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

The current construction, followed by your four tries:

<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.>

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

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

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

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

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

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

I applaud your vigor, but I don't think we should assume the casual chess fan reading our article will know that the candidates cycle at this time was three years.

I strongly believe that this information must be in the final construction. The people who wrote the actual rule at FIDE certainly knew that the candidates cycle was three years long, but they still specifically included that information in the actual rule.

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

What about this version, which is similar to earlier tries, but uses fewer commas:

Please check out this version of the draft, with respect to "numbering" and let me know what you think.

It is almost identical to the original version:

Here is my try with an extra comma added:

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

And the same version with another comma added:

Your endorsement is more than good enough for me.

What a relief! As I mentioned earlier, I failed to understand easily the explanation given in <Averbakh's> memoir or in the <Tfs> report on the relevant FIDE conference, which <Tabanus> translated.

And <Tabanus> is an excellent English writer and fluent in Swedish.

Ok here is the version I'd like to hand in today after I come home for work.

It's lunch time now in Korea.

I can't thank you enough for your patience and hard work on editing this project and all of the others we've worked on so far.

Not to mention writing half of the drafts we have so far.

I'm sending the draft off to <crawfb5> now.

<Soviet, Colleagues, Guest stars (most recently, TheFocus}>

I just updated our profile, which says this now:

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

**CURRENT DRAFT UNDER INSPECTION FOR PROMOTION: <Karpova and I have not decided yet, but we will let you all know soon.>

Tiny last second quibble. Why is the word "once" needed? We certainly wouldn't say "win once more, or draw twice more..." And while we're at it, if the words "win" and "draw" are used, I'd like the imperative "to" to be included. It's a little pidgenish as is. Maybe either

<Bronstein led by a point and needed only one more win, (maybe even, shudder, we could remove a comma in this construction. Did I just say that?) or two draws in the last two games,>

Or

Thank you for your substantive analysis of that passage- I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I am going to say you just missed the "E-bay" deadline by a whisker.

The passage as it is will stay, though likely it's not as good as your edit.

That said, it is grammatically correct and conveys accurate information, so we won't be trying to correct it now.

No style edits after the bird flies.

Now if it were a case of the "Queen's gambit"...

<Colleagues>

**CURRENT DRAFT UNDER INSPECTION FOR PROMOTION: <Karpova and I have not decided yet, but we will let you all know soon.>

<Comrades>

The next draft in line for promotion will be Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910.

I don't care for that terminology. "10 games up"? I can imagine a lot of people scratching their heads in bewilderment. How about "best of 10"?

<Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, in case of Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter .>

"in case of" is definitely wrong. I'd like "predicated on Lasker......"

<The tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post let Janowski draw by lot the first move >

This is really unclear.

<. Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<14> which was adjourned and ended drawn after resumption on the next day,<15> with playing time set from 4 pm to 8 pm.>

"Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs for the winner,10 declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting."

The footnote is wrong, it's not "10" but <12>.

---

<OCF>

<I don't care for that terminology. "10 games up"? I can imagine a lot of people scratching their heads in bewilderment. How about "best of 10"?>

The source says <Mr. Lasker refused to agree to more than eight games up; M. Janowski insisted on ten.>. Lasker-Steinitz World Championship (1894) ended after Lasker had scored his tenth win, with the source stating <The match is to be one of ten games up> - http://www.chessarch.com/archive/00... (In another source the condition is given as <winner of the first ten games> - http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ). So <best of 10> may create the wrong impression that 6 wins were enough, therefore I would perhaps suggest to say <the first to win eight games> like in Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886 (also a <ten games up> match).

The new sentence may look like "..., but the negotiations broke down when Janowski insisted on 10 wins necessary for a match victory, while Lasker refused more than 8 wins.<5>"

---

<"in case of" is definitely wrong. I'd like "predicated on Lasker......">

This change looks fine.

---

<This is really unclear.>

Before the match began, Janowski drew the lot on who would have White in the first game. The tournament director, Post, let him do that.

---

<The playing time clause seems misplaced here.>

Ostend or Oostende, probably Ostend; Ostende is the correct spelling in German and French, but not English.

<Janowski reached a favorable position and refused a 3-fold repetition in the two times adjourned game 8, before finally losing.>

That's a pretty awkward sentence. Not sure if it needs blowing up or just a minor fix, but when in doubt... ;-)

"In game 8, Janowski reached a favorable position and refused to take a draw by threefold repetition, only to end up losing."