Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, 1866

Three #3–5 (5 pr.)

J. Kohtz, G. Schnitzler, B. v. Guretzky-Cornitz

Judges report was expected in September 1866, at the latest.

1866-04-15

The three judges reports, dated December 1866, are by J. Kohtz and C.  Kockelkorn, B. v. Guretzky-Cornitz. G. Schnitzler, one of the original judges, is not mentioned.

Thirteen sets were received. Two sets were retracted by their authors, and one was lost by the publishers, probably before it was passed on to the judges. Thus, ten sets participated in the competition. Only three sets were found to be fully correct.

One of the sets proved to contain six problems instead of three: the main report indicates that the author was asked to choose the three problems that would participate. (There is no information about how the information of the author's identity was prevented from reaching the judges.)

Only four prizes were assigned, as the remaining sets all had multiple faults. (Kohtz recommended only three sets for prizes in his report.) There is no mention of honorary awards in the reports.

The main part of the report (by Kohtz and Kockelkorn) notes two changes in adjudication practice. First, incorrect problems would not be published. (This would allow authors to correct them, and use them in other contexts.) Second, sets with one faulty problem would still be allowed to participate on the strength of the remaining two problems.

The second rule affected the second prize set, which otherwise would have been excluded. The rule does not appear to have been known by v. Guretzky-Cornitz, who expressed regrets that this set had to be put aside.