|#3 problems>||1 pr.||Mrs. W. J. Baird|
P. G. L. F.
|#2 problems>||1 pr.||P. F. Blake|
|>||2 pr.||W. Gleave|
|>||3 pr.||A. Wheeler|
The tourney was announced as a
Problem and Solution Tourney.
No particular requirement for problems were set. Based on published
problems, #2, #3, and #4 were received; additional problems seem to have been
selected by the column editor. No specific types or number of prizes were announced.
Competitors were requested to announce their participation. As the tourney announcement makes very little difference between the composition tourney and the solving tourney, it is not clear if this concerned only competitors in the solving tourney.
The only requirement that was specific for compositions was that solvers were invited to
constitute themselves the judges and select one or two
[ problems ] for special commendations.
Twenty-eight problems (prb. 169–195) were published for the solution tourney, including problems accepted for the composition tourney. No anonymization was requested or practised: the names of the composers or the signatures or pseudonyms they used themselves were published with the problem diagrams. Eleven of the published problems were excluded from the composition tourney, as they were reproductions, faulty, or otherwise not suitable.
At the end of the tourney period, solvers were invited to send their opinions, but there was no account given of them, not even how many votes were received. Although the judgement was said to be a
solver's award, the report asks
judgements reliable? and reports that the problems (anonymously) were
also submitted to
the leading experts of the day, as well as to
J. Stent, whose evaluations (40 points for construction, 30 for difficulty,
and additional points for presence of variations) were reported to agree with both the opinion
of the solvers and the consulted experts, and so were reported in
Adjudication appears to be based on Stent's scores, and three three-movers and and three two-movers were identified as best, and presumably also as prize winners, although the column is quiet on prizes in the composition tourney.
The identities of
White Knight (of Reading) and
P. G. L. F. (of Lymington) were not revealed. The latter is almost certainly the signature of
P. G. L. Fothergill. Another competitor also appears to have competed under a psedonym or signature:
1st Prize: Mrs. W. J. Baird
Key: 1. Bd8
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3145 (1892-12-16), p. 2, prb. 190
Key: 1. Qa8
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3141 (1892-11-18), p. 2, prb. 182
P. G. L. F.
Key: 1. Nf4
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3130 (1892-09-02), p. 2, prb. 169
1st Prize: P. F. Blake
Key: 1. Ne6
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3132 (1892-09-16), p. 2, prb. 171
2nd Prize: W. Gleave
Key: 1. Qd5
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3143 (1892-12-02), p. 2, prb. 186
3rd Prize: A. Wheeler
Key: 1. Qf2
Source: Kentish Mercury, v. 60, i. 3139 (1892-11-04), p. 2, prb. 181