British Chess Association, 1867 (London)
The tourney was open to all; the special prize was reserved for native English composers only.
Talusand H. Lloyd, and reply to the latter by G. W. Medley.
(As the covers of the issues have not be retained, the dates of them have not been ascertained.)
144 positions from 24 competitors participated in the tourney. A 25th competitor resigned before the preliminary report was published.
The preliminary report was published in September 1867, along with the prize-winning problems for a 3 month long public review.
A considerably revised prize list was dated 23d December 1867, and would be made final if no issues were discovered within a month from publication. As the revised prize list is the same as that printed in the Transactions of the B.C.A. for the years 1866 and 1867, it may be assumed to have been confirmed as final.
The final report (published in Transactions) does not give any special mention to any of the competitors. The preliminary report did state that the following competitors received favourable mention, in order of merit: [ ... ] A. Bayersdorfer, J. Berger, T. Miles Hill and J. C. Romeyn, S. Loyd, W. Bolt, [ ... ] and T. Miles Hill. (Competitors who were awarded prizes in the final report have been omitted.) But as the final report does not confirm these special mentions, they must be disregarded.
According to the preliminary report:
The principles which guided the adjudication in the Congress of 1862 have been followed on this occasion. The manifestly inferior problems having been first eliminated, there remained other sets of more or less merit, the relative values of which it was necessary to ascertain. Testing each position by a scale having reference to the success of the composer in the attainment of the qualities before stated, a number of marks was attached to it as its value. A problem found to admit two or more solutions, or otherwise radically faulty, was marked 0. The aggregate number of marks in a set would therefore be the figure of merit of that set, and in awarding the prizes it was only necessary to compare these results and to act accordingly. The highest figure that could be obtained by any one problem in 1862 was 6; on this occasion, however, the Committee preferred 10, as more convenient for the expression of the individual opinions of the judges.
(The combined marks assigned to the sets were not published, except for those in the preliminary prize list.)
This lead to some sets being awarded prizes even if they contained faulty problems: the preliminary award to L. von Bilow noted that one of the problems in this set had a second solution, and for the special prize awarded to W. Grimshaw in the final report it is noted that two of the problems in the set had second solutions.
This method of adjudication does not seem to have been noted, and apparently caused some confusion with critics who believed that a single faulty problem should have excluded a set from competition, or at least from the prize list.
The final report disqualified the preliminary 2nd prize winner J. Kohtz, as the set was found and admitted to be a joint production between J. Kohtz and C. Kockelkorn. This raised questions as it was thought the rules and conditions did not clearly include any statement to such effect:
The Tournay to be open to the world.
Each competitor to send in a set of six ordinary Problems, neither more nor less; each Problem to be free from conditions and to require for its solution not less than three, nor more than five moves, and to be an original composition not previously published. The Problems to become the property of the Association, and not to be published or given for publication without the consent of the managing committee.
The problems to be sent in on or before the 1st January, 1867.
Each competitor to send in two sealed enclosures, one containing his Problems, each position to be printed or written plainly on a diagram, to be accompanied by its solution, and to be marked by a distinguishing motto. The other enclosure to be marked on the outside by a corresponding distinguishing motto, and to contain within the name and address of the competitor. All letters to be post-paid and to be addressed “British Chess Association, Purssell’s, Cornhill, London.” Non-compliance with the foregoing conditions will entail on competitors a forfeiture of their chances.
Referring to the same rules, 'M. Fitzjohn' (set 3) was also disqualified: the name was a pseudonym for T. Miles Hill, who also competed under his real name.
It is odd, though, that set 9, with clearly expressed double authorship (T. Miles Hill and John C. Romeyn), is not mentioned as being disqualified in the preliminary award list, but instead listed as worthy of special mention. Possibly disqualification only related to prizes, not to participation or honorary awards -- this might explain why sets stated to be disqualified were published in the Transactions, instead of being omitted altogether.
Additionally, the final report disqualified L. von Bilow as he had sent in multiple sets (4 and 11), which also was obvious from the list of competing sets in the initial report.
It is worth noting that issues had been present early: the preliminary report was delayed because a problem had been found to have a second solution, which caused an update of the preliminary prize list even before first publication.
F. Healey was not included in the original announcement of members of the adjudication committee.