International Chess Congress, 1867 (Paris)

six #2–5 (3 pr.)

At least three of the problems must be originals; the remaining may have been published before.

C. Bayer (motto: Ich weiss nich, was soll es)

S. Loyd (Schœnheit lieber als Schwierigkeit)

E. Grosdemange (L'ancre de salut)

The problem tourney received 42 sendings, with totally 307 problems. A complete list of them, possibly in order of merit, is printed on p. lxxxvi. The first 26 sets are published in the congress book (although the list on p. 345–346 only mentions the first 25): they include sets 9, 10 and 17 that did not have a motto; sets 17, 18 and 25 that did not contain the required six problems; and also set 22 that appears to have been received without a name. If any problems or sets were excluded from competition, it must have been for other reasons than those. One of the received sets is said to have contained 50 problems: it was not published.

S. Loyd is both a judge and a competitor in the problem tourney. As he also won a prize, it would have been desirable to know how his set was judged. No such information has been found.

The congress book content was published in parts, which were sent to subscribers as they were printed. According to The Era 1868-07-05 the part that concerned the problem tourney had, to the chess editor's knowledge, not yet been published.

In the chess column of The Era, 1867-08-04, the following communication from a pseudonymous contributor is printed:

The chief event since the finish of the Tourney has been the decision as to the prizes for Problems. The Committee appointed to examine the competing sets was to consist, I am told, of the four winners of the Tournament for the Emperor’s prize, but they fell to squabbling, and three of them declined to act. Finally, I believe, the examination devolved on Kolisch and the young English player, De Vere, who were said to have executed their very onerous task with skill and impartiality. The result of their labours has not transpired.

As the names of the judges were published already in the congress announcement, the account is probably a misunderstanding, at least partially.

The congress book does mention that the Problem Committee decided that the prize-winning problems should be submitted to additional verification by the four winners of the Grand Tournament. It doesn't say anything more about the details of this activity except that the result agreed with that of the problem tourney judges. This may be the origin of the passage quoted above.