Solvers and Their Criticisms.

Otago Witness, Issue 2369, 27 July 1899, Page 48

Solvers and Their Criticisms.

(From Canterbury Times.) No. 1599 (Tourney Problem No. 25). By E. Pradignat (two moves). — Very interesting; the allowance of a check and the three pure mates amply redeem the promotion key (8). Alfordian, Christchurch. — Very pretty, pleasing mates, majority pure, and some economical, dual unavoidable (8J). J. H. L., Havelock North. — Very artful key, and good variety (8). "W. F. G., Spreydon. — Neat, though pawns at Xt 7 rendered key easy (7). F. C. L., Waimata Valley. — Solutions without criticism: — F. Woodford, Linwood; S. S.,' Lincoln road. This problem received a special prize in the Kentish Mercury Tournament, as the best problem with unorthodox key. Key subtle, good tries, several pure arid technically economical mates, but rather «. prodigal use of white pawns (8J). — Chess Editoi. No. 1600 (Tourney Problem No. 26). By J. Stent" (three moves). — Very difficult key and ifter play several good tries, grand variety (10). W. F. G. — A fine problem ; difficult key, though not of ideal beauty ; intricate and complex after play ; great variety ; rnosf interesting mates, including a pure mirror (9). J. H. L. — Full of Btrategy, and deserved full points, but for capture key (8£). F. C. L. — Solution without criticism received from S. S. — A most difficult and intricate problem, with wonderful variety; it is a pity a more artistic key could no' have been introduced (82). — Chess Editor. No. 1597. — Author's solution and accidental lolution received from S. S. No. 1598. — Accidental solution received from S. S. THE AWARD IN THE OTAGO WITNESS SIXTH TOURNEY. The following is the award of the judges respecting the competing problems: — We place No. 6, by F. A. L. Kuskop, first ; No. 4, by A. F. Mackenzie^econ J ; No. 8, by F. A. L. Kuskop, third. No. 6, first prize. — A problem of quite exceptional merits as regards variety, purity, and economy, but the key threatening mate on second move is a serious blemish. If it were not for this defect it would be difficult to conceive a problem more nearly approaching perfection. No. 4, second prize. — This also has great merits, but it lacks the elegant finish and economy of No. 6 No. 8, honourable mention. —A close third. Has excellent key, but its sublequent play does not possess the beauty or yariety of the prize-winners. The remaining tound problems are considerably below these Ifcrce in merit. R. A. CLELAND. O. BALK. It may be interesting to compare with this *ward our own and the solvers' criticisms and adjudications. The following table shows the points awarded, and the order in which the sound problems are placed by all concerned. The points to be awarded by critics were 1 to 10, according to their estimates of merit. Solyers not included in this table did not criticise.

Unsound problems, of which there were several, ] are omitted: — ' •

It will be observed that there is a general consensus of opinion as to the first prize-winner, who is placed at the top by the judges, ourselves, and the average award of the solvers; but we and the solvers reverse the order of the judges tespecting problems Nos. 4 and 8. The judges, however, say that these two problems are close. We and the solvers also, put but a slight difference between them, though we place them in opposite order. We may say that the points which wo personally awarded were in every case recorded prior to the -awards of solvers being received; and the judges were unacquainted with the points given by any of us, though they had- before them our critical remarks without the figures. All are agreed that the remaining problems are inferior to the three which have received prizes and honourable mention ;• and the last three problems are placed in identical order by solvers (average), ourselves, and Mr Cleland, one of the judges, who has kindly given us the points which he awarded to all the problems. Altogether, therefore, the only difference between any of us (taking the solvers' award by the average) concerns the i problems which the judges place second and ! third. This is a most interesting result, and fully bears out what wo said in our article of April 12 last respecting the value of solvers' criticisms. Except that Mr Cleland has adopted rather a lower standard of excellence as his basis, the marking is nearly identical throughout, with the one exception mentioned. With regard to the exception, it would, we think, j have been much more satisfactory if the problems had been published under mottoes, in- i stead of undei the names of the composers. It is, in our opinion, impossible for a human judge or critic to divest himself absolutely of the subtle influences which a, knowledge of authorship must have upon his mind ; and w» personally felt great difficulty in this respect in the present tourney. It is not impossible, therefore, that the knowledge, on the one hand of Mr Mackenzie's immense reputation and, on the other, of Mr Kuskop's locality may have affected the judges or ourselves to that slight extent which would be necessary to turn the scale sufficiently to reverse one or other of our awards. And that, not from any intentional partiality, but fiom over-anxiety" to be just. The same, of course applies to the solvers, who may have erred in their criticisms from the same causes. It is a remarkable circumstance that, though we were entirely ignorant of each other's awards when respectively making our own, oui personal estimate and the average estimate of the solvers place all the sis sound problems in the same relative order of merit. We produce the criticisms respecting ,the three problems which have taken honours in the dourney : — Tourney Problem No. 6, by F. A. L. Kuskop.—First prize— X 3Kt3,87,4 klXt 1, 6p1,2P5,1b6, 483, 1 Q 6 (th % ree moves). Key Q-K R. Very neat and clean, short mate of no consequence. X. Y. Z.— Not up to the composer's usual standard, the key threaten 1 * mate, the liberty allowed the Black king is good. Seva.— Graceful little problem, not difficult, but fairly good key, the two queen sacrifices are pretty, the mirrors and pure mates very pleasing, short mates a blemish. Alfordian. — One of those difficult keys, you do not know when you have it, a splendid problem, has two mirror mates. Argo. — Very pleasing, but simple; sacrifices of queen, followed by pure and economical mate, admirable; other mates (including two similar mirrors) interesting, though not quite pure or economical ; weak defences sat upon by short mate. JV H. L. — Key good, two mirror mates and clever use of knights. F. C. L.— A splendid problem; good key, allowing Black king one more flight square; several pure mirror and economical mates ; short mate rather a defect. F. J. G. — I think this a perfect problem, and would give the author full marks. Othello. — Light and artistic, but not too easy, with good sacrifices, and beautiful mates. Three mates are pure, one being a pure mirror, and one a pure and economical mirror; and there is a good degree of purity in other mates. A short mate, occurring after five out of nine of Black's first moves, is a defect.— Chess Editor Canterbury Times. Tourney Problem No. 4. By A. F. Macken- | zie.— Second prize— 7 B, 8, 2 P 2 Xt 2, 1 p 3 } P R P, 3 k P 1 P 1, Xt 6 X, P 3 P 3, 1 kt | Q 3 b 1 (three moves). Key R-Kt 6. Key fair, I suggested by the useless appearance of the R; sacrifices of Q very good ; has some good mates, j some pure, Argo. — Key not difficult; it is ; easily seen that the R has to bo moved; the , afterplay fully compensates for this; the mate ! after Black 1 Kt-Q 7is beautiful. Seva.— j Key difficult; sacrifices of Q very pretty; too [ many blocking pawns. Alfordian. — Good key; ; difficult afterplay ; fine sacrifices of Q and i beautiful mates. J. H. L.— Fairly difficult ; no 1 duals; although only three variations, there i are many minor lines of play. X. Y. Z. — Key ! well hid ; the double sacrifice of Q and varia1 tions clever. F. C. L. — Fair key; there are two beautiful Q sacrifices on second move and some '. interesting mates by discovery; two mates aie j pure, and one of these pure mates is also j technically economical, in that it employs every White major piece except the K. The economy, however, is merely technical, and is altogether discounted by the fact that the- White X and five White pawns take no part in this mate. In the other mates, never less than four, and even as many as five and six, White pawns, the White X in every variation but one, and one White major piece other than the X in every variation take no part. This idleness of both major and minor pieces is a great defect in an otherwise fine problem.— Chess Editor Canter- ; bury Times. I Tourney Problem No. 8. By F. A. L. Kuskop. — Honourable mention. — 3 84,2p5V XI p 1 I p, 2 Xt 1 k 3, 4 Xt 3, 8, 3 p 2 Q 1, 8 (3 moves). Key Kt-Q 6.— Very good key ; a splen- | did problem ; most of the mates are economical, | and one is pure. Argo. — Double sacrifice of Xt by key very pretty, and compensates for loss of one flight square to X; repeated sacrifices of Xt and B very pleasing ; mirrors charmj ing. Alfordian. — Key fair; the variation after Black 1 P-B 4 is rather difficult; not much variety; economy good. Seva. — Good key and sacrifices; difficult play, and beautiful mates; the short mate aftei P x Xt unfortunate. J. H. L. — Key very good; clever use of knights, peculiar to this talented composer; and a mirror mate. F. C. L. — The fact that several of the best solvers have failed to find the solution is evidence that this problem is unusually difficult. It excels in economy ; excepting the short mate, in every variation but one all White's major pieces but the X participate in giving mate, and the X does work in some mates. Two mates are pure, and two are mirrors, one being both pure and a mirror; the average of all tho mates is only 1 l-6deg short of purity. There are good sacrifices, and numerous sub-

variations, though variety is more nominal than real. The short mate, occurring only once amidst so much play, is of trifling consequence, but the monotonous repetition of Q-K 4, which occurs in every variation, either on White's second or third move, is an unpleasant feature. — Chess Editor Canterbury Times. "We publish without abridgment the remarks of our esteemed contemporary regarding the problem tourney and the adjudication. At the same time, either from prejudice or want of knowledge, or possibly better knowledge, we entirely disagree with regard to the advantages of publishing the problems anonymously. We are quite certain that the judges are not in the smallest degree in the present case influenced by knowing the names of the composers. We shall not trouble our readers with the reasons for the faith that is in us as to the general principle. They are to some extent based on sentiment — the sentiment, namely, that we detest secrecy, and prefer that all actions should be capable of bearing the full blaze of daylight. Errors of judgment will be made by all judges. If they were not, why should courts of appeal be needed?— and secrecy would in no way prevent such errors ; but i when we openly and publicly entiust life, liberty, and property to the arbitrament of judge and jurors, when it is one of the fundamental principles of British law that everything should be done openly and publicly, why should a different rule be adopted with respect to chess adjudications? The British mind is averse to secrecy in public matters, and detests secret tribunals. "Who would think of proposing that our judges should be asked to decide upon our ! rights, subject to the conditions that the names of the contesting parties should not be disclosed to them, lest they should be influenced by personal knowledge of the reputations and standing of the individuals, or decide corruptly ' from a desire to favour those they esteemed best. The judges in problem tourneys, like judges in other matters, are under the full blaze of the search-light of public opinion, and that is the best assurance that they will, to the best of their ability and judgment, act justly. As to the judges in the late tourney, they are entirely above all suspicion, and the very fact of their knowing a composer to be of high repute would tend to put them on their guard against favouring him. ; i Selected Games. Centre Counter Gambit. :

NOTES. (a) "Unusual; the Handbuch, at this point analyses only the moves 3 P to X 5 or Q takes P. (b) At this- juncture, or even earlier in the play, P to Q 4 would have been better. (c) This move is already of doubtful worth, for the reason that" Black could capture theP at Q 5, with the best play through 6 P to Q Xt 4; 7 B to Q kt 3, P to Xt 5. However, Black foresees a very fine combination. t'n) In the interest of rapid piece development Black allows a second P to be captured. (c) Black has now obtained a strong position. Nevertheless, there would have been no immediate danger for White if he had played here 12 B to X 2; White's castling gives his opponent the opportunity for a. decisive combination, i (f) If 14 X to Xt 1, then 14 Q to X E 3 ; would naturally follow. (g) Not 14 Q to Q 3, eh, because he forsee"s his coming sixteenth move. (h) A charming conclusion. — Times-Democrat. One of seven games played between Stockholm and Gothenburg by cable. The game pre- : sents many interesting features, White's Xt play exhibiting the highest form of chess stra-

White. Black. Zambelly Maioczy. IP-K4 PK4 2 Kt-KB3 P-Q4 3 P x P B-Q 3 (a) 4 Kt-B 3 Kt-K B 3 5 B - Xt' 5 eh (b) P-B 3 fi B-R 4 (c) P-K 5 7 P x P 0-0 (n) BKt Q 4 Px P 9 Xt x B P Q-Kt 3 10 Xt xKt Xx Xt 11 B-Kt 5 R-<^ 1 (E) 12 0 0 BxPch J3 Kxß Kt-Ktsch White. Black. j Zanitelly Maroczy. ! 14 K-Kt3(r)Q-B2ch(G) 15 P-B 4 PxPe.p.ch , 16 X x P R-Q 5 J7 P-Q3 BKt2ch ! 18 Kt-K 4, BxKt eh i 19KxKfc Q-R.7 I JOPxB QxP eh I 21 K-Ji 4 Hx B (v) ' 22Qx1l K-B4ch 23 Xx It Q-lt 6ch I 21 K-Kt 5 P-R 3ch 25K-B4 P-Kt4ch 2'J K-X 5 Q-K 3 . mate. ~ •

oee,y .—. — GITTOCO White. Black. 1 Piano. White. Black. Tackholra Langborg Gothenburg .Stockholm 20 PR 5 Kt-Q 1 21Kt-B5 K-H'2 22Q-B2 Kt-Kt2 23 F-Q 4 P-K B 3 24 B-Kt3 QR-Q1 25 Q-Q 2 X R-Kt 1 26 P-Q 5 Q-K 1 27 Bx Xt I'xß 28 Q x P Q-R 4 29Kt-Kt3 Q-Kt3 30 Kt-Q 4 Q R-K 1 31 KR-Ktl KtQl 32 Xt (Xt 3)B 5 Q-R 4 33 R-Kt 4 Kt-B 2 34QR-KKtlßxKt 35 P x B It x R 36 11 x R Xt-Xt 4 37 Xt-Xt 3 Qx P 38 QBsch, wins. Tackha'm Lingborg Gothenburg Stockholm 1 P-K 4 P-K 4 2 Kt-K B 3 Kt-Q B 3 3 B-B 4 B-B 4 4 P-Q B 3 Kt-K B 3 5 P-Q Xt 4 B-Kt, 3 6 C-Q3 P-Q 3 7QKt 3 0-0 8 B-K Xt 5 Q-K 2 9 P-Q It 4 K-Q It 3 10 QKtQ2 B-K 3 11 -R 3 Kit 1 ]2P-Kt4 P-K 3 13 Bit 4 B x B 14 Ktxß Q_-K3 15 P-KKtB Kt-KIU 1« P x P I' x P 17 0-0 Kt-B 5 18 K-Kfc 2 B-R 2 19 Kt-K 3 P-Kt 4

I Name of Composer. a <! < pcj ==I 2 I a H a "o a > o Q £ h4 1-5 W b 8 6 4 F. A. L Kuskop A. F. Mackenzie F. A. L. Kus kop H. B. Jackson F. A. L Kus k6p A. Charlick... 8 9 8 7J SI Si 7 8 5 |8 9 9 N 10 81 h 8J 9.4 9 p 14 a n 81! 10 h |7i , id 7 16 b 7 !51! 51 7.5 6.0-