek absolute perfection so much as a problem with genuinely interesting content which is in general
harmony with all our artistic principles, and never do we seek to set one principle above all the rest .
These princip les are accepted to a greate r or lesse r degree throughout the chess world, but considerable
differences have developed in matters of detail, depending on the importance which is attached to the various
characteristics of a p roble m . Understandably, composers attempt t o perfect their work either in t h e respects
which they as individual compose rs think most important or according to the principles of the so-called " p roblem
school" to which they belong. There are several such schools. The predominant feature of English and American
problems is a marked difficulty of solution, often coupled with the search after originality. The leading German
masters excel in perfection of construction and in depth.
The principles expounded above are those of the Bohemian problem school. If we want to characterize the
products of this school, we sp.all not go far wrong if we say that its primary aim is to create problems which are
works of art, which are things of beauty. Put briefly, the pursuit of beauty is the primary principle of the Bohemian
school.
This pursuit naturally takes various directions, because beauty resides in various places. We see it in the
thematic content of a p roblem, not just in a single mainplay but in a combination of harmonious and attractive
variations. We see it in features peculiar to chess: purity of mate , economical use of men, grace of position.
During the solution , we see it in fresh, natural, elegant play, free from any touch of artificiality and restraint.
Nor does the Bohemian school despise depth and d ifficulty, but in the last resort it regards them as subordinate to
the qualities listed above.
In other words , an ideal problem combines beautiful chess with perfection of setting and concealment of the
solution.

- 13 -
 A selection of illustrative problems

Ceskrf ulohy sachove contains 3 20 problems (20 two-movers, 1 98 three- move rs, 76 four-movers , 9 five -movers , and
1 7 self-mates) . To have reproduced them all would have made this booklet unduly expensive , and so I asked
Vladimir Kos to make a representative selection. In do ing so, he wrote that it was a pity the book did not contain
more p roblems by Traxler, but the book appeared 'V ery early in Traxle r's composing career and only a few of his
problems appear in it. Similarly, there is nothing by Havel or M ach.
Pospisil gives just the bare solutions, and the commentary that follows is my own . For convenience , I allow
myself the modern term "model mate " as a shorthand for "pu re and economical mate " . I normally dislike even
jargon as simple as this, but the term has long been established in chess proble m lite rature in English and the gain
in economy is such that it would be stupid not to adopt it.

The two- mover provides lim ited scope for Bohemian methods, but Jan
Dobruskfs 1 has become famous. The key 1 Qb l waits and deals with the king
flights ( l . . . Kc4/Ke4 2 Qxd 3 , l . . . Kc6 2 Ne7 ) , but it is in the moves o f the Black
kn ight that the interest lies. Any move of this knight allows the White bishop's
guard through to c4 and in p rinciple we might expect either Qb7 or Qh l to
fo llow, but in fact we have 1 . . .Nb4jNb2 2 Q h l only, 1 . . .Nc 1jNe ljNf2jNf4
2 Qb7 only, l . . . NeS 2 Ne7 , and 1 . ..NcS 2 Nb4. Later theoreticians would regard
this as an example of "dual avo idance with two co rrections " , but it can just as
well be regarded simply as an elegant and accu rate assembly of four model mates
determined by the moves of a Black knight. PospiSil gives no source , but
1 - Mate in two e lsewhere I have seen the problem cited as from Deutsche Schachzeitung 1 8 80.

2 , also by Jan Dobrusky, is perhaps less impressive although still elegant. The
ambush key 1 Qe8 leaps to the experienced eye even though it gives a flight and
makes no immediate threat , but it leads to 1 . . . KbS 2 Nxc 3 , 1 . . . Rb - - 2 Rc4 (with
a pin-mate after 1 . .. Rbb5) , and I . . . Ra-- 2 Ra6 with a pin-mate after 1 . . . Rab 5 .
U nfortu nately the mates by Ra6 are impure because of t h e double guard on a3 ,
but the double-check mates afte r l . . . Rd4/ . . /Rh4 and l . . . Rb6/. ./Rb8 are pure
even by modern standards since both checks are necessary and only the Black
king's own square is doubly attacked.

2 - Mate in two

The three-mover soon became recognized as the ideal vehicle for Bohemian
methods; it offers scope for varied play without burdening e ither composer or
solver with excessive difficu lty. Dobruskfs 3 has a sacrificial key 1 Qg4 which
takes one flight but gives another, and the natural captu re 1 . . . Nxg4 leads to
2 Rxe7 + with a pleasant pair of model mates: 2...Kf5 3 Be4 and 2 . . .Kd6 3 Bb4.
2 Rxe7+ Kd6 3 Bb4 is now seen to be a threat , and there is a second threat in
2 Qe4+ Kd6 3 Qxe7. But both threats are ingeniously met by 1 . . .e6, and it may
take a little time to find the second sacrifice 2 Qxd4+ Kxd4 3 Bc3 with a near­
exact knight 's- move echo of the mate after I . . . Nxg4 2 Rxe7+ Kf5 . There is yet
another model mate in the line 1 . . . NfS 2 Rxe7+ Nxe7 3 Bf4 . Mopping-up lines:
1 .. Kd6 2 Rc6+ , l . . . Nd5 2 Rc6/Rd7.
:

4 features another sacrificial key, 1 Qd8, which is not the most obvious of
moves even though it threate ns immediate mates by Qf6 and Re4 and p rovides for
the ki ng flight ( l . . . Kxf4 2 Qf6+ ) . The captu re 1 . . . Qxd8 now leads to the pretty
model mate 2 Rf5 + Kd4 3 Nc2 , but the mate after l .. . Rxd8 is not a model
(2 Re4+ etc ) . The star lines lie elsewhere: 1 . . .gxf4 2 Qd6+ Nxd6 3 Bc3 and
1 . . .f5 (guarding e4 and blocking the White rook's guard of f6) 2 Qf6+ Kxf6
3 Nxg4 with a pin mate.

- 14 -
 Still with Dobrusky, the key of S is 1 Nh4 threate ning 2 Ng4+ Rxg4 3 Qf5,
and echoed model mates follow 1 . . . Bxf2/Bxh4 capturing the key knight or the
threat piece: 2 Qf4+ Kxf4 and either 3 Rd4 or 3 Rf6 as appropriate . In each
case , only the square occupied by the B lack king is doubly covered, and both
checks are necessary. A second pair of echoed model mates appear in the lines
l . ..bS 2 QfS+ RxfS 3 Ng6 and l . . . Be8 (whose error is to u nguard d 3 , the
apparently harmful interference on the line g8-b8 being irrelevant) 2 Qe4+ Nxe4
3 Nxd3. The mopping-up li nes are mainly a matte r of exploiting further
u nguards (for example , l . . . Qxb8 is met by 2 Qd5 + ) , but note that l . . . Qc4 and
l . . .Qf7 must be met specifically by 2 Rd7 + .

DobruskY's a i ry 6 took first prize in t h e sixth tourney ( \ 88 5 ) of t h e Praha

periodical Svetozor. As set, l . . .Kd4 can be met by the u nusual model mate
2 Bf6+ KcS 3 QbS but l . . . Kb5 needs attention and the ambush key 1 Bd8
,

provides it in splendid style: l . . .Kb5 2 Qe6+ Rxe6 3 Ra5. There are two
threats, 2 Ra5+ and 2 Qh5+, the fi rst leading to a pin-model mate in one line ,
and l . . . Be2 forces this (2 RaS+ Kb6 3 Ne4 ) . There is also a pure but
u neconomical mate after l . . . Re7 2 Qc6+ Kd4 3 N f3 . H owever, it is the sparkling
line I . . . Kb5 2 Qc6+ which is the heart of the prob le m .

Karel Fiala's even more airy 7 received an Honourable Mention in the

tournament of the " Lusatia" club at Zhorelice in 1 8 8 5 . The key here is the
straightforwardly attacking move 1 Nb6 which takes a flight, but it exposes the
knight to capture and there is a pleasant model mate i n the line 1 . . .exb6 2 Nd3+
Ka5 3 Qa8 . Another model occurs in the threat 2 Qd2+ Ke5 3 Nbd7, and there
are two more after the remaining king flights: 1 . . . Ka5 2 Qa8+ Kxb6 3 Nd7 and
1 . . . Ke5 2 Qf2+ Kb4 3 Ne6 .

7 - Mate in three

8 i s another airy creation by Fiala. This time t h e key 1 Ne5 gives a second
flight, but it threatens 2 Nd7+ Kg5 3 Bd2 and we have 1 . . . KgS 2 Bd2+ Kf6
3 Nd7 ( meeting a king move by reversing the moves of the threat is quite
common in Bohemian p roblems and should normally be regarded as a weakness,
though it often provides the simplest method of providi ng the required mate) and
I . . . KeS 2 Nd3+ with the near-echo mates 2 ... Kf6 3 Be7 and 2 ... Kd4 3 BeS. The
second of these mates is more closely echoed in the line 1 . . Bd4 2 Ne4+ KeS 3
.

Bd6, and we also have the switchback line 1 . . . Be3 2 Bxc 3 + KgS 3 Ne6.

8 - M ate in three

In J ifi Chocholous's 9 , I . . . KdS is set with the model mate 2 Qd7+ KcS
3 QfS , but l . . . Kf5 is met with the short mate 2 Qg4. The key 1 Rg4 perserves the
former but destroys the latter, the equally short mate 2 Qd7 appearing i n its place .
The threat is 2 Qg8+ with two model mate lines 2 . . . KfS 3 Qe8 and 2 Kd7 ...

3 Rg7 , the latter having a similar fee l to the mate after l . . . Kd5 though the mates
are not sufficiently alike to be classed as echoes, and a fourth model appears after
l . .fS 2 Kg8 fxg4 3 Qf7. A non- Bohemian would criticize this last line on the
.

grounds that the move 2 .. .fxg4 serves no defensive pu rpose (the mate 3 Qf7 is
already threate ned and 2 . . . fxg4 merely refines it into a mode l ) , but Bohemian
theorists have always been willing to consider such mates as a valid part of the
thematic play. Mopping-up lines: l . . .c5 2 Re4+ Kd5 3 Qb7 , l . . . Nd4 2 Rxd4.

- 15 -
 Chocholous 's 10 gained second Honourable Mention in the first international
tourney of the Bohemian Chess Association, held in Praha in 1 886. This is not
easy to solve. The B lack king has no flight square in the diagram, but the key
1 Qf8 allows him to play L . Kxe5 and the reply is not obvious: Z Bf3! But it
threatens 3 Nac6, and if the king retu rns to d4 the othe r knight mates instead
(Z Kd4 3 Ndc6)� The key threatens Z Qf2+ Kxe5 3 Nc4 , and the natural
.•.

defe nsive move I . . . Rf1 allows the fou rth model mate Z Nxb3+ Kxe5 3 d4.
Black can also defend by guarding the mating square c4. I . . . Nb2 merely
allows 2 Nxb3+ aga i n , but L .Nb6 leads to a fifth model mate and pe rhaps the
star of the show: the sac rificial Z Qc5+ Kxc5 3 Ne6 , exploiti ng the self-block on
b6.

Chocholous's 11 gained an Honourable Mention in the tourney of the

Deutsc her Schachbund at N ii rnberg in 1 88 3 . The captu res I . . . Kxd5 and I . . . Kxe5
need attentio n , and 1 Nd8 duly provides it: 1 . . . Kxe5 2 Qf4+ KxdS 3 c4 (a model
mate using all the remaining White men except the king) and L . KxdS 2 QeZ
with two mates (the threat 3 c4, agai n using all the White men except the king,
and 2 RxeS 3 Qd3 ) . We now see that 2 Qf4+ is a threat, whic h leads to the
•..

remaining play: I . . . Ne6 Z Qd3+ KxeS 3 Nt7 , L .gS Z Qe2+ KfS 3 Ne7 (or
2 . . . Kxd5 3 c4 as previously) , and I . . . RfS 2 Qe2+ and again the same . The
computer tells me that 2 Bb8/Bc7/Bd6/Bh2 are also threats (they threaten 3 Qd3
and if 2 . . . Rxd5 then 3 Qf4) , but these threats do not affect the play and if they are
1 1 - Mate in three thought u ndesirable the addition of a B lack pawn on d2 will re move them.

Jan Kotrc's 12 brings us back to the world of the l i ghtwe ights The key 1 Bd3
.

waits and gives the Black king a second flight, and afte r I . . axbZ we have Z BcZ+
.

with an " ideal" mate in the line Z . . . Kc3 3 Qc6 (the mate is a model and all the
men on the board take part, including the Wh ite king and all pawns ) . Z . Kc4 ..

3 Qc6 and 2 . . . Ka2 3 Qa8 are fu rther model mates in this variation, though the
latte r would be dull were it not for the queen-to-the-corner move. The king
moves also lead to subv a riations : 1 .. . Ka4 2 Qd5 with an a-file model mate from
below in the line Z . . . axb2 3 QaZ, and 1 . . . Ka2 Z Qc2 with an echo of this mate in
2 . axb2 3 Qa4. Pospls il does not d raw any particu lar attention to 2 . . . Ka l 3 Qb l
. .

in this last line, even though technically it is a further model mate.

I n KotrC 's 1 3 , t h e key 1 QdZ provides for the king flight ( l . . . Kf5 2 Qf4+) and
threatens 2 Qh6+ , but why not simply 1 . ..NxdZ? The answer is the model mate
2 Nd4+ Kd5 3 Bc6. There is an echo of this mate in the line 1 . . .Ng4 Z Nf4+ KfS
3 Bg6, and a second sacrifice and third model mate after L .Ne4 Z QdS+ KxdS
3 Nf4 . If l . .Nd H /Nd l then 2 Q(x)d3 .
.

The king fl ight in Eduard M azel's 14 i s set with a reply ( l . . . Kb5 2 Nc7 + ) , but
the key 1 Qc8 abandons this and gives Black a second flight. The short mate
2 Qxc6 is threatened and L.dZ extends this to the ful l - le ngth model mate line
2 Qxc6+ Kd3 3 Nf4 , and if B lack takes the new flight I ... KxdS , we have Z QfS+
,

with two more model mates (Z . . . Kc4 3 QcS and Z Kd6 3 Bc5) . But what about
•.•

the original flight 1 . . . KbS, since the reply 2 Nc7+ no longer works? The answer
is the sacrifice Z Qa6 + , with a fourth model mate if the queen is taken (2 . . Kxa6.

3 Nc7 ) .

- 16 -
 M azel's IS won third prize in the tourney of the K0benhavn periodical
"Nationaltidende" i n 1 884. The king flights I . . . Ke4 and I . . . Kxf4 need attentio n ,
a n d t h e straightforward attacking key 1 N g S prevents t h e first a n d p rovides for the
second in a routine manner ( l . . . Kxf4 2 Qd4+ ) . It also threatens 2 Qd5+ Kxf4
3 Qe4, and the n�tural reply 1 . . . hxgS leads to the model mate 2 QdS+ Kxf4
3 BxgS. However, much more interesting are the sacrifice lines which arise when
B lack tries to defe nd the threat square d5: 1 . . . BI7 2 Qxd6+ Kxd6 3 Nxl7
( model) and l . . .Ne3 2 Qd4+ Kxd4 3 Bf6. If l . . . Nxf4 then 2 Qa l + Kd5 3 c4, pure
but uneconomical.

1 6 brings us to the work of Posplsil himself. The key 1 KeS sets up two
threats, 2 Nd7+ Kf4 3 Bd2 and 2 Ng6+ Kf6 3 Bd8 , but in fact no Black move
allows both of them and the actual p lay is wholly accurate. The moves which
defeat both threats give the l ines 1 . . .dS 2 Be7+ Kf6 3 Nh7 , 1 . . . Kf6 2 BdS+ KeS
3 Ng6, 1 . . .d3 2 Be3+ Kf4 3 Ne6 , and 1 . . . Kf4 2 Bd2+ KeS 3 Nd7 , and the knight
on f8 gives a model mate from each of its four possible squares.

PospiSil ' s 17 has a prominent axis of symmetry , which is accentuated by the

key 1 Ng2. This guards f4 and so threatens 2 Ne7+ and 3 Qd5 , and 2 Nxe 3 + and
2 N f4+ are also threats. Only four moves defeat all these threats: the captures on
g2, giving 1 . . . Bxg2 2 Qd7+ Ke4 3 NaS and the symmetrically equivalent
1 . . . Qxg2 2 QbS+ Ke6 3 NdS , and the king fl ights which lead to 1 . . . Kc4 2 Qa6+
,

KdS 3 Nf4 and 1 . . . Ke6 2 Qc8+ KdS 3 Nxe3 . But it is perhaps a p ity that the
mates after 2 . . . Kb3 and 2 . . . Kf7 are not models also (that after l . . . Kc4 2 Qa6+
Kb3 3 Nd4 is pure , but the idle knight on g2 p revents it from being economical).

I n PospfSil's I S , the immediate attack I Kb7 threatening mate by 2 Bb6 is

met by l .. .d5 c reating a prospective flight square on d6, and the key is the curious
move 1 Bd8. This threatens 2 Kb7 and 3 Bb6 , because now 2 . . . d5 can be met by
3 Be7. The knight on e5 is tied to the defence of c4, and the principal defe nces
are three-fold : 1 . . . axbS 2 Qa7+ Kb4 3 BaS with an i n t eresting mate i n which
White obstructs his own queen 1 . . .Nd2 2 Qxa3+ KxbS 3 Ba4 with a near-echo
,

of the same mate, and the sacrifice line 1 . . .Ne3 2 Qd4+ Kxd4 3 Bb6.

The ki ng flight in PospiSil's 1 9 is set with a reply ( l . . . Kxd6 2 Qf8+ etc ) , so it

comes as a surprise that the key 1 NfS takes away this flight and gives him one on
c4 instead. There is now a curious quiet threat by 2 Be6 (or 2 Bf7jBg8) and
3 Qf8, and B lack's principal defences bring his queen ofT the a-file so t hat she can
g i ve check on her second move . However, each of these moves turns out to block
a square needed by the Black king and we have 1 . . . Qb4 2 Bd4+ Kxc4 3 Qg8 ,
,

1 . . .Qe3 2 Be7+ Kxc4 3 Qg8, and 1 . . . Qb3 2 Qf8+ Kxc4 3 Ne3. There remains
the new flight 1 . . . Kxc4, met by 2 Ne3+ KcS 3 Qf8.

- 17 -
 PospiSil's 20 took second prize in the Svetozor tou rney of 1 885 . The key
1 Qb7 threatens immediate mate by 2 N O , and the natural reply l . . .Nxb7 leads
to 2 Nc4+ Ke4 3 O. Other model mate lines are l . . . Rxf2 2 Qd5+ Nxd5 3 Nd3
and 1 . Re3 2 Qe4+ Nxe4 3 Nc4 (the companion line 2 . . . Rxe4 3 NO is not
..

pure ) , and there i& a pure but not economical mate after I . .. BxgS 2 NO+ Kf6
3 hxgS. If J . . . Nf5 then 2 Qc6.

The well-known 2 1 , again by Pospisil , took first prize in the Bohemian Chess
Association tourney of 1 886. The key 1 Na4 concedes a flight-captu re but sets up
the double threat 2 Nb6+/Nc7+ Kxe4 3 Qe 3 , and one of B lack's defensive
resou rces is to put a guard on e 3 : 1 . . . Qg3/Qh3 2 Qd6+ exd6 3 Nxf6. The
companion sacrifice on c5 occurs in the line l . . . Bd4 2 QcS+ BxcS 3 Nc3 , and if
l . . . BeS we have a third model mate in 2 Nc7 + Bxc7 3 Nc3 . This mate also
appears after l . . . Qxf2/Qxg4 2 Nxf6+ exf6 3 Nc3, and a most unexpected fourth
model appears after l . . �cS 2 Nc3+ Bxc3 3 Qa8 . The fifth model 1 . . . Kxe4
2 Qe3+ KdS 3 Nb6 concludes the thematic p lay, but one constructional detail is
worth a passing mention: I . Bb3 is met by 2 0 creating four threats, but this
..

does not work with the bishop still on a2 because 1 . . . b4 would defeat them all!

22, our last example by PospiSil, took fi rst prize i n the 1 8 86 tourney of the
B ritish Chess Association. The key 1 Be8 puts an ambush on b5 but makes no
threat ( pospisil was right to send a waiter to a British tourney!) and the first
thematic line is 1 . . . cS 2 QxcS+ NxcS 3 Nb6. The rest of the principal mates are
pure but not economical. Nondescript moves of the knight on g5 , say l . . .Nh3 ,
allow the second sacrifice 2 Qxb3+ Kxb3 3 B n , and the corrective move 1 . . . Ne6
is met by 2 Ne5+ Kd5 3 Bc6 exploiting the self-block on e6. This mate is
echoed , although without a self-block, in the line 1 . . . Kd S 2 Nf6+ Ke6 3 Bd7, and
there is another pure mate in the line l . . c6 2 Q d6 KbS 3 Qd3 . And there is a
.

third queen sacrifice in the line 1 . . . KbS 2 Qxa4 + , but the resulting mate is both
u neconomical and dualized.

23, by Karel Pospisil, is an amusing lightweight. The key 1 Qa3 gives a

second flight on d4, but it is met by a short mate and the threat 2 Qxg3+ Kd4
3 Qc3 is also straightforward. The i nteresting play starts with l . . .d4 2 QaS+ dS
3 Qc7 , and the line 1. .fS 2 Qxg3+ f4 3 Qxg7 is similar in spirit if not an exact
.

echo. There remains l . . . Kf4, met by the "en passant" pin mate 2 Qe3+ Ke5
3 d4.

Karel PospiSil's 24 took third prize in the 1 886 tou rney of the Bohemian
Chess Association. The key 1 Qh2 sacrifices the queen and makes no threat, but
if the sacrifice is accepted the bishop on h I comes into play and we have l . ..Nxh2
2 NfS+ KcS 3 Bd6 . There is a second model mate in the lines l . . .Nb2jNf2
2 Q (x)f2+ KdS 3 Bxf3 , but the remaining play, although sacrificial and
interesting, is either not quite pure or not quite economical. The line L .Ne3
2 QeS+ NxeS 3 Ne6 exploits the self-block on e 3 , but the mate lacks one square
of p urity; 1 . . . Bc5 2 Qe5 + Nxe5 3 Nf5 exploits the self-block on c S , but again the
mate lacks one square of pu rity; l . . . Bb6/Bb8 2 QeS + NxeS 3 B (x)b6 exploits the
self-block on eS and this time the mate is pure , but the knight is not used.
The king flights are straightforwardly met.

- 18 -
 Karel Traxler's 25 yields to 1 Qd2 th reate ning 2 Be4+ Kxe5 3 Qe3 (or
2 . . . Kxe5 3 Qf4) and the sym metrically equivalent 2 Be4 + Kxe5 3 Qc3 , and both
of these lines are separately forced (for example, 2 Bc4+ by 1 . . . Ba5 ) . There
remain l . . .dxc5 2 Bc4+ Kxe5 3 Qf4 and this time the mate is a model , and
l . . . Kxc5 2 Qe3+ Kd5 3 Bc4; and of course the symmetric analogues l . . .dxe5 2
Be4+ Kxc5 3 Qb4 and l . . . Kxe5 2 Qc3+ Kd5 3 Be4. This gives a total of six
model mates, though the symmetry will not be to all tastes.

Jan Dobruskfs 26 introduces us to the four - movers. The key 1 Rc4 takes a
flight and threatens immediate mate by 2 Nf4, but the natural reply is l . . .Bxd3
and now we have a three-mover of some quality: 2 Nd7! This threatens 3 Nb6+
Ke6 4 Bd7, a pure mate although not economical, and the captures on c4 lead to
three model mates: 2 . . . Kxc4 3 Nb6 + Kc5 4 Qgl (or 3 . . . Kb3 4 Ba4) , and
2 . . . Bxc4 3 Nf6+ (to cover the new fl ight on e4) and either 3 . . . Ke6 4 Bd7 or
3 . . . Kc5 4 Qg l . The second flight 2 . . . Ke6 in this line leads to noth i ng of interest
(3 Qf6+ etc ) , but there is a fourth model mate if Black takes the other knight at
his first move : 1 . . .exd5 2 Q xe 5 + Kxe4 3 Bb5 + Kb3 4 Ne t . Mopping-up lines:
l . . . Ke6 2 Bd7+ Kf6 3 Nf3+/Nf7+ Kg6 4 Nf4, l . . . Ne 2 /Nh5 2 Qh l + Ke6 3 Bd7 + .

PospiSil's own 2 7 took fi rst prize in t h e B ritish Chess Association tourney of

1 8 86. The key 1 Nexf6 threatens 2 Be4+ Ke3 (2 . . . Kc4 allows immediate mate by
3 Qb5) 3 Qf4+ Kxf4 4 Bd2 , and the flight 1 . . . Ke3 leads to a variation of this:
2 Qf4+ Kf4 3 Bd2+ Kf5 4 Be4. Another defensive move is 1 Nb7 , which
prevents the mate on b5 after 2 Be4+ Kc4. White must now play 2 Qg8 with
various threats, and after the natu ral reply 2 ... Bxg8 we have 3 Ng4; this threatens
4 Nde5 , and i f 3 . . . Ke4 then 4 Nge5 and the other knight has mated instead .
Mopping-up lines: L. . Bb4 2 Qxb4 etc , l . . . a6 2 Be4+ Kc4 3 Qd6/Qe5.

Karel Traxler's 28 yields to I Re4 with several threats of which 2 Qf5 + Kc6
3 Qb5+ Kc7 4 Rc4 is the most cogent. I f l . . . Be 3 we have 2 Qe2 (threatening
mate on c4) Bd4 3 Qb5+ and either 3 . . . Be5 4 Qb7 or 3 . . . Kxe4 4 Qf5 , and after
l . . . Bb6 we have the companion line 2 Re4 Bd4 3 QfS + BeS 4 Qf7 (or 3 . . . Kxc4
4 Qb5 , but this mate is not pure because of the Black pawn on b 3 ) . If 2 . . . Nf6 in
this line then 3 e8Q. Mopping-up li nes: l . . . Bb4/Nc7 2 Rc4 etc , l . . . Kc5/Kc6
2 Rc4+ and the king is hunted down .

This ends the selection that Vladimfr Kos made for me, but I cannot resist
add ing Bedfich Frohman n's superb three-mover 29, which was not one of the
book's 320 original examples but was slipped in at the end having won first prize
in the tourney of the G oteborg periodical Arat Om. The key I Bel threatens the
elegant model mate 2 Bb2+ Kf4 3 Qc 1 . Any move by the bishop on f5 defeats this
threat by giving the Black king an escape square, but it also opens the line d5-g5 ,
and a nondescript move such as 1 . . . Bd3 allows 2 Qd5+ Kxf6 3 BgS. Black can try
to improve on this by playing l . . . Be4/Be6 guarding d5, but each of these moves
blocks his king and White can take advantage: 1 . . . Be4 2 Ng4+ Kf5 3 Qd7 and
1 . . .Be6 2 Qe3 Kf5 3 g4. This is Bohemianism at its best, a collection of attractive
mates resulting from logical and harmonious play. If 1 . . . Kd4 then 2 Qd5+.

- 19 -
 Some comments from a hundred years on

Pospisil wrote very early in t h e history of the Bohem ian sc hool, as the i l lu st rat i v e p roblems bear witness, and it is
ins t ru c t i v e to consider what has happened since.
In fact the p ri nc i p l es expounded by Pospisil hilve remained wholly valid, but t h ere have been two significant
developments: there has been an increased concentration on echoed mates, and various attempts have been made
to combine model mates with strategic play.
The increased concentration on echoed mates is large ly a matt e r o f e m p h a s i s , because echo p roblems are
certa i nly p resent in Ceski ulohy sachove although Po s pi S i l draws no pa rt i c u l a r atte ntion to them. Later, however,
the realization of echoes became a pri n cipal a i m o f B o hem i a n c o m p os i t i o n and a large n u mber of fine pro ble ms
,

resulted. I n the words of I lj a M ikan, the echo re p res en ts "the p i nnacle of B o h e mi a n a c h ie v e m ent . "

The combination of mode l mates with strategic p lay has bee n n u me rically less fru itfu l , and t he reason is
s i m p l e : it is very difficult to find mechanisms which combine the kind a n d degree of force needed to create
i nt e resting s t rat eg i c al i n t e rpl a y with the economy of s q u are control needed for pure mates. H owever, when
everything works the resu lts can be very fine indeed, and I s h o wed some splendid p roblems of this kind to the
B ritish C hess P roblem Soc iety i n 1 996 ( reprinted in 5acho vd skladba, June 1 996 , a n d The Problemist, May 1 99 7 ) .
There has also bee n o n e less welco m e development . Posp iSil stresses qualities such a s " beauty" and
" harmony " , but t h ese are i ntangible and some c o mm ent at o rs have come to regard the simple " yes or no" c riteria
of p u r i ty and economy of m a t e as a sufficient and co m p l et e state ment of the aim to be achieved. Two as p e ct s in
pa rt i cu l ar have b e e n c riticized by ad h e re n ts of other sch o ols: t h e re g a rd i ng as t h e m ati c of a move wh i c h d o es
" "

n o t d e fe a t a t h re at but m e re l y e l i m i nates a superfluous man o r guard so t hat the t h reatened mate becomes a
m od e l , and t h e p re s e n tati o n of m a t e s which are p u re only by virtue of a White pawn which d o e s nothing to furthe r
the attack but m e re ly blocks the line of a White p i e c e and e l i m i n a tes a d o u b le guard fro m a square further along.
Both are highlighted in I lja M ikan s Dobrodruistv! 64 poll ( 1 97 3 ) as i nteg r a l components of the Bohemian
'

method, and both are d i s l i k ed by cr it i cs from almost every ot h e r s c h o o l .

In fac t Po sp iS i l says not h i ng about the move w h ic h fa ils to refute a th reat and mere ly re fines the subsequent
m at e i nto a m ode l but if we ex a m i n e the problems i n Ceske ulohy sachove we find that relat ively few of t he m rely
,

o n s u c h m o v e s ; most of the t i me the model m ates foll o w from genuinely defensive moves in a normal and
,

natu ral manner. An d as regards the Wh it e p awn w h ic h me re l y obst ructs one of its ow n pieces a n d so besto'Ns
fo rm a l "purity" o n an ugly a nd clutte red mate , P os p iS il s re marks in section 2 B (page 9 of this translation ) wo uld
'

ap p ea r e xp li c i t l y and u ncompromisingly to condemn it. S uch pa w ns may h av e become accepted i n l at e r

B oh e m i a n work, but they had no place i n the p ra ct i ce o f t h e p i o ne ers.

I n d e e d , re ad i n g PospiSil wi t h E nglish eyes a c e n tu ry o n , what st r i k es me m o s t is his c o n ce rn with balance.

Yes , he st ress e s pu rity of mate in a way t h at a c riti c of a n other school would not and h e insists th at at l e ast one
mate i n the mai nplay be pure , b u t this is far from saying that model mates are the b e - all and e n d a l l of a problem.
-

A nat u ral starting position, su rp rising moves, har m o n io u s variation pla y beautiful mates, and a reasonable though
,

n o t excessive leve l of d i ffi c u l ty : all are important, and none s h o u l d be e m p hasi z e d at t h e expense of t h e others.
This, rather t h a n the m u ltiplication of model mates per se, is p e rhaps the t r u e legacy of the B o h e m ians.
Let me fi nish with a p ro ble m , published a little while after CesM ulohy sachove, w h ic h s e e m s to me pe rfectly
to e mbody t hese p r i n c i p l e s It is a mate i n three, l ig h t as a i r :
.

The key is 1 Nd4, sacrificing the knight and re pl ac i ng the dead-end fl ight o n e6 by o ne which seems to l e ad
towards open country, and each of Black's three m ove s leads to a fu l l l e n gt h l i n e e n d i ng in a model mat e :
-

1 . . . Kxd4 2 Bf6+ K d 5 3 Nf4 , 1 . . . Kd5 2 N O Ke6 3 Nf4, and 1 . . . d5 2 B e 7 Kxd4 3 Bf6 . W i t h its fi n e key, its
c o m pl e te accu racy, and a q u i e t second move in two of its t h re e lines, this cou ld have been composed by an
En g l is h m an j u s t as easily as by a B o h e m i an Was it? In fac t it owes a l l e g ian c e to neither; it was composed by a
.

S p a n i ard Valentin Mari n , for the s e c o n d edition ( 1 895) of Jean Preti ' s i n t r o d u c to ry French t reatise A B C des
,

echecs, and what c o u l d be bette r than the inclusion of s u c h a p rob l em i n a te xt b o o k fo r c hess beg i n n e rs to be ar out
Antonin Kvicala' s opening re ma rks about the worldwide diffusion of Bohemian ideals'!

- 20 -