British Chess Problem Association, 1878
Additional prizes were pre-announced, but do not seem to have materialized. See the notes for further details.
The April announcement included the information that, apart from
Westminster Papers which would publish all sound problems, the
following periodicals would also receive copies: The Illustrated
London News, Land and Water, Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News,
The Chess Players' Chronicle, The Huddersfield College Magazine,
The English Mechanic, Glasgow Evening News, and Brief.
It also described the scoring system (areas, points) the judges would use to
adjudicate problems: Beauty, 15; Novelty, 10; Difficulty, 10; Construction, 10;
Variety, 5—Total, 50.
Of the eleven sets that competed, eight were found to be faulty. The third
set prize was not awarded.
The set Home Sweet Home was a candidate for 3rd prize. It's No. 1
problem was additionally a candidate for the best #2 prize. As only one of
these prizes could be awarded, the judges awarded the latter prize,
apparently because it was more valuable than the third prize.
The judges identified No. 3 of Que si resemble s'assemble
to be the absolutely best four-mover, but awarded the
prize for best #4 to the four-mover of Es giebt nichts Neues unter der Sonne,
although fully recognising the higher pretensions of No. 3 Qui se ressemble
, partly because it was the next best #4, but, apparently, partly also
because it was better than any remaining #3. It seems that the
restriction of only one prize per competitor may have lead the
judges to some unexpected considerations of where a particular prize belonged.
The judges additionally awarded ranked special commendations
(here translated to 'honorary mentions') to three #2, but not to any other problem,
not even the absolutely best
four-mover just mentioned. The
reason for these awards is not stated.
The announcement in April 1878 also mentioned that minor prizes for
second best #4, #3 and #2 would be given and announced as soon
as possible. No such announcement has been found, nor are any such prizes
mentioned in the final report. It is assumed that these prizes never materialized.
Finally, a press prize
is mentioned a few times without any further
details, but no such prize is mentioned in the final report, or is known to
have been published elsewhere.
Awards
1 Prize: J. H. Finlinson
2 Prize: E. F. Lamb
Prize best #2: J. P. Taylor

#2
Prize best #3: W. Coates

#3
Prize best #4: C. Callander

#4