Yes, I have saved it on my computer and I try to keep it up-to-date with your corrections (my own version is always the draft I'm posting) so it's good if you check it in case I overlooked one of your edits.

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<He considered the world champion's play to be weak, but that Lasker looked stronger than he really was because he benefited from his his opponents trying to cash in on a victory prematurely.>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

This <He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents tried to cash in the victory prematurely.>

Still doesn't mean this <His point is that not Lasker won the games, but his opponents lost them.>

It's not clear enough.

But you are also correct, my edit strays too far from what you wrote, to the point where it means something different than the original quote. We have to get rid of my edit.

I do understand better now what the passage means because you just told me. I think we can make your text clearer without losing the precision.

What about <He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely>

That clearly means <His point is that not Lasker won the games, but his opponents lost them.>

Ok back- I just put this in the edit:

<He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely>

I see that I stated this a bit confusingly.

The paragraph is a bit longer, so I took out a part to capture it's spirit. For sure, there is more written in that passage and my elaboration <His point is that not Lasker won the games, but his opponents lost them.> is almost a literal translation from another quote.

To make clearer how Janowski's standpoint is developped:

1) He got the conviction that Lasker's games have no artistic value and are badly/poorly played (schlecht gespielt).

2) In most games, Lasker got an inferior position and only won because his opponents tried to cash in the victory prematurely.

3) Not Lasker won, but his opponent lost (Nicht Lasker gewann, sondern der Gegner verlor).

4) And then follows the part about dominoes.

Here are some valuable research resources and hints from <crawfb5>, which are now in our Profile:

NEWSPAPER SEARCH TIPS from <crawfb5>

<Chess Archaeology>: The best way to use the chess archeology site if you know the dates of interest is to use the <timeline>: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...

<Library of Congress online newspapers>: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/#...

<Brooklyn Daily Eagle> 1841-1902: http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary....

1903-now:
http://fultonhistory.com/my%20photo...

Navigation hints for <1903-now> Brooklyn Daily Eagle link:

The search of http://fultonhistory.com/my%20photo... can be improved if you know a year and a specific papers. I then do a Boolean search. For example to look for articles on Lasker-Marshall 1907 in the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> I would enter

<Royal Dutch Library>: http://kranten.kb.nl/

<Links for Historians from Edward Winter's site>: http://chesshistory.com/resources/l...

Search notes also tips
6 Ways To Reduce Irrelevant Results On Google Search http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-ways...

Find free Power Searching with Google class http://www.powersearchingwithgoogle...

Using Boolean Search Operators with Google http://amysscrapbag.wordpress.com/2...

If it helps, here are the details for Boolean Searching for several major search engines. You will have to check a particular database yourself due to licensing issues.

Google: https://support.google.com/websearc...

Bing: https://support.google.com/websearc...

Yahoo!: http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page...

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

<<Carl Schlechter> was born in Vienna, Austria, in 1874 and became on the strongest chessplayers of the world in the late 1890ties>

<Carl Schlechter> was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874, and became one of the strongest chessplayers of the world in the late 1890s.

<On January 7, 1910, the 10-games world championship match>

Needs to explain why the match was reduced from 30 to 10 games.

<Lasker, as he called the win in game 5 fortunate, said that Schlechter wanted to add a 2nd win [(8)] and the latter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game [(12)].>

Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and that Schlechter wanted to add a 2nd win. Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game.

Thanks!

<Needs to explain why the match was reduced from 30 to 10 games.>

This we can't. I mention the 1908 conditions as they were published. But the 1910 conditions never were (that's why I added <But to our knowledge, the final conditions were never published.>). So we can't explain why they were changed or if they were changed (I mean, they could have started new negotiations and ignored the 1908 conditions).

Then we need to say that we haven't found a reference to the change in match length. Otherwise the readers will be scratching their heads. Also perhaps one of them will point us in the direction of a reference.

As a general rule in technical writing, short sentences are better than one long sentence.

<The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours and although a draw would have sufficed [(11)], Schlechter played actively and got a promising position, but while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker converted his advantage with great precision. Lasker, as he called the win in game 5 fortunate, said that Schlechter wanted to add a 2nd win [(8)] and the latter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game [(12)]. The match ended drawn (+1 -1 =8), Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.>

The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed, Schlechter played actively and got a promising position. But while playing for a win, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker converted his advantage with great precision. The match ended drawn (+1 -1 =8). Lasker retained his title but Schlechter had not been beaten.

I thought I just did that by inserting <But to our knowledge, the final conditions were never published.>.

While I agree with you in principle that everything should be understandable for the reader, if there is such a controversy, we can't just cover it up. I mean, we have the 1908 conditions, and we know that the WC match lasted 10 games, but the conditions of the latter we don't have. And no one has, that's why this +2 controversy could rage for so long.

I don't see how we can resolve this issue and in doubt, I would sacrifice readability for correspondence to the facts anytime. So as long as we don't find a source telling us why the match was for ten games only, I don't see a solution.

<Avoiding the controversy over the 2 win rule is probably wise. There doesn't seem to be any definitive reference to it in regards to the 10 game match.>

Yes, I had entertained the thought of including a short note adressing that there is no evidence for such a rule, but with match related facts alone, the draft got already so large that there is not enough space to include it. So I kind of adress the point by referring to the contemporary source stating taht a draw in game 10 would have sufficed.

<Carl Schlechter> was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874, and became on the strongest chessplayers of the world in the late 1890s [(1)], sharing 1st place with <Henry Nelson Pillsbury> at <Munich (1900)>, following up with 1st places at <Vienna (1904)>, the huge Ostende (1906) tournament and shared 1st places at <Vienna (1908)> and <Prague (1908)>.

<Theodor Gerbec> wrote: "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method." [(2)] and <Richard Reti> said: "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme – just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless." [(3)] But in 1906, world champion <Emanuel Lasker>, while acknowledging Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, detected in his personality a lack of anything demoniacal which could induce him to seize someone else's possession. [(4)]

Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker for a title match. The world champion accepted the challenge and both published a statement on December 3, where the match was to last 30 games, the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909. [(5)] Further negotiations lead to the announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match was to be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public. [(6)] But to our knowledge, the final conditions were never published.

On January 7, 1910, the 10-games world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present. <Georg Marco> was the match director, the seconds were <Hugo Faehndrich>, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny. Usually, the games began at 5 p. m. and lasted until 8 p. m., after a break for 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 p. m. and then adjourned, if the game hadn't finished earlier. [(7)] The time control was 15 moves per hour [(8)] On January 8, Lasker took a rest day. [(7)] After the third game, play was relocated to two Vienna saloons for games 4 and 5 with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Baron Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds. The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws. [(9)]

The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days. Lasker was held to draws in games 6, 7, 8 and 9 and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10. [(10)] The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed [(11)], Schlechter played actively and got a promising position. But while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker converted his advantage with great precision. Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and that Schlechter wanted to add a 2nd win [(8)]. Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game [(12)]. The match ended drawn (+1 -1 =8). Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.

[(1)] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536...

[(2)] Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1928, page 370

[(3)] Richard Reti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pages 82-83

[(4)] Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, page 95 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906)

[(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, page 376

[(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909, page 315

[(7)] Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1910, pages 1-5

[(8)] Ost und West, March 1910, pages 171-176

[(9)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 58-78

[(10)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 78-95

[(11)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 92 and 93-94

---

On a different note, how to cite sources we got from other sources? A direct example: Imagine I quote the 'ACB' by taking the info from Winter's Capa book.

a) We couldn't omit Winter as a source and act as if we had the ACB before us and found it ourselves

b) Something like "as Capalanca wrote on page 20 of the November 1920 'ACB' ..." would waste too much space

c) Merely giving Winter's book as a source would be too vague, in my opinion

Thanks so much <Karpova>. I haven't had a chance to analyze anything carefully yet.

The last sentence is super - <Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.> "Hadn't been beaten" means that Carl drew the match and also implies strongly that he hadn't been beaten in an emotional or psychological sense either.

My first instinct would be to make this a footnote. It doesn't sound right in the main text but it's still an important note.

<the huge Ostende (1906) tournament>

I'm not convinced by the spelling "Ostende". The normal English spelling is "Ostend" (as in Ostend (1905) and Ostend (Championship) (1907)), so we should probably use that. The local name is "Oostende"; while "Ostende" is correct in German, I'm not sure why we should follow that usage.

<Karpova: On a different note, how to cite sources we got from other sources? A direct example: Imagine I quote the 'ACB' by taking the info from Winter's Capa book.

a) We couldn't omit Winter as a source and act as if we had the ACB before us and found it ourselves

b) Something like "as Capalanca wrote on page 20 of the November 1920 'ACB' ..." would waste too much space

c) Merely giving Winter's book as a source would be too vague, in my opinion

Possibly something like (page 140 of [WINTER] (originally from [ACB]))? With the [] merely indicating the complete source.>

I think we should use <Döry> (and quite possibly <Jobaháza>) as both names are Hungarian; "Döry" is also the spelling adopted by Edward Winter (see C.N. 5115 and 5122 - http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...).