I like your thinking on the first point, but I think it might confuse the reader, who would think the blue <Mikhail Botvinnik> would link to his player page, and not to the game. So they might be less likely to click on the game.

For "clickers" that is.

I'm a clicker as you know.

###################

Yes the source does justify the word "solely," but it strikes me as unnecessary because redundant.

I wonder if we should use the -ing case for the results of the 1944 Championship. I think it would be more clear to say

Good idea, I agree on all counts.

########################

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951

I changed this sentence here:

<By tying the match score 12-12, Botvinnik retained his title on draw odds.>

We already said earlier that the champion enjoyed "draw odds," so I don't think we need to say it again.

So I changed the sentence to

<By tying the match score 12-12, Botvinnik retained his title.>

######################

<Karpova>

I'm sorry that I completely forgot about our discussion about listing the "translator" in a less awkward manner when I submitted FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948).

That's the way they told me to do it at university, so I guess it became an ingrained habit after some years to write

...Ken Neat transl.

So I added <tabanus> as the translator of the <Tfs> sources, using that method again.

As for when to list you as a translator or not on future promotions, I will leave that up to you.

#########################

It is currently 16:43 <Seoul time>, and I will submit our draft to <crawfb5> in about six hours, before I go to bed.

"E-Bay rules" will apply, although we may have to get <Ohio> to explain them to me again.

I think that means that if there is a "late bid" we give some time for another bid?

Here is the "World Clock" with city time zones:

Shouldn't it be Soviet National Master title [3 capitals instead of 1]?

<He improved to 3d in the USSR Championship (1945), which garnered him a spot on the lower boards in Soviet team events, where he performed well.> Coming to a theater near you :) They want to improve a lot using 3D, but still I prefer 3rd :(

<But his performance against the best opposition was not yet strong enough to achieve the Soviet grandmaster title.> Guess if NM needs capitals then Grandmaster doesn't want to be discriminated against. Similar in the next sentence of the draft.

<Botvinnik had played no chess in public > Think this might've been discussed previously - but why not "hadn't played chess"?

<with the champion enjoying draw odds.> Silly question, but can we assume that Reader knows what draw odds are? Perhaps it should be explained [eg something generally like: in case of a 12-12 tie, the defender would retain the title].

<If the champion lost, he had the right to play the new champion and the winner of the next cycle in a three player match tournament for the title, at the end of the following three year candidates cycle.> I mentally stumble on the 'and'. Perhaps move the three-player tournament to the front of the sentence. For instance <<If the champion lost, he had the right to play a three player match tournament for the title, against the new champion and the winner of the next candidates cycle.>> Left out the "at the end of the following three year candidates cycle" - don't know how necessary that detail is in this context.

--

---

"Bronstein had earned the right to face Botvinnik in a world championship match."

although most readers will know it, I still think it would make sense to introduce Botvinnik as the defending champion here (and not when he is intrduced, as this was 1944):

"Bronstein had earned the right to face title holder Botvinnik in a world championship match."

---

"Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he'd won the"

As we always did it and it is more fitting, I suggest <he had> instead of <he'd>.

---

"He describes the final move of the"

why now present tense when it is else always past tense?

---

In footnotes <2>, <3> and <5> it would be good to mention the person behind rusbase, which appears to be <Alexey Popovsky of Magnitogorsk, Russia> according to http://al20102007.narod.ru/

---

"1 David Bronstein and Tom Fürstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Cadogan 1995), pp.263-264"

"10 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.16-17"

"12 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" p.300"

"22 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.17"

The capitalization issue was resolved a long time ago. The standard used in this draft is the same as in all the other drafts, and will stay that way. It's predominant contemporary norm that we follow. I actually prefer the old style of Capitalizing almost Everything, but over time I changed my mind. My Favorite Style is no longer current. <Charles Dakkens> would be appalled, but we'll have to live with that.

#########################

<still I prefer 3rd>

Noted, but that ship has also sailed.

########################

<<Botvinnik had played no chess in public > Think this might've been discussed previously - but why not "hadn't played chess"?>>

As <Karpova> actually just brought up, coincidentally, we have been (heh) avoiding contractions for the most part. I hadn't HAD NOT thought much about it until this very minute even.

I'd prefer that construction to remain as is.

##########################

<<with the champion enjoying draw odds.> Silly question, but can we assume that Reader knows what draw odds are?>>

There are no silly questions! Especially not from you.

We did, HOWEVER (that one goes out to <Ohio>), already discuss this and decide it's fine as it is. Best even.

###########################

<<If the champion lost, he had the right to play the new champion and the winner of the next cycle in a three player match tournament for the title, at the end of the following three year candidates cycle.> I mentally stumble on the 'and'. Perhaps move the three-player tournament to the front of the sentence. For instance <<If the champion lost, he had the right to play a three player match tournament for the title, against the new champion and the winner of the next candidates cycle.>> Left out the "at the end of the following three year candidates cycle" - don't know how necessary that detail is in this context.>>

Actually it was much worse earlier- that's <Karpova's> construction now, if I remember correctly.

It was the first construction of that information that I actually understood clearly, so I'd like to keep it.

#################

Thank you so much for taking the time to help us like this!

I am fully aware that you are not here every day like a few of us, and I understand you can't be expected to know the long, long history of revision on a given draft.

Thanks <Karpova>!

##############################

I think it sounds best to repeat his whole name because it's more dramatic:

<Bronstein had earned the right to face title holder Mikhail Botvinnik in a world championship match.>

##############################

<Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he had won>

############################

<Botvinnik responded with one of his best games of the match. He describes the final move of the <23rd game>>

It's kind of hard to explain, but in English you can use the present or past tense when quoting someone's past speech from a source.

Consistency within a given text isn't necessarily the primary criterion by which to judge the best tense in a given sentence construction, either.

Sometimes narrative flow, or the avoidance of an awkward construction could be the preferred criteria.

On the other hand, either can be used.

Often they are both used in a given text, such as in Alexander Munninghoff's <Euwe> biography.

It's also a norm in British documentary film scripts, apparently.

Usually the present tense in these cases drives me crazy. I don't like it when it's overused.

All that said, you can't really say "described the final move: "And then begin the direct quotation" without the whole sentence sounding awkward.

In this case, you'd have to say "described the final move as follows: "And then begin the direct quotation."

I prefer the simpler construction allowed by the use of the present tense here, so I'm going to keep it as it is.

#################################

<Alexey Popovsky of Magnitogorsk, Russia>

Well we wouldn't list where he's from, but I think that's a great idea. I'd like to do that too. Are we sure that's who is the "Rusbase" webmaster?

<2> Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/

###################################

<12> Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.300

######################################

Ok I made all the changes you suggested except for the "tense" issue you raised.

Your construction is good for sure, leaving out the <at the end of the following three year candidates cycle>.

But that detail is in the source description from <Tfs>, translated by <Tab>, and it's there for a reason.

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951

Ok here's the clause now:

<Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he had won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), >

I'm afraid the repetition of "he had" seems a little wooden?

Figured it might be that - simply looked odd.

<3d vs 3rd><Noted, but that ship has also sailed. >

I.. really? Oh my, yes, last November apparently. I think I might need to sit down for a bit now.. preferably in a quiet corners so that my occasional gasps of disbelief don't startle any nearby pets and small children.

<It was the first construction of that information that I actually understood clearly, so I'd like to keep it.>

I understand that, but it actually <sounds> like a construction. Or a contraption even. Some strangely shaped piece of machinery you don't want to poke because you might have to wave goodbye to your finger.

<I am fully aware that you are not here every day like a few of us, and I understand you can't be expected to know the long, long history of revision on a given draft.>

I knew. Know. Knaw. And I for my part fully realize I will often point and shout "Look at this guys", whereby the appointee is a long-resolved utterly moot point :)

It's a lot better to have moot points discussed than not have enough help with the project, and you are invaluable.

Let's wait to see what <Karpova> and/or <Ohio> might have to say about the <If the champion lost, he had the right to play the new champion and the winner of the next cycle in a three player match tournament for the title, at the end of the following three year candidates cycle.> passage.

Well I am exhausted so I'm going to turn in now, three hours before the deadline.

Agree greatly. I don't like 3d every time I read it. I haven't addressed it since I thought that was a set in stone policy.

<I think I might need to sit down for a bit now.. preferably in a quiet corners so that my occasional gasps of disbelief don't startle any nearby pets and small children.>

I like <DakInTime's> suggestion better than the current and have a similar one to propose:

Agree greatly. I don't like 3d every time I read it. I haven't addressed it since I thought that was a set in stone policy.>

It's painful to the eyes, nobody but one liked it last November and nobody but one likes it now. But apparently, the U.S. Marines use it, so we have to do the same (that U.S. Marines <also> use 2nd/3rd is not important).

To find who else uses 2d/3d and in what context, I did a quick Google search for the phrase "strong 2d behind" from the latest draft...

"Strong 2nd behind" got 66 Google hits.
"Strong 2d behind" got 2 Google hits, both of which were the draft.

YUCK!! DOUBLE YUCK!!

Excuse me while I puke in the corner.

What book, magazine, or newspaper uses this??

Why not just spell it out as second or third?

<Walking away, shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.>

<If the champion lost, he had the right to play a three player match tournament for the title, after the next three year candidates cycle, against the new champion and the winner of that cycle.>

Ok no <2d> or <3d> then!

<Ohio, TheFocus> thank you for speaking up on the issue again.

<Switch> As always, thanks for your research into the case.

I just looked at our three promoted drafts, and right now the only numeric rank abbreviations I noticed are a couple of <1st>s in the first paragraph of Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890).

What about following <TheFocus'> suggestion: <Why not just spell it out as second or third?>

To be consistent, that would mean spelling out larger numbers too, such as <the twenty-first game>, or <game twenty-four>.

That's the way <Harry Golombek> and <Leonard Barden> do it in their books.

Can we do that too? Abbreviating the numbers doesn't actually change the word count, and anyways, we know now that Daniel is fine with the longer draft format.

Look we don't have to hand this in tonight. But before I go back to sleep, I'm just going to change the numbers in the draft to "written out" format so we can all see what it would look like.

###############

<If the champion lost, he had the right to play a three player match tournament for the title, after the next candidates cycle, against the new champion and the winner of that cycle.>

or

<If the champion lost, he had the right to play a three player match tournament for the title, after the next three year candidates cycle, against the new champion and the winner of that cycle.>?

I don't think either sentence flows very well. I still prefer <Karpova's> original construction that's currently in the draft.

I also think it's clearer and easier to understand.

I think <dak's> cutting of <Karpova's> original leaves out important information, and that both subsequent tries by <Ohio> and <Karpova> are more difficult to follow than <Karpova's> original, partly because of the stilted rhythm of the sentence construction.

The three commas make the sentence stilted and they make it more difficult to follow the information.

Ok here's what the draft looks like " <TheFocus/Golombek>" style:

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951

Exceptions?

################

Number of points in scores: <By tying the match score 12-12>; <After scoring +0 -1 =2 in three attempts>

##################

Amounts of money: <the winner would receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000>

#####################

Can we do that too? Abbreviating the numbers doesn't actually change the word count, and anyways, we know now that Daniel is fine with the longer draft format.>

I don't like it. As you noticed yourself, we already got <1st> in our first (1st?) promoted draft. Furthermore, even though the word count is not affected, it makes the Intro unnecessarily longer. The sentence looks so stretched with <twenty-first> instead of <21st>, and when you look at <21st> you immediately know what is meant, in case of <twenty-first> you have to read two full words. I don't see the benefit, only a slight disadvantage to changing it to full numbers.

Ok you think that we should put the draft back the way it was, and just replace the <2d> and <3d> with <2nd> and <3rd>, right?

What about spelling out the smaller numbers and not the longer ones?

As for "consistency," I already had <2 1/2 hours> and <five hours> in the original draft and nobody even noticed.

<perfidious> was also requesting that more of the numbers be spelled out.

Yes.

<Jess: What about spelling out the smaller numbers and not the longer ones?>

You mean natural numbers lower than ten?

<You mean natural numbers lower than ten?>

Maybe.

I take your point, don't worry about that. I'm just wondering if there needs to be a consistency standard so rigid that it's like a mathematical formula.

I get the <2 1/2> hours example- but what about <five hours> as opposed to <5> hours?

I think <five hours> looks nicer, and it's just as easily read and understood. There's no "stretching" and no "extra effort" to understand for the reader, like there is in the <two and a half hours> example.

And again, not only did nobody notice this inconsistency (2 1/2 hours and five hours in the same passage), I didn't even notice it myself while I was writing it or after I was proofreading many times.

I agree that consistency is important to good writing, but how far will we push consistency on matters such as this?

The <option that offers best readability> could also be an option that offers best readability with a nicer looking draft, in those cases where spelling out the number would not reduce readability.

Please don't be nervous about this as I agree with you on the longer numbers point, and also the <2 1/2> example.

I'm not going to send off the draft as it is right now.