NOTES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1745, 16 August 1905, Page 23

NOTES.

E. L. Benson, the London expert and international player, has just been called to the Bar. Draught© player© will b" pleased to hear that one of their number has attained to such eminence, and if he does a© well in the law courts as he has/ in the draughts arena his career will be highly successful. Benson first came into prominence in 1897, when 19 years of age, when he played a drawn match with the late R. Martins, receiving two games start. In the 1888 English Championship Tourney he defeated Morrall (the pr sent, champ on), but fell to A. Jordan. He ma.de a level score in the International match at Glasgow the following year. In the 1800 tourney he defeated W. Holmes, only to succumb to A. Hynd, the ultimate winner. He lias also held the London Championship, and was one of the 18 players from whom the five English representatives were selected for the recent match between Great Britain and America.

The question has often arisen in my mind (says the Draughts Editor of the "Sunday Telegraph”) as to whether the maximum instruction possible is derived from the myriad proble ratic situations published week by week in the various draughts columns, inasmuch as they are one and all published with definite terms as "White to move and win,” or draw, etc., as the case may be. Now the highest form of problem can only be an adjunct to the game proper, and to be of the greatest value the conditions of all problems should bear as great a similarity to these appertaining in actual play as possible, but across the "dam.brod” the question propounded i© never "White (or Black) to move and win (or draw),” but simply "White (or Black) to move, what result?” Therefore, problems would better fulfil their mission by being published with the indafin'te ter"" "What result?” But in advocating thig theory, I in no way wish to encourage the stamp of player who endeavour© to take advantage of other people’s brains by sending "What result” positions to poor draughts editors, without any play in support of any contention regarding them; such an individual does not propound a problem; he asks for an adiud’eation. which is a different matter altogether. The play for a defirite result would h» in the hands of the editor just a© under the system now appertaining, the only difference being that the solver would have to do that which he has to do in actual play, viz., discover the result of a series of moves, instead of having that result already declared for him.