|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 104 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-01-14 | | Boomie: <Switch: What's being discussed is what format to use in <article bodies>; we can't used dmy with month abbreviations there because Daniel vetoed it, and probably rightly so.> <WCC: Ok then let's use <d/m/y> as the standard in <article bodies>.> Um...I'm so confused. |
|
May-01-14
 | | OhioChessFan: <Ok then let's use <d/m/y> as the standard in <article bodies>.> Scuse me while I start to cry. Never understood that, never will. I guess twenty five cents and three dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But in year 14 of the 21st century, that's how it goes. |
|
May-01-14
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Eddie> Better still, you can teach me how to do it properly :) <Boomie> While we can't use dmy with month abbreviations in article bodies, we <can> use dmy with full month names (and already do, at FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)). But we're also already using mdy with full month names; thus the need for a clear standard. My vote? I'm in complete agreement with <dakkie> on this :) <dakgootje: Agreed - consistency would be best. I don't much mind which method is used for that matter.Well, that is, the mm-dd-yyyy method has always struck me as very silly. However it's apparently widespread in America - and so over the years I've encountered is so often that I don't really care anymore :)> |
|
May-01-14
| | OhioChessFan: <The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9> The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9>> I think we got that point nailed down.
FWIW, I prefer "onward" to "onwards", "afterward" to "afterwards", etc |
|
May-01-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Switch>
Aha!
Ok then. Counting me, you, and <dak> we now have zero (0) votes for both methods. But if I'm not mistaken, <Ohio> is voting for <month.day.year> in ARTICLE BODIES right? I second that vote, making two (2) in favor of what the Honorable Member for Ohio wants. ####################
On the topic of "writing posts for another member," <Switch> you likely noticed this, and if so, surely remember it, but three (3) of us did that before. Me, <achieve> and <woodywoodpusher> all exchanged passwords for some reason, and we all made posts on behalf of each other. To my knowledge, none of these ersatz posts was ever noticed by anyone. If I'm not mistaken, I believe <Woody> told me it was "easy" to post as <JFQ>. In addition, I know that I've given <crawfb5> and possibly <Boomie> my password in the past, but neither has posted as me- yet... |
|
May-01-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
<Karpova>
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Ok this is in the draft now:
While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6> |
|
May-01-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <<The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9> The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9>>
I think we got that point nailed down.>
That'll be my fault. I'll just fix that... |
|
May-01-14
| | WCC Editing Project: Aha!
Ok I also vote for using <month.day.year> in the notes then. We're not allowed to use <day.month.year> in the ARTICLE BODY so we don't need to vote on it. If I have this wrong again I'm firing myself. |
|
May-01-14
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WCC Editing Project> Daniel didn't choke on dmy in the 1948 draft. And <all> of our existing footnotes are dmy - although some have full month names and others don't. Even Steinitz-Gunsberg and Lasker-Capa, both of which use mdy in article bodies, have dmy footnotes. I think using mdy in article bodies (as the plurality of our promoted drafts do) and dmy in footnotes (as all of our promoted drafts do) would be both a sensible compromise and in line with what's already gone up, but perhaps that's just me. |
|
May-01-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Switch>
Ok put my vote down for this too then:
<I think using mdy in article bodies (as the plurality of our promoted drafts do) and dmy in footnotes (as all of our promoted drafts do) would be both a sensible compromise and in line with what's already gone up, but perhaps that's just me> |
|
May-01-14
| | OhioChessFan: <While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crv... |
|
May-01-14
| | WCC Editing Project: heh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZJI... |
|
| May-01-14 | | Karpova: I finished the new draft for Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 Again, I copy & pasted the latest version and modified it, so you can copy & paste what I post now directly in the mirror. I also updated the sources list the way it should be. I modified also the old source 14, where we were quoting the 'Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung' via the 'Winer Schachzeitung' - now the 'Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung' is quoted directly. |
|
| May-01-14 | | Karpova: <Carl Schlechter> was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874. He became one of the strongest chessplayers in the world in the late 1890s.<1> Schlechter shared 1st place with <Harry Nelson Pillsbury> at <Munich (1900)>, following up with 1st places at <Vienna (1904)> and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and a shared 1st at <Vienna (1908)> and <Prague (1908)>. <Theodor Gerbec> wrote that "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. No hidden places and traps were there, but only sound development. With him was no undue haste and no pinning himself down to one idea, but one harmonious evolution" <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 possessions.<4> Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker to a title match. The world champion accepted the challenge and they both published a statement on December 3, wherein 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 led to an 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> Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title."<7> The "Pester Lloyd" summarized the conditions thusly<8>: Ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Winner is he who wins most of the games, with draws counting ½ point. The winner's prize depends on the number of subscriptions, additionally the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Mark for the contest. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores. |
|
| May-01-14 | | Karpova: On January 7, 1910, the 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.<9> Usually, the games began at 5 pm and lasted until 8 pm. After a break of 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 pm and then adjourned if necessary.<10> The time control was 15 moves per hour. <11> On January 8, Lasker took a rest day.<10> 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 <Nikolaus Doery von Jobahaza> serving as seconds.<12> Game 4 was played in public in the Café Marienbrücke with a fee of two Kronen for a day ticket and 10 Kronen for booked seats.<13> According to Lasker, this innovative event was a great success and drew many spectators.<13> The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws.<12> The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days.<14> Lasker was held to draws in games 6 and 7. He reported that about 400 spectators were present during the resumption of game 7, crowded around the masters' board or analysing on their own boards.<15> Additionally, <Semion Alapin> commented on the game in a separate room.<15> Lasker was also held to draws in games 8 and 9, and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10.<14> The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory,<16> 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 finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle. Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and that Schlechter had really wanted to add a second win.<11> Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game.<17> Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and raptuous applause ensued.<18> Both contestants shook hands.<18> Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten. |
|
| May-01-14 | | Karpova: 1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536... 2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1928, p. 370. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 3 Richard Réti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pp. 82-83 4 Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, page 95 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906) 5 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1908, p. 376. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 6 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September 1909, p. 315. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 7 Warren Goldman, "Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Caissa Editions, 1994, pp. 400-401 8 "Pester Lloyd", 8 January 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 9 Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly. Emanuel Lasker mentioned in the "Pester Lloyd" (see source 8) that the seconds drew the lot to decide who got the white pieces in game 1. 10 "Wiener Schachzeitung", January 1910, pp. 1-5. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 11 Emanuel Lasker, "Ost und West", March 1910, pp. 171-176. In http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... - Organ der Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft der Alliance Israélite Universelle Organ der Alliance Israélite Universelle 12 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 58-78. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 13 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 19 January 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 14 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 78-95. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 15 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 4 February 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 16 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 92-94. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 17 Carl Schlechter, "Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung", 27 February 1910, p. 219. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 18 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 12 February 1910, p. 20. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... |
|
| May-01-14 | | Karpova: The only footnote I didn't change was footnote <4>, as this will be replaced by the original from 'Lasker's Chess Magazine', if you remember. |
|
| May-01-14 | | dakgootje: This will probably be my last post in this forum for about a week. Will be in Stockholm for a bit, and expected busy-ness afterwards - so [depending on the due-date] I'll probably pop-in at the start of the next draft. -- <but in university they "taught" me that a given note sources all that precedes it after the note before that note.> I think it depends on the reference-style you use. I'm used to that method in general, however direct quotes would often get an additional note. So something like 'James was "happy like a butterfly in a dairy factory" (Johnson, 2008, p. 54), but still tended to take anti-depressiva to fit in (Johnson, 2008)'. So that'd warrant the footnote twice - but I don't think we use that style here, so no reason for it. And generally single footnotes look cleaner. <I thought it was clear that the latter not necessarily changed his state of mind> Absolutely, but that's to my eye what the 'while' implied. In any case, the point is moot - I think your solution of <"While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6>"> is fully satisfactory. <Direct quotes are always in quotation marks, else only book or magazine titles would be in "". Everything that isn't, isn't a direct quote.> Good to hear. I assumed as much, but was vaguely confused some time ago - so I thought I'd better czech. <I think using mdy in article bodies (as the plurality of our promoted drafts do) and dmy in footnotes (as all of our promoted drafts do) would be both a sensible compromise and in line with what's already gone up, but perhaps that's just me> I'm on board with that. More importantly, I shall actually try to remember it :) -- right, good job alround, carry on - and help yourself to a biscuit while I'm gone. :) |
|
| May-01-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova>
Nice job on Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910. I know we shouldn't be editing this yet but...
<Post declared the match drawn...> This is the first mention in the article of Post. Just noting it now in case I forget to later. |
|
| May-02-14 | | Karpova: <Boomie>
Thanks!
So change it to for the Schlechter - Lasker match:
<Alfred Ehrhardt Post> declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and raptuous applause ensued.<18> |
|
| May-02-14 | | TheFocus: Wonderful work on that historic match!!!!!!! |
|
| May-02-14 | | Boomie: <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.<14>> This feels like a run on sentence. It would be nice to give the number of moves before adjournment. This would balance the sentence - "which was adjourned after xx moves." "Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<14> which was adjourned. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm<14> the next day and the game ended in a draw.<15>" |
|
| May-02-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova>
Lasker-Schlechter
I'm especially fond of the last sentence:
"Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten." Beautifully sums up the match in a most elegant manner. |
|
| May-02-14 | | Karpova: <Boomie>
It would then look like this:
"Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<14> which was adjourned after 33 moves. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm<14> the next day and the game ended in a draw.<15>" But what about
"Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<14> which was adjourned after 33 moves. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm the next day,<14> and the game ended in a draw.<15>" To be exact, the game was adjourned after 33.h4. |
|
| May-02-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova: "Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<14> which was adjourned after 33 moves. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm the next day,<14> and the game ended in a draw.<15>"> That looks good. The inclusion of "33 moves" adds some info and improves the rhythm of the sentence. The comma in the second sentence should please <Ohio>. Heh. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 104 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
