To the Editor of the St. James’s Gazette
Sir,—I am glad to see, in the letters of “Phayllus” and “East Sheen L. T. C.,” which appeared in your columns on August 16 and 18, signs that opinion is changing as to the best form of tournament, and that two desiderata, which the present form fails to supply, are beginning to be recognized, namely (almost in the words of “Phayllus”), “that the best players shall take the prizes, and that all the players shall be occupied the greater part of the time, and not be forced to look on idly if they have lost their match in the first round.” The “American,” or “Weybridge,” form, which they advocate, though a great improvement on the existing one, yet labours under two defects. One is, the pairing together of players whose rival claims have been already virtually decided. When A has been beaten by B, and B by C, a match between A and C is surely a foregone conclusion, since we may fairly assume that their relative skill is the same to-day as it was yesterday. If not—if it be held that one night may make such a difference that A may now beat C—why not apply the same principle to A and B, and thus prolong the tournament in sæcula sæculorum? The other defect is the breaking up the whole set of players into several independent tournaments, and letting the winners in the respective divisions contend among themselves for the prizes—thus making it possible (as I showed in my letter of August 4) for the four prizes, in a tournament of thirty-two, to be won by the 1st, 17th, 9th, and 25th best players.
If these superflous contests were omitted, there would then be plenty of time for all to play in one grand tournament; and the American system, minus these two defects, will be found to be identical with the system I advocated in your columns on the 4th of August, in a letter since published by Messrs. Macmillan as a pamphlet, enlarged and with a full account of a tournament of thirty-two players.
It will not be long, I hope, before the “American” system, with these necessary modifications, supplants the present one, under which, though a first prize may fairly be placed among those won by rowing or running, yet a second prize has very little more right to such a position than if it had been won in a raffle.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles L. Dodgson.
August 19.