Who created half of this classic three-move miniature?

Diagrammed below without attribution is one of the most famous and widely quoted three-move problems ever. While the first position has a clever solution, what makes this miniature a classic is that it contains a twin: by rotating the position 180 degrees, we obtain another three-mover that is solved in a strikingly different way. This two-part problem is most commonly credited to the Russian composer, Aleksandr Galitsky, with the source given as Shakhmatny Journal 1900; but as we shall see, there are good reasons to doubt that he produced the second part. Rare among famous chess compositions, there’s a great deal of uncertainty and conflicting information – in print and online – regarding its provenance. I decided to delve into the mystery and tried to resolve the question of its authorship, by making use of primary sources as much as possible. Fortunately, nowadays many old newspapers and magazines have been digitalised and made accessible online (my large collection of chess problem books in hard/soft copies also helped). Three candidates for creating the second position have been proposed, and we shall look at the evidence for each: (1) Galitsky himself, (2) Frederick Bennett, an Australian problemist and (3) J. R. Venning, an obscure figure.

In (a) Black is immobilised, and although a knight move can avert stalemate, White must sacrifice the bishop. 1.Bf6! gxf6 2.Kf8 f5 3.Sf7. In (b), the stalemate is released by an unpin, 1.Kc3!, where a different key-piece plays to the equivalent square. After 1…b1=Q, White gives up the knight with 2.Sc2+ Qxc2+ 3.Kxc2. The key-move also allows a promotion check, though a dual results: 1…b1=S+ 2.K~+ Sc3 3.Bxc3. Contrasting mates by a knight and a bishop are brought about with perfect white economy. In fact, the two white pieces swap roles in being sacrificed and delivering mate – a pattern called the Zilahi theme in helpmates. Whether the theme name should apply to directmates like this one (and selfmates) is currently a topic of discussion among problemists.

Theory 1: Aleksandr Galitsky (for both positions)

Regarded as the greatest Russian composer before the Soviet-era, Aleksandr Galitsky (1863-1921) published more than a thousand problems, mostly directmates. The twin problem in question is usually attributed to him alone (for example, in 100 Classics of the Chessboard by Dickens and Ebert), in the form given by this yacpdb entry: #125088. Yet on the Schwalbe database, P1153786 – citing the same 1900 source – has one part only, and the white king is on e8, not e7. The king’s placement is important because even though part (a) solves the same regardless, an e8-king invalidates a twin setting (the king on d1 can’t reach c3, so (b) has no solution). Hence, if Galitsky had published the one-part problem, it would not only imply that he was unaware of part (b), but also make it unlikely that the twinning possibility (requiring an e7-king) occurred to him later on. We can confirm which version he published by consulting the original source, Shakhmatny Journal, which is available on the Russian National Electronic Library [1]. (All links, including some to additional screenshots of relevant excerpts, are provided in the footnotes.)

So Galitsky published the one-part problem, and a subsequent issue presents the solution plainly with no indication of the composer or any reader becoming wise to the twin position. In 2010, an anthology of Galitsky’s problems was produced by Urusov and Fomichev, titled Shakmatny Geine. Interestingly, when John Beasley discusses the three-mover in his article, ‘In praise of old problems’ [2], he writes that Paul Valois told him that the anthology attributes the twin setting to Galitsky, using Shakhmatny Journal 1900 as the source. But as I have argued, such an attribution is mistaken and I think the authors of the anthology credited him merely as a convenience. If Galitsky had expanded his three-mover at some point, the authors would have provided first publication details for such a twin problem, not repeated the source of the one-part setting.

Theory 2: Frederick Bennett (for second position)

Frederick Bennett (1867-1961) was a prominent Australian problemist of the early 20th century. Born just a few years after Galitsky, he was coincidentally also prolific in publishing more than a thousand problems. Both yacpdb #550183 and Schwalbe P1139067 accredit Bennett with the twin problem, but use the second position as the diagram. The two databases supply the same source: The Australasian Chess Review 1924. However, that is not possible since the ACR began its run in 1929, as documented in Bob Meadley’s Australian Chess Problem History [3]. Indeed, our Oz Archives section – which contains the complete problem columns from that magazine – indicates its period was 1929-1944.

It seemed worthwhile to locate a copy of Bennett’s actual original publication. That will ascertain if he did publish the twin setting or (say) only part (b), and in the former case, it would be interesting to see if he knew of Galitsky’s precursor. The first place to check, assuming the databases are incorrect only in their dates, was the Australasian Chess Review, but a search through all of its issues brought up nothing on the three-mover. If, instead, the cited year of 1924 is correct, what other Australian sources could have published this problem? A reference to the Galitsky in The Problemist, Mar. 1962 (see Venning section below [9]) suggests F. Bennett, The Brisbane Courier 1924. Archival access to this newspaper is available on Trove, a massive online database of print materials run by the National Library of Australia. But perusing the publication’s 1924 chess columns yielded no results – it’s another red herring.

Running out of options, I looked for clues in the problem database entries that include “reprints” notes. For Galitsky’s #125088, there’s a reference to “Los Angeles Times, 11 May 1930 (166), named, in translation, ‘A[lex]. Galitsky’ as author; according to British Chess Magazine 1925-05, named ‘P. Bennett’ [sic] as author to part b”. Access to early issues of the L.A. Times lies behind a paywall, but the British Chess Magazine is available on the Internet Archive. Its May 1925 issue [4] quotes both positions under F. Bennett’s name, and reveals the twin’s source as The Australasian – not The Australasian Chess Review! The Australasian was a notable newspaper outlet for chess problems at the time, and it is found on Trove [5].

As noted at the end of the solutions in The Australasian, Bennett claimed authorship of part (b) only. So he was aware of Galitsky’s problem in some form, and added the twin in 1924. But was he really the first to put this two-part problem together?

Theory 3: J. R. Venning (for second position)

When the question on the origin of this composition first arose in my mind, I consulted Werner Keym’s Chess Problems Out of the Box and Anything but Average, both superbly researched collections [6]. Using alternate spellings, the books give joint credits to (a) Alexander Galitsky, Shakhmatnyi Zhurnal 1900 and (b) J. R. Venning, Melbourne Leader 1916. The Australian source was intriguing, but the name Venning was unfamiliar and a search on the problem databases didn’t bring up a single work by this person. I also ran a name search through the large collection of Australian problem materials available in the Oz Archives, and nothing came up.

The Melbourne Leader was another significant source of original chess problems, and it is available on Trove under the title of The Leader (Melbourne) [7]. Unfortunately, for 1916 only the issues in the second half of the year are digitalised and accessible online. Also, because the scan quality of old newspapers like this one is understandably poor, the text search tool gives sketchy results at best. Therefore I had to look through all of the chess columns in these available issues, and there was no mention of Venning (not even as a regular solver) or this miniature problem.

Since this J. R. Venning seemed like a phantom, I wrote to Werner Keym and asked how confident is he with this credit detail in his books. He kindly explained that his source is Perlen der Schachkomposition by the great miniature expert, Werner Speckmann [8]: “Above the diagram Speckmann gives: A. W. Galitzki - J. R. Venning and ‘Schachmatny Journal’ 1900 / ‘Melbourne Leader’ 1916 and (Version: F. Bennett, 1924). In an annotation he writes: The diagram position can be found as a reproduction in ‘Blumenthal, Schachminiaturen’, Volume 2 (1903). Later on Bennett published both [positions] as a twin under his name.”

Meanwhile I ran another search for “Venning” in my whole digital collection of chess problem materials (huge number of PDF-files courtesy of the late Ian Shanahan), and the name showed up just once… and it was in reference to this three-mover! In The Problemist, Jan. 1962/Mar. 1962, a brief note on “Miniatures” and its follow-up offer a list of possible sources [9]. That this note incorrectly attributes the second position to Galitsky (using it as the diagram) – while asking who composed the first – did not inspire too much confidence, but it also mentions “J. R. Venning, Mel. Leader 1916”. By this point I was becoming sceptical of this source. Even if Venning was genuine, it wasn’t clear exactly what they contributed (part (a) or (b)?). Nothing could be ruled out, however, until the remaining issues of The Leader 1916 have been examined. The State Library of NSW in Sydney does hold all issues of that paper in microfilm form only, and I thought this warranted a visit.

Lo and behold, not only was J. R. Venning real but under that name both twin positions are published in text form in The Leader, 22 Apr. 1916. Therefore Bennett was completely anticipated. Even more surprisingly, Venning is merely credited as “welding” the two three-move problems; the editor writes, “Both positions are old, but their welding is interesting.” We know that Galitsky was responsible for part (a), but who may have devised part (b) before Venning? Venning remains a mysterious figure; perhaps the unusual “Welded by” byline is consistent with a non-composer, but I wonder could the name be a pseudonym.

For now, we conclude that the correct attribution for this classic problem is as shown below. This largely confirms the information found in Keym’s books and his source Speckmann, but rarely seen elsewhere when the three-mover is quoted. A tiny quibble with Speckmann is that by referring only to Bennett as publishing both positions, that seems to suggest the Australian was the first to do so when he wasn’t. Regardless, Speckmann was astonishingly accurate in his research, especially considering he was writing in the 1980s, before print materials were digitalised or internet resources were available.

References and links

[1] Russian NEB (National Electronic Library)

• Shakhmatny Journal, 1900 - No.1 Galitsky three-mover

• Shakhmatny Journal, 1900 - No.3 Galitsky solution

[2] John Beasley, ‘In praise of old problems’ (2011)

• Excerpt on Galitsky (image link)

[3] Bob Meadley, Australian Chess Problem History: Part 1 – Pre-1962 (2015)

[4] Internet Archive

• The British Chess Magazine, May 1925

• Excerpt on Bennett (image link)

[5] Trove (National Library of Australia)

• The Australasian, 1 Nov. 1924 Bennett three-mover

• The Australasian, 22 Nov. 1924 Bennett solution

[6] Werner Keym

• Chess Problems Out of the Box (2018) Review

• Anything but Average: Chess Classics and Off-beat Problems (2020) Review

[7] Trove (National Library of Australia)

• The Leader (Melbourne)
  The Coverage Graph shows that almost all issues are available from 1862 to 1918, except for four specific years. One of the incomplete years is 1916 which is missing the issues from January to June. The Venning problem appeared in April 1916.

[8] Werner Speckmann, Perlen der Schachkomposition: Dreizugige Miniaturen (1985)

[9] British Chess Problem Society

• The Problemist, Jan. 1962/Mar. 1962

• Excerpts on Galitsky, et al. (image link)