Today I reviewed the results of the threemover section in the magazine "64 – CHESS REVIEW" No. 2/2025.

As for the level of the highlighted problems, it is not for me to judge, as this is the prerogative of the judge, Alexander Kuzovkov. The only thing I can add is that I did not see anything particularly obvious or truly original in the problems in the threemover section!

Year after year, it’s the same thing – virtually the same winners, similar problem constructions, the same themes, their synthesis and combinations, all requiring an innumerable number of pieces and pawns to express them.

I always view the results through the eyes of an amateur, not a specialist, so I want to say that they do not evoke any aesthetic pleasure, joy, or novelty in me. Meanwhile, some composers, including renowned ones, scatter material to the left and right in order to implement certain chess ideas, much like a sower, hoping to grow a rich synthesis of themes on their peculiar field.

In other words, the expression of certain themes in a problem has become for them an attribute, an inseparable property of the composition! Believe me, this is an incorrect approach to composition and a poor example to follow! And then we inevitably ask ourselves, why is interest in composition steadily declining every year?

From its very inception, chess composition aimed to attract chess enthusiasts with its vivid problems and studies, and it succeeded in this. However, over time, a certain trend emerged, focused on creating various themes and using them in compositions. As a result, many composers began to master them, combine and synthesize them, often to the detriment of the composition itself. Many of them still focus on the technical side of composition at the expense of its artistic value.

And the pursuit of records?! That’s a separate topic! It is particularly noticeable in the moremover genre – some composers emphasize the technique of composition, forgetting about its artistic component! Remember, a major flaw in a problem, regardless of genre, is a position where there is no answer to the check of the white king! Even the classic composers wrote about this, and it should not be forgotten!
In studies, this is possible, but in problems, this major flaw should be avoided.
And what amazes me is that in some competitions, such problems even receive high distinctions! The result of this approach, combined with the aforementioned, is an additional negative mark for chess composition.

The miniature is a remarkable genre of composition, and it requires a special approach. I have dedicated several articles to this genre on the ChessStar website and have come to the conclusion that the definitions and rules outlined in the The Code of Chess Composition are somewhat vague and do not always correspond to the miniature genre. I realized that a different, separate approach is needed here. I have put considerable effort into organizing and recording some regulations regarding this genre. They are thoroughly detailed in the rules of our website.

I do not know how miniature composers feel about these regulations, as there are some contentious points, especially regarding the anticipated ones, but we still adhere to these rules in our composition competitions, and I assure you, quite successfully. So far, no complaints have been received from competition participants regarding these rules and regulations.

Now, to the point. In the aforementioned competition results, one quintet (five pieces) was highlighted and received a prize distinction.
The judge has defined this term as a combination of two words: "super-miniature" and "baby"?! I think it’s time to define the terms properly, forgive the tautology! It would have been better to call it "tangra" or "baby"... Moreover, it is well known that a super-miniature refers to a composition with six pieces. Yet, the judge uses mutually exclusive terms.

Agreed, in such a prestigious competition, such a distinction for a quintet means, at the very least:

1. Originality.
2. A vivid embodiment of the idea.

Here is the problem.



What should the judge do first before evaluating the problem or study? Correct, check the composition for a anticipated. The best tool for this is any of the chess databases.

This quintet had been featured in the magazine for a whole year, and the judge didn’t bother to check it for a anticipated?! The result of a database search yielded the following – the problem has a anticipated. An exact copy was published as early as 2000! Author – Evgeny Bogdanov: www.yacpdb.org/#160659.

And also: Nanz, Heinrich W. P., Frankfurter Journal, 1882: www.yacpdb.org/#106151, Obermann, Johannes Hugo Wilhelm, Práca, 1881: www.yacpdb.org/#124402, Vögele, Erwin, Horizont, 1948: www.yacpdb.org/#134017.

By the way, this problem has a twin, if the queen is moved to the c6 square. But the author apparently did not do so consciously, as he knew about the existence of a well-known pseudo-threemover problem with a queen on c6 (which he presumably relied on during his "creativity"), and it is cleverly disguised in the attempts to solve it.

How nice, right? That is, there is a pseudo-threemover problem, and another author just has to "find" a move to approach the position of this pseudo-threemover problem, and voila, the problem is ready! Forgive me, but in such a case, this is pure plagiarism, not creativity!

Even if there had been no anticipated, the problem could not have claimed such a high distinction! As for the miniatures, which received honorable and commendable reviews in this competition, I have nothing to say, as they were not even published! I am speechless, really!

A similar case occurred quite recently in the Djyrtdan-2024 competition, if I’m not mistaken, in the threemover section, when I wrote to the judge that the prize-winning problem was not entirely original, and received such a "scolding" from the latter, that I lost all desire to continue a productive dialogue.

To sum up what has been said. We should not repeat ourselves in composition, always seek new possibilities, original ideas, and approaches to composition, use new tools for expressing chess ideas, and not get stuck on themes, as they sometimes limit freedom in creativity. Creativity loves freedom, and those who do not understand this – well, that’s their choice!

Always remember that we compose problems and studies not for ourselves, not for professional composers who alone can evaluate our creations properly, but for chess enthusiasts!

All the best!