Of course, I may be mistaken, but I have personally worked on a similar scheme for no less than seventeen years and am well acquainted with the subtleties of such positions. Therefore, my opinion is based not on conjecture, but on deep and long-standing experience.

When analyzing a problem and writing comments on it, it is generally advisable to pay attention not only to the material used, but also to the activity of its components.

Such problems might have been of interest in the 20th century, but certainly not today, when we have computers and powerful chess engines at our disposal. We possess an excellent arsenal of technical tools for creating problems with deeper content and a clear realization of the intended idea.

The conservatism of thought characteristic of certain judges and composers acts as a creative brake and is detrimental to chess composition.
I have always maintained, and still maintain, that in one’s creative work it is necessary to move in step with the times!

By awarding such high distinctions to problems in which the basic requirements of the moremover genre are violated—absence of interesting play due to a weak idea, functional underloading of the white material, and quantitative overloading of the black— we substitute content with form, and in essence devalue the genre itself.
This leads to the erosion of the criteria by which the true value of a composition is determined. As a result, truly strong works are lost against the background of weak but superficially impressive schemes.

Such an approach does not contribute to the development of the genre. On the contrary, it encourages a formal approach to composition, where the idea is replaced by external glitter, and substantive depth yields to mere decorative form.

The manoeuvres of the rook and bishop in this problem, as well as the mate itself, are strongly reminiscent—albeit in a much reduced and therefore simplified form—of a composition that took second place in the 2022 World Cup.

I dare to assume that both the author of the problem and the judge of the competition were aware of the existence of that composition, and nevertheless, the judge was not deterred from awarding it such a high distinction. With a certain degree of probability, I can state that the problem has a strong conceptual predecessor.

Therefore, I would like to dwell on the notion of plagiarism, so that readers may more clearly understand what I wish to convey—where the line lies between ethical borrowing of a previously encountered idea with due acknowledgment of its source, and unethical, deliberately disguised reproduction of a previously published problem’s conception, use of white material, mating finale, arrangement of pieces, and so forth.

What plagiarism is will be well known to many of you; nevertheless, it would not be superfluous to recall its basic features as applied to chess composition: the borrowing of another’s idea or scheme without attribution, and the attempt to present a previously published work with only insignificant changes as one’s own.

In the classical sense, plagiarism is the presentation of another’s idea as one’s own, without attribution.

Plagiarism is a refusal to search for the new, an imitation masquerading as creativity. It devalues the very concept of creative search and renders the genre, in this context, highly vulnerable in terms of artistic value.

On the moral level, plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft. It demeans the labour of other authors, overshadows genuine innovation, and undermines the trust and integrity of the creative community.
This is felt especially acutely in chess composition, where many masters work on a single idea for years, honing it to perfection. To steal from them is akin to tearing a page from a book and signing it with one’s own name.

Plagiarism is not only a violation of rules—it is a slap in the face to the creative process and to the author of an earlier published composition.
A true composer is always in search of the new, not the old; they seek, rather than blindly borrow.
Borrowing is usually practiced by those composers who, due to the limitations of their intellectual and creative capabilities, are incapable of producing something truly new and original. In their so-called creative work, they tend to tread in place, repeating the same devices, appropriating the discoveries of others, and disguising banality as stylistic refinement—hoping, perhaps, that a change in form might substitute for the absence of substantive content.

Personally, I welcome those composers who, building upon a known idea, develop it and elevate the problem to a qualitatively higher level. In such cases, we are speaking not of plagiarism, but of the continuation of genuine creative exploration. However, if no improvement is present—if the composition merely reproduces earlier ideas without new tactical elements—then one must have the courage to refrain from publishing it. Yet, honestly, which of these so-called composers would ever admit this to themselves?

Still, I would not be surprised if this particular problem one day finds its way into the selection for the FIDE Album—entirely possible, especially given the less-than-positive trends we have been witnessing in chess composition lately.

And now, please examine the problem below (with comments in English).

In order to expand my earlier idea involving the rook/bishop pair with maximum expressiveness and constructive purity, I invested an immense amount of effort and time, applying the full measure of my skill.

№2 Karmil, Ferhat
10th FIDE World Cup, 2^nd Prize


#21                                           3+11

You cannot immediately play the tempo move 1.Ra8, since there is no mating threat to the black king from the white bishop on e4.
Therefore, it is necessary first to prepare such an opportunity by transferring the bishop to a more advantageous square:

1.Rg7+! (1.Ra8? Bc4! 2.Be4??) 1...Kh8 2.Rg6 (2.Kg6? f4+ 3.Kxh6 Nf5+!)
2...Kh7! (2...f4? is refuted by 3.Rxh6+ Bh7 4.Be4 Nf5 5.Bxf5 Re4 6.Bxe4 Kg8 7.Bxh7+ Kf8 8.Bf5, etc.)
3.Bg8+ Kh8 4.Bf7 Kh7
Now, the rook returns to its original square, but with the bishop already stationed on f7.
5.Rg7+ Kh8 6.Rg8+ Return of the Rook!
6...Kh7 – first stage accomplished.
The bishop has been transferred to an advantageous square, and now the white rook can play with tempo on a8 to execute the main plan.
7.Ra8! f4 8.Ra7 Ne6! (8...Nf5? 9.Bg6+ Kh8 10.Ra8#; 8...Be4? 9.Bd5+ Kh8 10.Ra8+ Kh7 11.Bxe4+)
9.Bxe6+ Kh8 10.Ra8+ Return of the Rook.
10...Kh7 11.Bg8+ Kh8 12.Bf7+! Return of the Bishop! (12.Bc4+? Kh7 13.Bxd3+ Nxd3!)
12...Kh7 13.Ra7! Return of the Rook. Once again in ambush, with a repetition of the position.
13...Be4! 14.Rd7! (14.Bg6+? Kg8! 15.Rg7+ Kh8 16.Rd7 Bd5!; 14.Re7 Kh8! (14...Bc6? 15.Be6+! (15.Rc7!) ))
14...Kh8! 15.Bg6! Bd5 16.Rd8+ Bg8 17.Bf7! Nd3! (17...Re4? 18.Kg6! Re6+ 19.Bxe6 Nd3 20.Rxg8# Full Rundlauf of the Rook!)
18.Bxg8 Ne5 19.Be6+ Kh7 20.Bf5+ Ng6 21.Bxg6# MM

Rich content, considering the subtle and varied play of both White and Black. The composition employs all possible devices: piece returns, position repetition, rook ambushes, rook battery play along the 7th and 8th ranks, vertical manoeuvres, full Rundlauf of both the white bishop and rook – all executed with just three white pieces, culminating in a model mate!


What is remarkable in this problem? Let us list: double repetition of the position, piece returns, circular movement (Rundlauf) of rook and bishop, rook ambush moves forming a battery, active counterplay by Black, the knight sacrifice on move eight – 8...Ne6!, the pin of the black bishop, precise choice of the first move, rook play both vertically and horizontally... And all this spectacle is performed by only three pieces!
Surprisingly, the white king, without making a single move in the course of the main solution and remaining in the very epicentre of events, nevertheless turns out to be a key figure in this dramatic performance.
The conceptual source of this problem is the following moremover:
No. 3 Karmil, Ferhat
idee & form, 1^st HM, 2005
FIDE Album (2004–2006/C149)


#13                      3+10

1.Rc7? e4!
1.Ra7+! Kb8 2.Rf7 Bh6 3.Rb7+ Ka8 4.Rc7 Kb8 5.Ba7+ Ka8 6.Bc5 Kb8 7.Re7 Ng7 8.Bd6+ Ka8 9.Rc7 Ne6 10.Rc8+ Ka7 11.Bb8+ Ka8 12.Bc7+ Ka7 13.Bb6#
Interesting rook maneuvers, but without intricate subtleties. However, the light form, plus the full rondure of the bishop, where the solution concludes with a correct mate (note exactly the same as in B. Kozdon’s problem) — these are the merits of the composition. But pay attention to the date — 2005! At that time, many composers did not have computers, let alone chess software.
Therefore, the limitations in the depth of the solution’s content in such long-move problems are understandable and justified.
This problem has as many pieces as the black material in B. Kozdon’s problem, and the play is more interesting.

After working on this problem, I had the idea to implement rook maneuvers also along the b-file.
However, realizing it took a long time: during the creative process, numerous duals and even side solutions appeared. The main problem was the white king, which during the solution could move either to b6 or c7, thereby confining the black king and leading to inevitable mates.
At the same time, it was impossible to exclude these moves without violating the correctness of the main solution.
Only after many trials and errors, in preparation for the World Cup, did I manage to find the key to realizing this, in my opinion, challenging idea.

Summarizing the above, I can say with certainty that B. Kozdon’s problem has a clear predecessor in problem No. 2.
Of course, it looks visually different, but the important thing is this: that problem brought nothing new in terms of implementing the idea and clearly loses both in form and content to problem No. 2.
And if so, then what was the point of creating such a long-move composition at all?!

Stagnation in the realm of creative search is one of the characteristic signs of modern trickwork (term and definition — author’s note), where external form increasingly replaces meaningful depth!  

Best wishes!

P.S. I have repeatedly contacted the journal Die Schwalbe with a request to forward my comments regarding the predecessor to Baldur Kozdon’s problem to the contest judge Hemmo Axt, but I have yet to receive any response from him.

This earlier problem, featuring the same idea and pieces, clearly predates Kozdon’s problem.

Apparently, the contest organizers abide by the principle "there’s no use crying over spilt milk"...

— Translation performed by ChatGPT.