*1... Df4(a) 2.Dd4#(A), 1... Dxg4(b) 2.Dd4#(A)

1.Le~(h1)? ~ 2.Dd4#(A), 1... Df4(a) 2.Rd7#, 1... Dxg4!(b)
1.Le~(b1)? ~ 2.Dd4#(A), 1... Dxg4(b) 2.Rxg4#, 1... Df4!(a)

1.Lf5! ~ 2.Dd4#(A), 1... Df4 2.Tc5#(D), 1... Dxg4 2.Tc5#(D), (1... Kf4 2.Dxc7#)
( 1.e7? ~ 2.Dxc7#, 1... Dg8+!).

Tuomarin lausunto: This extremely original and creative composition proves that generally recognized faults do not necessarily tell anything about the quality of the problem. Indeed, my first impression was that everything was wrong in the concept of this problem. However, after a deeper analysis, I realized that everything the author did was with a clear idea. Like an alchemist, he succeeded to turn the rocks to the gold. It is a fact that the bishop with its random removal (“in the air”) cannot simultaneously make two primary weaknesses (as far as the guard of the squares in the king’s field is concerned), and author utilized it to split the play to two phases, i.e. arbitrary moves along two diagonals. These two tries in an ingenial combination with so-called “dualistic defences” in the set and actual play multiply the thematic content (Dombrovskis effects), recognized as two parallel systems of 3x1 change of mates. Notice that the key is a pure white correction in relation to two white tries, since it repeats both weaknesses – abandon of the control over d5 and f5. A masterpiece.