British Chess Association, 1862 (London)

judges: J. Kling, H. Waite, H. T. Young, J. Löwenthal
professional examiner: J. Kling
umpire: S. Angas

1862-05-15 for British competitors / 1862-05-31 for foreign competitors

A:	1 pr.	C. Bayer (Motto: Nymph in thy orisons)
	2 pr.	J. Plachutta (Aut Cæsar aut nihil)
	3 pr.	A. Novotny (Bell' Alma inamorata)
	4 pr.	G. M‘Arthur (Qui stadium currit, niti et contendere debet, ut vincat)/td>
B:	pr.	A. Pongracz (My favourites)
C:	pr.	B. Horwitz (Quid faciemus nos?)
D:	pr	C. Bayer (Nymph in thy orisons, prb. 6

The prize for the best single problem (section D) was donated by H. Waite. (Era, 1862-02-09, p. 14)

According to the congress book, p. lxxvii, 90 sets were received, comprising 452 individual problems. 63 sets/328 problems were received for sections A and D, 19 sets/76 problems for section B, and 8 sets/48 for section C. However, on the immediately following pages the number of sets in sections A/D is reported as 60 instead of 63.) The Era published slightly different numbers in June, 1862: 327 + 76 + 42 problem/studies in 98 sets, and in November, 1862: 324 + 76 + 48 problems/studies in 92 or 81 sets, depending on what numbers are used.

The congress book (p. lxxviii) makes it clear that some sets of ordinary problems competed for section D only, as they contained fewer than 6 problems. It also shows that a few competitors (W. Grimshaw, J. Mucklow, B. C. Blok) sent in one set for section A as well as one problem for section D.

The first list of award winners was decided on 25 November, 1862 by the Problem Committee:

section A: 1 pr. C. Bayer;
  2 pr. J. G. Campbell;
  3 pr. J. Plachutta;
  4 pr. A. Novotny;
  special mention: F. Deacon.
section B: A. Pongracz.
section C: B. Horwitz.
section D: J. Campbell (problem 3 of his set Curriculum.)

A special mention was also given to W. Lehman (motto Docendo Discimus), who, outside competition, had sent in a complete solution of the Eight Queens Problem.

The 'best problem' (probably with other prize problems) was sent to chess columns for publications, and appeared in print in December. After publication, and not improbably because of publication, the problem was discovered to be faulty. Some columns discovered the error before publication, and published that information instead of the problem.

The first attempt at correction was made within a month. Campbell's 2nd prize was revoked (see below), and reassigned to another competitor. Campbell was requested to return the prize of £10 that he had already received. He refused; his reply is printed in the congress book, p. lxxxiv.

Campbell retained the 'best prize' award, as the Problem Committe decided to reassign it to another of his problems. But already before the end of the year (and not clearly due to publication), that problem had also been found to be faulty: in early January, another meeting of the Problem Committee decided on additional revision of the list of awards. Campbell was again requested to return his prizes (this time including the additional £10 prize for the 'best problem').

While the fault in examination was criticised, adjudication was also made a target when it was noted that one of the new prize winners also was partially faulty. To some critics it seemed impossible that Novotny's set, with one faulty problem, should have been given a higher award that G. M`Arthur's set, with no faulty problems.

At the time, though, the chosen method of adjudication (i.e. the selection between two sets to decide which is 'better') does not appear to have been documented, and it is not known to have been described (p. lxxvi) until the congress book was published in 1864.

Problems were scored 0 for radical faults (such as a dual solution), or otherwise given a score reflecting the merit of the problem. The sum of marks collected by a particular problem or a set was directly used to give it its position. In the report of the 1867 B.C.A. tourney, the 1862 tourney marks are said to have ranged from 1 to 6. (It is not clear how this was done, but it seems reasonable to suppose that the examiner or examiners decided if a particular problem was faulty, and that each judge scored each remaining problem for a total score.)

We can presumably see this in operation in the early comments by Kling published in The Era, 1862-12-07, on the individual problems of the first prize winning sets (see above). He writes that the sixth problem of J. G. Campbell's set, which had been assigned second place in section A, suffered from a second solution. This would presumably have given this particular problem a score of 0, but the scores of the remaining five problems (at the time of writing) must have been sufficiently high to make the set reach second place. This also suggests that sets were not disqualified for not having a full complement of correct problems, or Campbell's set would surely have been disqualified already before the first prize list was published.

However, In The Era, 1863-01-04, J. G. Campbell is reported to have been disqualified by the Problem Committee for a 'Series Prize' (i.e. a section A prize). As the Era chess editor was Mr. Löwenthal, who also was a judge as well as a member of the Problem Committee, it is unexpected to find a difference with the account of the congress book.

J. Kling's additional position within the judges as 'professional examiner' does not seem to have been mentioned until the congress book was published. A description of exactly what this job entailed has not been found, but as a major part of the responsibility for the situation is placed on the professional examiner (see following) it may be suspected that examination largely or entirely was done by Kling. From the congress book we also see that Kling was paid £20 for his services (p. xcii).

At this point in the proceedings, it seems to have been decided that the report by the professional examiner could not be relied on. F. Healey and F. Deacon were asked to perform a new review, presumably as a consequence of the meeting of the Managing Committe on 18 January 1863. (While F. Healey did not compete in the tourney, F. Deacon did compete with both direct- and self-mate sets, and had been awarded an honorary mention in the initial award report.) Their report was finished in March 1863, and the award list for the section adjusted. Their report has not been found: it is not known if the adjudication was modified in any way. As honorary mentions are not mentioned when the final award list is published, it is assumed that they did not survive.

Outside examination and adjudication issues, the set Progress for Ever by J. Kohtz and C. Kannengiesser was specially mentioned as not being allowed to compete due to its joint authorship. At least two other sets fall in the same category: Of sudden and portentous birth by J. Elson and J. C. Warner, and Tel est pris qui croyait prendre, by C. Delare and J. Cavaricieur.

Additionally, one set (Honi soit qui mal y pense) is listed in the congress book as received, but without information about its author.

The tourney conditions and requirements printed in the Era ended with the statement: The prize men will, of course, be regarded as the champions of the world in their particular departments. It is not clear if this reflects the opinion of the Era chess editor (Löwenthal) alone, or if it was the opinion of the Problem Commission of the B.C.A. as well.

It is odd that the congress book does not seem to identify exactly which of the problems in Bayer's set that won the 'best problem' prize in section D. We rely on The Era, 1863-03-01, for that information.