sasspresso

This wouldn’t be a fair post to make without making the following two core distinctions: this is not all to say that someone could not enjoy this production of Chess. If you find that you disagree with my opinions or that you enjoyed the show, that is your opinion to have and I fully respect that. Secondly, for a multitude of reasons, I did not have the opportunity to see the show myself. Primarily, I live rather far from New York, and if I were there, I probably would rather spend my time and money to see a show I would actually like. Thus, my opinions on it are based on what I could find about it online.

There are three main reasons as to why I’m not really the biggest fan of the revival. This post will be split into three larger sections based off of them. I will call them as follows: Content, Production, and Composition. Content is exactly what the name implies: these are my issues with the actual version of the story, script, characters, and so on. Production contains my issues regarding the execution of the content, which will pertain to acting, singing, etc. Lastly, composition will concern things like the advertising, the creation of this version, the casting- it’s kind of hard to put a name to what this category is.

1: Content

From what I know of this version of the story, I just cannot get behind so many of the writing decisions. Perhaps the most egregious to me is the way that the politics are treated within this show. I spent about three months this year slaving away at a final project and presentation that was about the intersections between politics and chess (which I still have yet to finish reworking and upload online). While I’m not going to claim to be the final authority on all things regarding historical accuracy, I can certainly say that this version of Chess (which, for the sake of brevity, I will simply refer to as Chevival from now on) fails the worst at it. At the end of this section, I’ll include all of the literature that I read regarding the situation between politics and chess during the Cold War. Also, I won’t go further into this specifically, but I think the political jokes are tacky and a bad addition.

Politics were, without a doubt, involved with chess in the era. In fact, evidence exists that shows there was direct political involvement in chess from the Soviet side. However, it wasn’t in the way that Chevival seems to think it was. Chess players weren’t killed if they didn’t win tournaments. This is just such a wildly unrealistic stake to put on Anatoly’s character, especially when there are very real threats he could be facing instead that would be just as (honestly, much more) compelling for his character. For example, Soviet chess players were actually put under a significant amount of pressure to succeed because it was their literal livelihood. By being such public figures, they were able to receive a better standard of living than most other people in the Soviet Union. Thus, losing their chess prestige might lead to them losing this standard of living; this is a genuine, tangible threat. At the same time, this is something that is much easier for an audience to understand and sympathize with, because this is something that real people today still are threatened by.

The other half of the political plot that I find the most unrealistic is that massive, real-life political events are hinging on this chess tournament. That just never happened in any capacity. Chess was a societal and cultural export, and for those reasons nations and governments were highly motivated to succeed in it. In fact, that can still be seen as a motivation for some chess teams today. 

Despite what Chevival tries to portray, SALT II was not dependent on whether or not one player won a game. What was at stake was national identity and pride; think of the Olympics. It’s something that makes your nation look good to win international competitions, especially when the other competitor is your biggest rival. 

What this really echoes to me is that Danny Strong (whom I would like to have a very friendly discussion with regarding his writing) cared very little about historical accuracy in a period piece, and much more about painting a functionally propagandized picture of the Soviet Union. Now, am I saying that the Soviet Union and how they treated their people was all rainbows and cupcakes? Hell no. But, it is in misconstruing history like this, especially on one of the biggest stages in America, that we lose real history and lose ourselves to the deeper pits of blind hatred and vitriol. I may be making a big deal out of this, but it is a real problem. By writing something like this carelessly, how many people have gone on with false ideas about what the Soviet Union really did? How many people have a false idea of history? This is reductive to the real problems and terrible things that the Soviet Union actually did do.

I could honestly go on and on about the way politics are represented in the musical as a whole, and why Chevival is just a really severe misunderstanding of it. There are, however, some small things that I do think it does well, and that I think should be recognized in their own right. Though, this is bearing in mind that I’m referencing secondhand plot descriptions.

Apparently, Walter threatens to have Florence deported if she doesn’t tamper with the match. I think this is honestly a very sharp and poignant thing for Walter to do, and could be interpreted as a genuinely good criticism against the American government that resonates with a modern audience. If the actions of the Soviet government in this version were more realistic, this could be a great parallel to show how both parties have their own ways of forcing the hands of their players, and how neither of them seem to care all that much for their people. This also really reminds me of something in the original London script that I love: Walter, at the end of the show, revealing that they never actually were going to bring Florence’s father back, and saying she was “no worse off” for that. I wish this version of the show did something like this instead of giving Florence her father back. It makes for a much sharper Walter and a much deeper criticism of what he represents.

I think I’ve yapped enough about politics. I’m going to move on to the other issues I have with the plot.

The way that most of the characters are written in this version just really doesn’t work for me. I have the most issues with Freddie, to be honest. I think the original concept and executions of his character are so interesting, especially because he’s basically a representation of a handful of the most overt issues with the American mindset at the time. He’s also such a delightfully crazy concept for a character. To me, though, it’s most crucial that Freddie isn’t right about his suspicions, and that he’s the way he is because he’s so violently anti-Soviet. I don’t think that the way this production decided to give him bipolar was a good idea. For one, as far as I’ve heard, it also isn’t the best representation of the disorder. 

Freddie’s character is emblematic of the mass paranoia of the Red Scare. Somehow, I think that attributing his paranoia and behavior to him being mentally ill not only weakens the connection to the Red Scare, but also just puts a bad taste in the mouth at the representation of mental illness. I got dumped by my therapist, though, so maybe don’t take my words on the mental health aspect of this with too much seriousness.

Naturally, this leads into one of my other problems with the script: having his breakdowns be motivated by his lack of mental stability and his dependence on his medication. Again, it just takes away from some of the larger themes that are supposed to be implied by his character. All of this leads to something that I personally think of as a crime: making Freddie a highly sympathetic character. 

I jest a little bit with that- I myself can (unfortunately) relate to a decent handful of Freddie’s character. However, I feel as if the audience shouldn’t really walk away from Chess thinking that Freddie was someone to sympathize with. He’s overzealous in his assumptions about what the Soviets are doing in the competition, he’s constantly terrible to the people that surround him, and he’s generally just a pretty unpleasant person. What we should ideally get is the explanation for why he behaves like this, not a justification. Generally, Pity the Child serves the purpose of explaining why Freddie acts the way that he does, without really trying to say that it makes what he does okay.

The changes in Chevival, quite plainly, seem to justify his behavior. This also seems to consequently make Florence look worse. Admittedly, I have not looked into as much of the changes that have been made to her character. I feel like despite being given more stage time, she somehow feels…flatter from what I’ve heard? At the very least, all I’ve heard about her is about the pill stealing (which I am absolutely not a fan of). It gives me the impression that Florence’s character didn’t really make an impression on the audience. Actually, in a later section, I’ll have more to say specifically about this.

Chess is, ultimately, a flawed story to start off from, and no version of it is perfect (even despite how often I dream of Moscow Chess becoming the standard, I think that one should have had Walter). I just think that this version made new issues where there weren’t any, and made issues that already existed within the story worse. I would really love to find a full recording or a script uploaded somewhere that would let me really dig into the complexities of this version and the problems I have with it. 

Maybe I don’t need to have that though, because at this point in the post, there’s already over 2000 words on this document and I haven’t even started the next section. I’m going to move on, but if anyone wants to know more specifics, I will gladly keep yapping.

Relevant literature:

Büyükbay, Can. “The Strategic Imagination: Chess as a Political and Cultural Analytic.” Board Game Studies Journal, vol. 19, 2025, pp. 1-23. Reference Global, https://doi.org/10.2478/bgs-2025-0001 

Castelao, Emilia Loren. “Pawns and power: evaluating chess as a cultural movement in the diplomatic history of Russia.” 2024, pp. 1-76. Universität Wien, https://doi.org/10.25365/thesis.76162 

Frank, Björn, and Stefan Krabel. “Gens una sumus? – Or Does Political Ideology Affect Experts’ Aesthetic Judgement of Chess Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 92, 2013, pp. 66-78. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.05.005 

Giesbrecht, Jacob. “Retrieving the meaning of political neutrality in sport.” The International Sports Law Journal, 2025, pp. 1-12. Springer Nature Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-025-00310-2 

Grix, Jonathan, and Mark James. “The politicisation of sport and the principle of political neutrality: a contradiction in terms?” International Sports Law Journal, vol. 24, 2024, pp. 68-77. Springer Nature Link, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40318-024-00273-w 

Korsant, Clate J. “Playing Chess in Public: Recreational Traditions in a Time of Crisis.” Streetnotes, vol. 29, 2022, pp. 79-94. eScholarship, http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/S529057452. 

Lange, Bernd-Peter. “Chess and Freedom.” Board Game Studies Journal, vol. 18, 2024, pp. 61-73. Reference Global, https://doi.org/10.2478/bgs-2024-0003 

Łukomski, Piotr. “Identity of Political Players in Game Theory.” Politeja - Pismo Wydziału Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, vol. 17, no. 68, 2020, pp. 113-127. Central and Eastern European Online Library, https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.17.2020.68.06  

Moul, Charles C., and John V. C. Nye. “Did the Soviets collude? A statistical analysis of championship chess 1940–1978.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 70, no. 1-2, 2009, pp. 10-21. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.01.009 

Veda, Andrew, and Luke Gerard Christie. “Harmonizing Political and Marketing Aesthetics: Insights from The Chess Olympiad 2022.” International Journal of Religion, vol. 5, no. 8, 2024, pp. 441 – 451, https://doi.org/10.61707/5mpm3n81  

2: Production

Unfortunately, I had to bite the bullet and listen to some of the 2025 cast recording to write this section. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, because that’s more time spent not enjoying myself than I’m really willing to spend. Some of these numbers I wouldn’t mind listening to again, and others I think I’ll never listen to it again.

Ever since they released those previews all that time ago, I have just been really turned off from this cast. I still kind of am, to be honest. Before going into my specific thoughts on each of the leads and their performances, I would like to talk about the orchestrations and the sound of the recording itself.

For the sake of transparency, I only listened to the following numbers: Overture, Where I Want to Be, The Arbiter, Chess Match #1, Quartet (A Model of Decorum and Tranquility), Nobody’s Side, Anthem, One Night in Bangkok, He Is a Man, He Is a Child, The Soviet Machine, The Deal (Pt. 2), Pity the Child, Endgame (Pt. 2). I did not have it in me to sit through the whole thing- maybe because I would be tempted to do a song-by-song breakdown. It was already hard enough not doing that for the numbers I did listen to.

I have very mixed opinions on the sound. I think the more rock-leaning parts of the score generally tend to sound better, while (unfortunately) the more classical parts sound worse. Anything that wasn’t either of those was completely unpredictable. Then again, the quality for me was generally just inconsistent across what I listened to.

To be plain, I think that a lot of the reworked orchestrations at worst sound odd and not particularly good, and at best sound pretty alright. Some modifications that they made to the score (the first that comes to mind is the slowing down in the latter half of Endgame) aren’t good either. Those in particular I feel disrupt the momentum of what is supposed to be a very intense moment in the show. Another example of orchestrations that I just don’t really like are the ones in One Night in Bangkok. This is really saying a lot, because usually I can find myself liking this number no matter what (I quite literally have every other version of the song on my usual rotation), but this one just doesn’t sound appealing to me. I found that numbers like The Deal and Pity the Child were the most instrumentally enjoyable.

To clarify, this isn’t because I dislike classical scores. Shostakovich is my favorite composer, I cry listening to Rachmaninoff, I dream of Sondheim scores, and so on. I just think they really dropped the ball on this aspect of the recording.

In general, the sound of many of the instrumentals reminds me of how a Musescore composition sounds when it plays something I’ve written. Not awful, per se, but it’s nothing I want to be hearing on a cast recording. Another approximation might be the difference between hearing a real grand piano in a concert hall, versus an electric keyboard in my house. I never felt particularly engaged with the instrumentals, even when they were objectively impressive. They sounded kind of stilted and stiff. You know, I listened to Some Like it Hot for the first time just before this. That’s a great example of a show that just blew me away with the instrumentals.

I will say, it is a general improvement on the previews. The mixing is somewhat better, though I do think the voices tend to blend a bit too much into the background on occasion. Next, I’m going to go actor by actor.

Somebody needed to tell Nicholas Christopher that the fake Russian accident (<- really funny typo I’m choosing to leave in) accent does not work. It kind of sounds like a bad Scottish accent. It completely pulls me out of the immersion, and funnily enough, makes me think of the notes I often see on official descriptions for Molokov’s character. Namely, it says to avoid making him a “comic, stage Russian”. Bradley Dean’s accent isn’t even bad, so it makes Christopher’s stand out more. It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to Where I Want to Be.

It’s really a shame, because I think his voice would’ve been the one I enjoyed most from this cast. The issues I had with his voice in the previews aren’t here: he has an extremely pleasant voice to listen to, and I adore his vibrato. I love his vocal technique, and if not for that accent I would really love to have some of these numbers on repeat. Additionally, he hits a good balance on this cast album between acting and being pleasant to listen to. It isn’t a dry performance, but it doesn’t feel like a full-on stage performance. I actually quite like that balance. To me, he sounds like a perfect midpoint between Josh Groban (whose performance I am not the biggest fan of), and Tommy Körberg (who I am the absolute biggest fan of). 

I’ve heard mixed opinions on his acting. I’ve seen some say his acting is not the greatest, and others who say his performance was quite moving. Oddly enough, despite really liking his performance, I never felt moved by listening to it. It was very beautiful and impressive, undoubtedly, but I felt no different afterwards. Normally, I can really connect and feel noticeably energized by a performance of Anatoly (do not get me started on how I feel when I watch Kiril Gordeev, Alexander Suhanov, or Tommy Körberg as Anatoly), so this is unfortunate. I really don’t have any guesses as to why this missed for me.

One last note: I am not a fan of the extended hold he does in Endgame. It feels excessive and unnecessary. However impressive it is, it doesn’t mesh well with the music because that’s not how the score was written. On the contrary, though, he hits that opt-up so well it almost makes me want to forget the extension. Almost.

Aaron Tveit is hit or miss for me. Sometimes, he really hits this vocal power and tone that I think absolutely works for Freddie. Other times, I find his inflection odd and unfitting for the role. Out of all of the actors, I feel like he gets drowned out the most in the cast recording. For example, One Night in Bangkok sometimes has moments where I think his vocal performance is great, but most of the time I just can’t get into it. He gets drowned out a bit here, I feel. Also, I hate the key change in One Night in Bangkok. I just had to express that somewhere.

In contrast, I do think his Pity the Child is actually not that bad. I do wish he was more vocally aggressive for more parts of the number (and when he is aggressive, it sounds really good), especially because the instrumentals in this version are a lot snappier and sharper. In general, I feel like more of this performance would’ve been great to hear elsewhere. Maybe it is elsewhere, just in the numbers I didn’t listen to. That would be nice- and maybe he performed the role a lot more like what I’m describing.

Weirdly enough, despite my issues with some of Tveit’s performances, he consistently gets me emotionally engaged. His Pity the Child gives me the same feelings I get listening to my other favorite version of the number. I believe I’ve also heard many say that his acting was quite good, and if I were to pick, his character was the most appealing of the main trio to listen to on the album.

I’m going to keep the section on Lea Michele short. As far as I’ve heard, and as so well put by a review I cannot remember the source of, “acting is a suggestion”. Her voice is fine. It sounds good enough, but I think it sounds a bit pop-ish at times, which I am not partial to. It doesn’t hit the balance I liked with Christopher. I feel no emotional investment in her performance as Florence. I have plenty more to say about her in the third part.

Honestly, the true stars of the album for me were three of the supporting (but still incredibly important) roles. Because they weren’t in as many numbers, though, they’re going to kind of get meshed together.

Bradley Dean and Bryce Pinkham. I’m putting these two in a little package together because what I have to say regarding them is very similar: some really strong and consistently solid vocal performances. Both The Arbiter and The Soviet Machine are delightful numbers to listen to on this version, and I found I enjoyed listening to their performances. I can imagine they were fun to see on stage.

Hannah Cruz. Oh my god. What everyone says about Hannah Cruz is right. She objectively has this insane vocal power in the recording that makes me feel like I’m listening to a completely different show. Have her play every role. She’d kill it, honestly. Just from listening to her, I can tell she did an astounding acting job as well: she hits the balance I liked with Christopher, while managing to make me feel incredibly emotionally invested. I wish she was the one cast as Florence. I really can’t wait to see where she goes after this.

Overall, I think the album is just a really mixed bag. It’s not consistent enough in quality for me to really like it: the lows have some pretty bad dealbreakers for me, but the highs are really quite good. It’s just not great to me, especially because most of the musicals I love and listen to are usually consistent with quality throughout their whole cast recordings.

3: Composition

This is where my biggest gripes with the show come in, even if this is the shortest section. Let’s start with the first problem I think I ever had with Chevival: the graphic design.

What the hell was anybody thinking? Let’s take a show with a strongly established and very iconic design, and throw that out the window! Let’s use hot pink, red, white, black, and do whateverthefuck! Let’s make an eyesore, remove all of the things that made the original design iconic, and not even use chess symbols at all! I’m being extremely facetious here, but I really do not understand the logic behind it. It just doesn’t look good- the colors clash, and the hot pink really does not imply chess at all. Plus, where is the chess? The closest they ever got were the king and queen on the Pride Playbill. As a little aside, couldn’t they at least do two kings/two queens for Pride?

Marketing only by using the lead’s faces is another problem that I have. It exposes a larger issue that I have with the show, which is that Chevival was so detrimentally dependent on having a star-studded cast. It’s not a production that stands for any merit of its own; it needs its cast to survive. 

The set seemed minimal, and in my opinion, quite insultingly so for the prices I saw them charging. I believe I’ve seen it described as a glorified staged concert. For me, this means a huge lack of immersion. Moscow Chess, my favorite version, has some incredibly stunning and impressive stage design. It completes the story and adds this visual spectacle that really helps the show along. When you can get lost in the spectacle, it can possibly help to detract from other parts of the show that might be a bit weaker. 

The costumes weren’t great, either. All-black? Not even a bit of white? And they could’ve done something fun with trying to do some period-accurate outfits and hairstyles. I just think that could’ve been fun. This is coming from a guy who willingly wears glasses that are basically aviators, though, so maybe my opinions on fashion should be taken with a grain of salt.

All of this is just a striking lack of effort, and honestly, gives very few reasons to see the show outside of the cast. Largely, it seems that people were only going to see Lea Michele. This is heavily supported by ticket sales- they dropped on nights where Michele wasn’t performing, and the show had an early closure altogether because she left the show. Chevival had no longevity and couldn’t stand on its own two feet without a leading name in it. This kind of casting principle is something I hate to see, and I’d hate to see it become something more common across theater.

People who are cast to sell tickets over to make a good show experience. Now, it’s not like you can’t have a show that has a cast full of stars (see: Merrily We Roll Along), but it needs to have substance that keeps people coming back. This is the risk that a lot of minimalist productions run, I feel.

Lastly, I don’t like Danny Strong’s involvement in this. His writing just…isn’t good. There isn’t even really a heart that comes through that makes it feel like someone tried, but just didn’t hit the mark. That this version of the show possibly stands to become the new standard makes me unhappy, frankly.

Well, that’s that. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this production, but in the end, the negatives outweigh the positives for me. It’s only been exacerbated by the fact that I’ve never really seen anybody criticize the current production. It’s been a lot of rave reviews that I just couldn’t find myself agreeing with. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about this :)