New York Clipper, 1859

“Professional’s Prize”: set of 5×2–9# (one of each; no selfmates or conditionals; open only to E. B. Cook, T. M. Brown, D. Julien, S. Loyd and N. Marache) (1. pr.)

“First Prize”: set of 2#+3#+4#+5#+6# (black or white moves first; not open to ‘professionals’) (1 pr.)

“Second Prize”: set of three pawn studies (at most one minor piece on each side, which must not figure conspicuously in the solution; stip. ‘Black to play and win’) (1 pr.)

“Third Prize”: set of 4×7–17# (black or white to move and mate) (1 pr.)

“Fourth Prize”: set of four selfmates and conditionals (1 pr.)

The tourney was only open to American problemists.

1859-05-15 (extended to about 1859-05-29)

Committee of Examination:
section B: N. C. Reid, G. H. Derrickson, J. Patterson, J. P. Ourdan, and J. McLean;
section E: N. Marache;
additional examiners: J. Gardner, T. M. Brown

No umpire was required.

pr. T. M. Brown (motto: Liberalis Liberalia Excogitat)

pr. J. McLean (Never Venture, Never Win)

pr. T. M. Brown (Hit or Miss)

pr. T. M. Brown (May the Best Man Win)

pr. J. Wilkinson, Jr. (Though Conquered, Yet Victorious)

The initial report (1859-06-11) says that 15 sets were contributed consisting of 70 individual problems, as follows:

A: 1 set (5 problems) for Professional Prize
B: 9 sets (45 problems) for First Prize
C: 1 sets (3 problems) for Second Prize
D: 1 set for (4 problems) Third prize
E: 2 sets (8 problems) for Fourth prize

(The list only covers 14 sets with 62 problems. The tournament book reprints the list without changes (p. 16-17, 18), but adds that a supplemental set If it ain't Right etc. (T. M. Brown) was added to section E, and prints it as well as another unlisted set Horribile Dictu (J. Schlesinger) in the same section. It is not clear why these were added or treated separately. There is also some confusion about the sets As You Like It, (O. F. Reed) which is listed in section B, but not printed, and A Day After the Fair, (P. Richardson) which is printed in the same section but not listed.)

The report also announces that in section A, C and D, each having only one single contributed set, all by the same competitor, the respective prizes are awarded to that competitor: T. M. Brown. It adds that the problems contributed to section B and E would be handed off to the examination committee.

The final report identifies the examiners for section B and E. It notes that only one set in each examined section was correct, and thus no additional examination or umpire was required. (For section B additional examination would have been done by J. McLean and J. Gardner.)

The tourney book also lists T. M. Brown as member of the committe of examination, and the final report mentions that he reviewed the analyses of faulty problems for correctness. These were sent to the competitors for verification, and it at least some cases, the authors pointed out errors (or presumed errors) in these analyses, requiring further examination by two additional critics who remained unnamed.

(There is no indication that the sets of section A, C and D passed through any examination in the same manner as the sets of section B and E did: indeed, the awards for those sections are published before the examination committee has been created.)

J. McLean, in addition to his duties as examiner, also helped in other respects:

Several have charged us over and over to be sure of our accuracy in copying. To re-assure all on this point we will say that every sett will go before the committee and Umpire with a certificate of correct copying signed by the Editor, Mr. John McLean, and Mrs. H. Bryant Hazeltine, after a critical comparison of each copy with the original.

The tourney is remarkable for the high degree of overlap between competitors and tourney officials: Beside J. McLean, other members of the examination committee who also appear as competitors are: N. C. Reid, G. H. Derrickson, J. Patterson and J. Gardner, all of whom competed in section B.

While T. M. Brown's role as a competitor appears to be somewhat separated from his additional role as reviewer of examination committee reports, J. McLean, as both problem transcriber and examiner, is not clearly well separated from his role as competitor. This is unfortunate, as McLean ends up winning section B, but has very few, if any, problems published prior to this tournament.

The plan for the examination was described as follows:

Each competitor will be required to furnish two communications; one containing all the positions of each set put in competition, displayed on diagrams, a motto to each set, the name of the composer, the stipulation and solution to each position; the other, the name, motto, and enough to identify every set beyond danger of mistake. To insure perfect impartiality, the editor will open the first series of communications and copy every problem, with all its accompaniments—except the name—so that the Committee of Examination shall have only uniform diagrams and a uniform chirography before them, and thus furnish no possible clue to the authors under examination. The other series of communications will be kept sealed until all the awards are made to the sets, as such, when they will be put into the hands of the Umpire, by him to be opened and the names of the winners announced.

Actual practice differed. It has already been noted that no umpire was considered to be required once examination had finished, but that should not have been expected to cause any changes in award announcement until it was clear that that was the case: yet T. M. Brown was identified to have won three awards even before the examination committee had been announced.

Hazeltines states in the tourney book:

... the editor demanded that the true names of the composers should be confided to him at the outset, as he was determined that no pseudonym should appear in any way in the Tournament; to forestall the highly reprehensible practice that some have indulged in, of sending competitions under two or three different names, and, as happened in at least one notable instance, taking prizes under such assumptions.

(This may be targeted towards S. Loyd and the Chess Monthly, 1857 problem tourney.)

This probably explains how T. M. Brown could be given awards so early: the editor may have decided to declare his awards earlier than planned as he already knew the identity of the winner.

In this proceeding a part of the task of the umpire was lost, however: the umpire should inspect the sealed second communications and state if they have been opened or not. As the editor had already opened them, they were no longer 'kept secret', unless the editor could satisfactorily explain how he prevented anyone else to access the information, especially anyone involved in the examination of the problems.

(And in this particular tourney, where names were provided in multiple places, the umpire should probably also have verified that the name in the communication was the same as that disclosed to the editor.)

Hazeltine does suggest that some degree of separation was imposed between composers and examination committee roles:

It will be seen that we adopted the novel, but most effective expedient of setting each [competitor and member of the examination committee] to the grateful task of demolishing his opponents’ castles—in the air, as too many of them proved. This sharpened their penetration and stimulated their zeal to a remarkable degree.

But this does also indicate that Hazeltine did not limit the knowledge of the identities of the competitors to his stated purpose of weeding out pseudonyms, but also used it for other areas of tourney management.


Problem 1 in section D was first published as a mate in 10 moves in The New York Clipper. In a later column, the problem was noted to be defective, as it admitted a solution in 7 moves. (Two of the solvers who identified the issue were N. C. Reid and J. McLean, who were members of the committee of examination. The author's intended solution in 10 moves does not appear to have been published.) The tourney book publishes it as a #7 problem, but without any information that the short solution was discovered after it had been given its award.

Problem 4 in section D is a conditional problem, as it requires the mate to be performed with a specific pawn. This appears to go against the requirement of the section that ‘the only stipulation to accompany these positions be, Black (or White) to play and give checkmate in — moves. ’ No additional comment or explanation has been found: perhaps it was considered to fall within the limits of the requirement, but it seems somewhat unusual.

The tourney book is undated. It was published in 1861: the earliest note found about its publication is from New York Clipper, v. 9, i. 2 (1861-04-27).


In his column in Scientific American Supplement, S. Loyd provided an observation that might explain his absence from this tournament. He says that the objectionable appellation of professional debarred competitors from section A (the Professional's Prize), and that the absurd stipulation of black to win proved a damper for competition in section C (pawn studies).