MASSIVE JINX.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

Not to mention, <Karpova> already signed off on <Ohio's> try:

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

This change looks fine. >

You don't need to fear my opinion or anyone else's- it's <Karpova> who will decide on the "lion's claw" and other style issues eh?>

<Annie> always drops by when she deems it necessary, or fun, for that matter.

---

<dakgootje: 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.>

First of all, this expression is a direct translation of the source (it can be seen from the link, it's <die Klaue des Löwen>). I think that the origin is the proverb <ex ungue leonem pingere> meaning that you can draw conclusions from the games of his heyday on the whole person Janowski. This may be explained in the footnote.

---

<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?>

These are the facts according to the source I gave. The objection raised here makes no sense to me and actually contradicts itself. As you mentioned yourself, they played an <exhibition> match later that year, which only reinforces the point raised in the draft that a <title> match couldn't be arranged. Your suggestion has to be discarded as it includes mere speculation. The take home message of the sentence is that Nardus proposed a title match and Lasker agreed in principle, but he had to leave France (that's the information from the source). Lasker's departure certainly didn't help the negotiations, but we should keep in mind the Schlechter match. They agreed to it in September 1909, so Lasker could hardly have squeezed in another title match for obvious reasons. However, the point of the new Intros is to provide facts based on good sources, not our own speculations. And we should be aware of when we are dealing with facts according to our sources, and when we are introducing our own speculations/interpretations. Sadly, what was going on is not always clear, so there are necessarily holes in our narrative, e. g. no one ever found the conditions for the Schlechter title match, etc.. In this case, every reason we can come up with for their failed arrangement of an earlier title match would be speculation.

---

I'm okay with changing this "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." the following way

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

For some reason, I think it is even a bit clearer if we say Lasker first, and then world champion.

---

Regarding the Lasker loss to Schlechter and assuming/predicated on discussion:

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

Yes, it is footnote <3>, which is why I put the footnote at the end. If it is deemed necessary, we may mention the footnote again directly afterwards, i. e.

"The games of his heyday were described as showing the "lion's claw" <3> and he was well-known for his low percentage of draws.<3>"

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Karpova>

<Is <predicated on> still too formal in this case?>

I don't think so. Especially given your new information, I think it is far and away the best choice, and I'll leave it in unless you tell me to take it out.

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

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

The heck? I'd assume you mean the US-style mdy dates, but you say "footnote date order" and all our footnotes are in dmy... and we've also used dmy in a promoted draft (which Daniel approved), so not sure that's much of an argument for selecting mdy.

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

I know madam. I thought I'd checked all [that's why I intermezzod a post by Karpova when I came across that section]. But somehow I'd missed that the <in case of> had already been discussed. My apologies - I'll try to take better note :)

<<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?> <These are the facts according to the source I gave. The objection raised here makes no sense to me and actually contradicts itself. (...) Your suggestion has to be discarded as it includes mere speculation.>

I understand that - and I agree we can not speculate. I'm going to try to explain how I approach the sentence, so that I might make clearer why I object to it. I see I did a very bad job explaining my objection yesterday. This might take a while :) I see the sentence as this:

<in spite of the fact that [while]> Lasker had no objection (in principle), he had to leave France.

So there's some contradiction. Yes, he wanted to <but>. It implies that the second part of the sentence explains why the first part of the sentence didn't occur or wasn't valid.

So if I read the sentence and try to deconstruct what it currently says, then I think it says this: Lasker leaving France is the reason why 'Lasker not having objections' is not valid. And that's almost certainly not the case. Having to leave France probably did not change his mind.

Therefore I offered an alternative reason. Lasker might have been okay on the matter. But he had to leave France, therefore no negotiations could take place. Is that logical? Sure, it follows you can't negotiate when someone is out of the country. Is it what happened? I have no idea.

And that's where you come in. I wouldn't have proposed this solution if I knew the speculation was false. I propose it because I have no clue - and with any luck you might know of a source which mentions this. There probably isn't - in which case I'd fully agree with you that we shouldn't add the speculation.

We do, presumably, disagree on the "alright, now what?"-question. I'd object to leaving in information-giving but in essence illogical sentences. Even if they are direct quotes. That some fellow a hundred years ago wrote a sentence that doesn't actually make sense doesn't mean we should copy it. On the other hand, we agreed that we can't make unsourced speculations either.

So I'd vote to leave out the reason, and change <Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.<6>> to <Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship, to which Lasker had no objection in principle. <6>> Then subsequently we could make a footnote saying "But he had to leave France". We'd say exactly the same [no objection] <but> [leave France], so we'd add no speculation, and at the same time keep the body of the text logical.

<For some reason, I think it is even a bit clearer if we say Lasker first, and then world champion.>

Agreed.

< If it is deemed necessary, we may mention the footnote again directly afterwards, i. e.

"The games of his heyday were described as showing the "lion's claw" <3> and he was well-known for his low percentage of draws.<3>"

but I'm not sure if it is not already too much.>

<Boommaster><Thanks. I agree that the single footnote is sufficient.>

<Before we go on with discussing it, we need to become aware of the importance of this point. This is actually clause 15 of their title match conditions (...) Is <predicated on> still too formal in this case?> <I don't think so. Especially given your new information, I think it is far and away the best choice, and I'll leave it in unless you tell me to take it out.>

<Switch>

Yes, I meant what you said, not what I said.

Possibly we could save time in the future by having you write all my posts?

At any rate, I also have no problem with either <m/d/y> or <d/m/y> format in the footnotes, but I agree they should be standardized.

<Dak>

<Then it'd be immediately obvious that the lion's claw is referenced from footnote-3.>

I'd just like to take this opportunity to make a general observation, concerning all of our drafts.

I understand there are more important cases than other to put in extra notes, but they are technically "extra" notes.

So if I read the sentence and try to deconstruct what it currently says, then I think it says this: Lasker leaving France is the reason why 'Lasker not having objections' is not valid. And that's almost certainly not the case. Having to leave France probably did not change his mind.>

Thanks for trying to explain your objection. I'm not sure I got it: Is the problem you are having with the whole sentence the <but>, which seems to invalidate the former statement of Lasker agreeing in principle? I wonder if this is the case (i. e. the invalidation of the former by the latter) as Lasker not objecting to it in principle describes his state of mind, while him leaving France his physical movement. I thought it was clear that the latter not necessarily changed his state of mind (why should his leaving France lead to his change of mind in this matter, especially since they later agreed to a match?).

Reviewing the source again, I propose the following, which hopefully clarifies the matter a bit. Beforehand, I want to add that I'm against leaving out the information that Lasker had to leave France:

Aha!

Ok then let's use <d/m/y> as the standard in <article bodies>.

Should I put this in now, or wait?

I do think it's an improvement, because in the original it is a bit abrupt to just say "had to leave France."