Then it's <Ostend>.

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

I would still keep the information that it was adjourned 2 times, as it demonstrates how hotly contested the game was. This may be useful for a one-sided and often neglected title match such as this. After all, Janowski didn't win a single game, but he could put up a fight.

So I suggest (with another small change):

"In the twice-adjourned game 8, Janowski reached a favorable position and refused to take a draw by perpetual check, only to end up losing."

<Note, though, that the same position was in fact repeated three times - after 49...Kb7, 51...Kb7 and 61...Kb7 - so either a draw could actually have been claimed, at least by Lasker, or they used a different repetition rule.>

I noticed that the link to chess explorations (source <9>) doesn't work anylonger. The pages of La Strategie are also reproduced in his feature article on the 1909 match status (source <7>), so I suggest to change source <9> the following way:

"In the twice-adjourned game 8, Janowski reached a favorable position and refused to take a draw by perpetual check, only to end up losing.">

I'm happy with that :)

<The games were also criticized as being of low quality with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.>

"Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs for the winner,<12> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting. The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9>"

Now the second source for the first sentence is missing, it's source <9>:

With no further information, I feel this leaves the "lion's claw" hanging a bit. I suppose it's meant to show a ferocious fighting spirit or something? That is, unless "the lion's claw" is an established expression I'm not aware about :) Especially due to the preceding "the", I get the feeling as a reader I should be familiar with the expression.

Perhaps change a sentence a bit to something like <The games of his heyday featured few draws, but were instead marked by attacking/aggressive/ferious/something play, sometimes called the "lion's clas"<3>> ?

<brief intermezzo><karpova><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>"> Sounds a bit convulated. I suppose an easier construction might be centered around a 'first to 10 wins' - or 8 of course.

That said, I can't currently think of a sentence with that construction I'm satisfied with either.. so perhaps the 'first to'-idea is flawed as well.. Moving on.

<While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.<6>>

That sounds rather definite. Which clearly wasn't the case, with a second exhibition match taking place months later in Paris. So I think the take-home message from this sentence is "so no immediate negotiations could take place", or something?

<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 .<9>>

Couple of separate points:

Is this the method we tend to use for dates? Not 12th of November, or November 12?

I'm not sure, but 'in the autumn of 1910' feels a bit more complete. But perhaps that feeling is because that's how I'd write it in Dutch.

The 'in case of' feels a bit off. Perhaps something like 'assuming/given that Lasker had not lost (etc)'.

<Lasker defended his crown in the drawn Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February> Not sure about the 'defended in (match)'-construction. I think I'd lean to "Lasker defended his crown by drawing the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February".

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

I understand the 'his' is the champion, not the challenger - because that wouldn't be logical. But in principle 'his' can point to either. Perhaps we could avoid it altogether and change 'his opponents' with 'previous challengers'.

That full sentence interesting, because it's followed by 2 quotes from the players about each other. These look fine, however they come rather out of the blue - especially since the first half of the paragraph didn't announce [or have much to do with] opinions about each other. I think a little sentence to mark the switch in subject might clarify. Something very short and simple, in the order of 'The two players judged their opponent's playing style differently'

--

Is this the method we tend to use for dates? Not 12th of November, or November 12?>

<dak: I understand the 'his' is the champion, not the challenger - because that wouldn't be logical. But in principle 'his' can point to either.>

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

How about making it definite?

<The games of his heyday were described as showing the "lion's claw" and he was well-known for his low percentage of draws.>

I suppose "lion's claw" was used in the source. However, as <dak> says, it is not in use today. Do we want to use an obscure Edwardian idiom to say something this simple?

I would rewrite the whole sentence to remove "heyday" also.

"10 games up"

This probably comes from the source but is not used today. We would say "10 wins".

<Ohio>

<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 .>

I agree that "in case of" is awkward. Also "Shortly afterwards" is not needed if the date is given. Finally, I'm not sure if "autumn" should be capitalized.

What do you think of:

<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>">

&

<"On 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in Autumn 1910, assuming Lasker does not lose his title to Carl Schlechter .">

I prefer assuming. Whereas predicated sounds nice, I encounter it so rarely that it grabs my attention [rather than the sentence's content].

Because the second exhibition match lasted oct-nov, and the agreement was signed 12 nov - I think the "shortly afterwards" makes for a good bridge. Especially because you change subjects from the mini-match to the contract, so some bridge may be in order.

Is "assuming Lasker does not lose his title" the correct tense?

--

In other news:
<How about making it definite?

"Janowski considered the world champion's play to be weak, but Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.">

I wondered about this my own darn self. Now I think it's wrong.

It should be:

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

Why not just "...if Lasker hadn't lost his title to Schlechter?"

"predicated on" sounds unnecessarily formal, or even scientific, when a more simple construction should suffice.

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

<Then it's <Ostend>>

In.

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

<So I suggest (with another small change):

"In the twice-adjourned game 8, Janowski reached a favorable position and refused to take a draw by perpetual check, only to end up losing.">

In.

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

<suggest to change source <9> the following way>

Note 9 is changed to what you suggested.

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

<A comma after "quality", perhaps?> Yes, a comma looks good there.>

As usual, thanks for remembering everything:

<We use the "12 Nov 1909" system in footnotes. It was originally <Eddie>'s preferred system for article bodies as well, but the admins vetoed it. Steinitz-Gunsberg and Lasker-Capa both use a "November 12, 1909" style, whereas the 1948 tournament has "12 November 1909" - I think we should pick one of those styles and apply it consistently from now on.>

Well we could vote on that, but since <Karpova> already used the same method in two promoted drafts, and we know that <Daniel> doesn't like the "day first" method in the body of the texts, why not just use <Karpova's> footnote date order from now on:

Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)

<Karpova>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

Aha- ok sorry this sentence is right now:

<Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs for the winner,<12> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.<9>>

It is now

<Dak>

Please remember to read the preceding posts before you make yours, so that you can incorporate previous discussion into your points, such as here:

<The 'in case of' feels a bit off. Perhaps something like 'assuming/given that Lasker had not lost (etc)'.>

It's good to bring new ideas to the editing table, such as you do here, but it's even better if you are aware of previous tries on the same topic, which are already on the page above your post. Then you can evaluate in the context of previous evaluations.

I realize this is not possible on editing done months ago, but right now all of the current edits are "on the same page" as it were, so we should be as well.

That said, I had more trouble than you following the edits on this page, so it's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I already made several posts this morning I had to re-write and re-post.

To be more precise, I did the EXACT SAME THING on the EXACT SAME POINT.

I made an editing suggestion for <"in case of"> without first having read your suggestion, which is virtually identical to mine.

<Karpova>, <Colleagues>

I think <Tim> has a good suggestion here, based on a previous point from <dak>:

<"Janowski considered the world champion's play to be weak, but Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.">

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

<Tim>

<I would rewrite the whole sentence to remove "heyday" also.>

This point was brought up months ago- I'll just repeat what I said then (subject to <Switch> actually proving me wrong by digging up the original posts):

<"heyday"> is exactly the right word, and it is neither obscure nor overly informal.

That's just one old bat's opinion.

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

<I suppose "lion's claw" was used in the source. However, as <dak> says, it is not in use today. Do we want to use an obscure Edwardian idiom to say something this simple?>

I think we should use the original diction and phrasing from source. If it needs to be explained, then we explain it. Although again, we had this discussion before as well on "the lion's claw" and I don't think it's difficult to figure out. I say keep it in and make it clearer what it means, if you like.

Speaking only as one reader, I wouldn't require any additional explanation.

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

<Tim>

<10 games up>

<Why not just "...if Lasker hadn't lost his title to Schlechter?">

"...if Lasker had not lost his title to Schlecter?"

hmm

I think there are cases where the contraction is preferred, but <Karpova> I know that generally speaking you don't like to use them right?

Also, following <DakTim>, I now think this is better:

Another possibility here:

"Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, unless Lasker loses his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>"

If this is a direct quote, we should probably give the citation unless it is also in footnote <3>.

<"Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, unless Lasker loses his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>">

It has to be something in the past, following the past tense of the word "signed":

"lost" or "had lost"

I think "lost":

"Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, unless Lasker lost his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>"

Interestingly, the issue can be sidestepped by using <Ohio's> construction with the present continuous:

<"predicated on Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter.">