City of London Chess Magazine, 1876

The City of London Chess Magazine announced the problem tourney in its first issue of volume 2. It ceased publication with the last issue of the same volume, as announced in City of London Magazine, v. 2, Dec. 1876, p. 352. Some prospect of a continuation was mentioned in the final issue, but does not appear to have been realized.

The announcement that the magazine closed also says: With respect to the Problem Prizes offered by us, we shall take means to have the decision of the judges announced in the various Metropolitan Chess columns, after which they will duly be given as awarded.

In January, 1877, one year later, H. J. C. Andrews asks, through Westminster Papers, Zukertort for information about progress. According to Andrews, Nash, one of the original judges, resigned in March, 1876, after handing over his selections for the award to his co-judge. Zukertort took his place.

In March, 1877, Illustrated London News reports briefly that they have received the award report, and that a problem by Mr Menzies took first prize. It may be a preliminary report, as it at odds with the details provided later.

In the April, 1877 issue, Westminster Papers provides a more extensive summary of the report. In this version Menzies would have won the first prize for #4, but the problem was found to be faulty.

Neither Illustrated London News nor Westminster Papers state the source of their reports. Westminster Papers mention that the report was by Zukertort.

One question that a full report might clear up is why C. Callander received a prize. The requirements stated that participants had to contribute at least four sound problems (of any length) to the magazine. As far as we can find, only three problems by Callander were published in volume 2. The problem by J. Menzies that would have received a prize raises a similar question in that only three problems by Menzies were published.

Did these authors contribute problems that for some reason were not published in v. 2? Or did the judges for some reason decide to ignore this particular requirement?

The indirect reporting of tourney results is not completely satisfactory. Locate the original judges report, if possible, and use as source instead.