Problem Imitation.

Otago Witness, Issue 2263, 15 July 1897, Page 48

Problem Imitation.

On this subject Mr S. S. Blackburne, of Christchurch, contributes an able and interesting article to the chess column of the Canterbury Times. He says that any problem which is so similar to one previously published as to be deemed practically identical with it must be either a conscious or an unconscious copy. Regarded mathematically, a coincidence of such close identity occurring through iudependent construction would be a matter of such extreme improbability that it might, for all practical purposes, be treated as an impossibility. But supposing the next to impossible to happen once in the course of human experience, we should certainly not expect to see it ever again repeated. When, therefore, we find coincidences of practical identity in problems occurring frequently, we have a right to attribute them to conscious or unconscious plagiarism. Personally, I should be as sceptical about uncon- i scious theft of a chess problem as I should be i about unconscious theft of a man's overcoat. Indeed, I should be more so, as the latter might be a case of mistaken identity. But, unless unconscious theft is extremely rare, a great many persons have besn unjustly sent to prison. Physchologists tell us, however, that unconscious plagiarism does occur, but they say that the unconscious memory is perfect. We should expect, therefore, that reproductions occurring from this cause would be perfect reproductions, rather than "practically identical," or bearing a "striking resemblance." Surely a problenmt who sets up a position straight off, which he finds to be not only a sound but an excellent problem, would have grounds enough to suspect for himself that

it was a case of unconscious memory- As the author of "The Chesß Problem " says : " The best problems occupy months— sometimes even years — in reaching parfection, and literally pass through hundreds of different forms before they take the exact shape which is considered worthy to place before the public." Every problemist knows perfectly well that a good position can be no chance production, but that it must be the outcome of intense thought and prolonged labour. Thus, to my mind, plagiarism of chess problem*, whether conscious or unconsious, is inexcusable. He then proceeds to endeavour to show the immense improbability of even approximate identity arising from independent construction, aii'l he bases his argument partly upon a mode of reasoning which we venture to think has often misled both chess and draughts players— namely, the possible number of permutations and combinations of which the pieces are capable. It is true Mr Mlickburne discounts that number enormously to arrive at an estimate of the possible number of chess problems. We submit, however, that the number of permutations and combinations of which the 32 pieces are capable has nothing to do with the case. The number of permutations and combinations of which the letters of the alphabet are capable is enormous although easily calculated, but the number of articulate sounds which they are capable of representing bears no proportion or relation whatever to that number, and the words or ideas to be expressed by those sounds seldom exceed 100,000 in any language. Take a simple position such as R and Xt against King. There is a mate known to all chess players with these when the black king is iv either of the four corners of the board. The combination is' exactly the same in each case and the mate effected in the same way, but although there are eight different positions it is only one combination. Take also a mate with X aud R against K. It is obvious that the black king can be mated by the superior force on every one of the 28 squares at the side 3of the board. It is the one form of mateone idea, in fact — and what relation does it have to a calculation of the permutations and combinations of the pieces ? In fact it appears tolerably clear that the number of possible problem positions has a similar relation to the numbor of pieces as the words of a language have to the letters of the alphabet. The problems are intelligible ideas expressed by pieces having certain powers and positions, and we venture to think there is no question of billions or even millions in the matter. Any opinion regarding the probability of two composers inventing like positions founded on a calculation of the number ot possible combinations of the pieces must we submit, be fallacious. It is not surprising that a simple mating combination of a few pieces should occur to mow than one person : the more simple such a position is the more likely it is so to occur. Take the positions above mentioned. That of mating at the side of the board with X and R against X will occur to moat persons who have learned the moves and power of the pieces ; the mate in the corners of the board with R and Xt against X will not occur to quite so many, and the more complex the combination and the greater the number of pieces used, the smaller will be the number of persons who can see through it or build it up as a problem. The fact that such a position as that given in La Strategic for April last (8, 8, 3 R 4, 1 Q 6 8, 2p 2 X 2, 2 k 5, 2 b 5) as occurring in two problems composed by Dr A. W. Galitzky and M. A. W. Shinkman is not such a very surprising coincidence ; the most surprising thing aboub it being that both composers set up the position on the same part of the chess board, the only difference between the two being that in Dr Galitzky's position the R is at Q 6, and in Mr Shinkmaa's at Q4. That such a simple idea should occur to two or more persons is in no way surprising. We regret that want of space prevents us from publishing the whole of Mr Blackburne's valuable article. Being himself a composer, he is entitled to the attention due to an expert. His suggestion that composers submitting problems for competition should show the process of evolution of the problem is an excellent one if practicable, and would in addition to preventing plagiarism throw some light on the psychical phenomenon which is called unconscious cerebral unification. In rase 3 where the originality of a problem is challenged, the parties concerned would be thereby afforded an opportunity of clearing themselve i from the ct gma of plagiarism.