Criticisms. PROBLEM 1888.

Otago Witness, Issue 2436, 21 November 1900, Page 56

Criticisms. PROBLEM 1888.

Czar writes: — (> T. A." is straw-splitting with his 22 17 before 20 24, as the difference in playing it before or aftei 20 24 in his case is nil. His 22 ]7 is not right. His quotation of Mr Mulvey's correction is insufficient to prove his empty and erratic accusation of four blunders. He, in his previous attempt, when stating that the blunders existed, made at ..east rive errors. "T. A.'s" scepticism i& inimitable. I thought, Sir, that your word 'would permanently and satisfactorily settle "T. A.'s" copy- ! ing accusation, yet he expresses dissatisfaction, and thereby attacks your integrity. lam not trying to get any more wins on the position. My play of September 19 embodies all the little points to which "T. A." lays claim. Of course i I mean the sound points; "T. A.'s" unsomidness has been pointed out^so often that 1 vender he car have the cheek to come again. A perusal of the Witness for the last four months is not necessary to prove "T. A.'s" inability to cope with the position — readers only have lo peruse the Witness of November 14 to get +he strength of his ability, as it is another of his many vain attempts to claim a solution to which he has no right. He says :"I shall leave it alone, and claim my win as under" (position at the 21st move of his August 30 play : Black men, 2, 4, 14, ks 13, 26; White men 11, 21, 29, ks 1, 3). Now this is what "T. A." gives' for a solution of this position :— 3 7, or 38, or 5 1, and Black wins. Now, on September 26, "Tommy" continues on the 3 8 line 11 moves — to wit : 26 22, 15,13 9, 8 3-A, 96, 327,3 2 7, 22 26, 20 25, 6 10, 73, 14 18, B. wins. On November 14 "T. A." claims this as his play and a correct solution of "Problem 1888. He is heartily welcome to this, arid to all the rest of the erratic play which he has, with British persistence, repeatedly published. The errors contained in the above are 22 17 before 20 24, and a-t note (a), where "T. A." plays 83. Here, again, "Tommy" is repiilsecl, and forfeits any right which he aslumed to having a claim in the solution. 812 instead of 8 3 draws. "Tommy" has the knack of playing weak moves to get in these "short, sharp, and decisive" wins, but he invariably misses little points like this : 8 12, 9 6-A, 12 16, 14 18-b, 16 19, 6 10, 5 9, 10 7, 11 8, 4 11, 9 14, draws, and corrects "Tommy." (a) 9 13 allows Mr Mulvey's draw, as dees 6 9 at (b) also. (b) 6 10, 5 9, 14 18, 9 14, draws. I think this leaves "T. A." out of the hunt. "Croiije" has retired with the empty assertion that "Czar" could not show sound play for a win oi draw. I answei this by referring him to play over my norn de plume 'on September 19, which, has stood the test and has not suffered by a single correction since that date. 1 have only acted as an arch-critic, setting the puisne- critics right in their (fragile attempts at criticism. Last week "Cronje" shows a White win against the linotype, not against "Czar." Take my November 7 win, which "Cronje" : cavils at. At the 3rd move 19 15 is played, at ' ika ftfch, 6 10* is played, which gives two for

nothing. Plain, isn't it, "Cron.je" ? Now how conies this king on 16 to play the 7th. move? Now look at the 9th move, 11 15. 19 15 i 3i 3 a typographical error, but even a puisne critic should have the ability to follow out the win. The above plainly shows that ''Cronje's" White win was frustrated by me when showing his much-asked-for Black win. Farwell, friend Cronje, with attempts so vain, You'll fare far worse if you come again. I sent in last week corrections which upsefj "Beta," but in case they have miscarried I shall just say here that his 2 6 reply to 21 17, is wrong. Play 10 6 and it works out' a Black win, like my correction of "Cronje" on November 7.— CZAR. [As regards "Czar's" remark that "Tommy's"dissatisfaction seems to reflect on our integrity, we may explain that that part of "Tommy's" last contribution was not printed as he wrote it. We paraphrased what he said for a double reason. "T. A." in one place said he did nob care what "Czar"' had "up his sleeye," he went by what was published, thereby ' seeming to overlook what we tried to convey — that what "Czar" published on September 19 was in our hands fiye or six weeks before, and could not, therefore, be copied from "T. A.'s" play. Moreovei, "Czar wrote us at the beginning of July that he had the play written- out, while "T. A.'s ' first contribution appealed' at the end of July. We further pointed out that apparent inconsistencies in "Czar's" published play were due to the fact that while holding the play for «. win he spoitively upheld the draw. In his last contribution, "Czar" gave what was intended to sel Mr Brodie right in re having tried Problem 1883, but through! hurried writing it was so indefinite that we omitted it. We invitejnm to re-state it briefly. — Dr. Ed.]