<Karpova> I transferred your new draft over to the mirror- Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910.

Please check to make sure I didn't screw anything up?

Thanks, Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 looks fine, except for:

New paragraphs also begin with

<Theodor Gerbec wrote ...>

Thank you all for such sterling work! I'm sure that <David Bronstein> and <Mikhail Botvinnik> would be proud of you all.>

I have done some work on it, but it arrived at the start of a busy 7-day stretch. There are also a couple of minor issues I need to research to see how HTML might react. I try to anticipate what I can, because I only see the "final" version once Daniel posts it, and then he has to make any last corrections.

Please change

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>

to

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>

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

Change

Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and raptuous applause ensued.<18>

to

This topic wasn't brought up again after my explanation, but I wonder if it may not be better to completely change

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

I suggest

Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class technical education.<3> As an "absolute draw-dispraiser", he was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>

The original is:

<Äußerst geistreich, manchmal verschlagen, findig> = <extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful> (I'm not sure about the translation of <verschlagen> (shifty) - it's not too nice, but it should have more positive connotations emphasizing cleverness. After all, it's rather about chess play with tricks and traps and not about being an actual conman. So there may be a better alternative.)

<Absoluter Remisverächter> = <absolute draw-dispraiser> (This may be left out, but I thought it may liven up a rather dry sentence about his low percentage of draws. <Verächter> is the noun of <verachten> = <to despise>. But I'm not sure if "despiser" is a sensible word. If the English translation works, it would be fine. The original simply means someone who absolutely despises draws.)

I suggest to change

The tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post let Janowski draw by lot the first move and Lasker got White in the first game, which started at 4 pm.<13>

to

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Karpova> do you want me to put any of those suggestions in right now, or do you want to wait to hear what our colleagues might say first?

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

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910, I posted the full text and reference for note <4> just underneath your draft.

The passage about Schlechter is part of a discussion about who would be among the most likely candidates to become the next world chess champion.

"Chess Masters- Past and Present" by Dr. Emanuel Lasker

<"It is true that the Austrian, Schlechter, also has the ability that would enable him to compete with a good chance for success, but Schlechter has only the ability- nothing more. He his a man who loves Nature and the simple life and who has so little of the <<<devil>>> about him that he could not be moved to take anything coveted by somebody else. Perhaps if Mark Twain would give him a lecture he might reform; but, as it is, he must be left out of consideration.">

Let's wait with the inclusion.

---

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

Thanks for Lasker's original! I wonder if it would really make sense to try to paraphrase it much.

We may simply change

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>

to

Yes, that seems good to me:

On a lighter note, an anonymous editor of "Lasker's Chess Magazine" refers derisively to Schlechter as "the Drawing-Master."

<5,000 Francs >

This should be lower case.

<with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>>

Only the truncated quote makes it look this way. This is the complete quote from the draft:

"The games were also criticized as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>"

What is being paraphrased here is what was written in the source (<"Großmeisterhaft" war an diesem Wettkampfe nur der grandiose Siegespreis von 5000 Francs,....>). The content is quoted indirectly as it would make no sense to translate it completely, not fitting into the rest of the draft (only direct quotations are in quotation marks). Therefore, only "grandmasterly" is a direct quote. What is being expressed here, is the opinion of one of the leading contemporaneous chess periodicals, not my own opinion. The difference should be clear (<The games were also criticized>...). So it's as acceptable as an opinion on a chessplayer or prediction of a match result by a contemporaneous source.

---

The change to <francs> can be effected.

Does the source say who criticized the games?

An active construction would solve all problems.

<Hans Kmoch and others> criticized the games, noting that the only "grandmasterly".... and so on.

<The WSZ criticized>

I think passive constructions should be avoided when possible, because they can be ambiguous.

Even when the agent is known, an active construction is preferred.

"David criticized the games."

"The games were criticized by David"

The first has been the preferred style since the days of George Orwell. Also <Strunk and White>.

If it's not possible to identify the agent(s) who actually did the criticizing, then we'd have to work around that.

It's hard to describe as there is a short and unflattering description of the games:

<1>: blunder on move 19; <2>: correct but not interesting, always on the verge of a draw; <3>: Lasker wins pawn but Janowski defends stubbornly, reaching a draw in 101 moves; <4>: Lasker wins in 32 moves; <5>: Lasker, although lost after 11 moves, wins after only 29 moves; <6>: Janowski managed a draw, although down a pawn;

then it went downhill fast with either Lasker winning or Janowski losing - c'est tout même chose - until Lasker had his 8 points while Janowski maiden-like with 0 points and 3 draws.

Then, game <8> is mocked and called the most ludicrous match game and a comedy of errors. Act I: Janowski with winning chances, act II: he observes them vanishing, act III: he falls in his own sword after rejecting a perpetual check.

Finally, the part about the prize fund being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.

I hope that this allows you some insight into the tone of the article. And all of this after the match was introduced as "another WC match" (so common these days that the audience is tired). Janowski the challenger (bad performance in their earlier matches, got beaten in a match by Dr. Esser, not strong in matches anyway). A huge part makes up the criticism of the copyright for the games, even another newspaper is cited.

And this report is the whole treatment of the WC match, which is almost nothing compared to the coverage the Schlechter match received. Protest against the copyright issue was one of the reasons.

---

"The match received limited attention from the public as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge."

Please instert footnote <24> after "charge."

4 "Bohemia", 27 November 1910, p. 34. Provided in Kramerius (a project of the National Library of the Czech Republic), http://kramerius.nkp.cz/kramerius/h...

<The match received limited attention from the public as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.>

<Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class technical education.<3> As an "absolute draw-dispraiser", he was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>>

"possessing first class technical education." I would put this elsewhere this as it does not relate to his chess.

"draw-dispraiser" - Is that supposed to be "draw-despiser"?

I would translate that as "he absolutely despised draws". So the last sentence would read:

"He absolutely despised draws and was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>>"

With regard to this, in my posts, such words as the above would always end with <s>, but this is simply my bias towards British English over American English, by no means a hard and fast rule.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

<Karpova> I put your sentence in now:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Ohio>, <Karpova>

I changed "Francs" into "francs":

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Tim>, and also all of the rest of us including <me>:

Please look carefully at preceding posts before asking a question that has already been answered by the draft writer, so that <Karpova> doesn't have to repeat herself?

1. Here is an EDIT question: <"draw-dispraiser" - Is that supposed to be "draw-despiser"?>

2. And here is the answer, which *preceded* the question, and that is the problem:

<<Äußerst geistreich, manchmal verschlagen, findig> = <extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful> (I'm not sure about the translation of <verschlagen> (shifty) - it's not too nice, but it should have more positive connotations emphasizing cleverness. After all, it's rather about chess play with tricks and traps and not about being an actual conman. So there may be a better alternative.)

<Absoluter Remisverächter> = <absolute draw-dispraiser> (This may be left out, but I thought it may liven up a rather dry sentence about his low percentage of draws. <Verächter> is the noun of <verachten> = <to despise>. But I'm not sure if "despiser" is a sensible word. If the English translation works, it would be fine. The original simply means someone who absolutely despises draws.)>>

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

<Tim> I did exactly the same thing a few days ago, so again I realize that I am the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not sure how good an idea it is to be editing two drafts at the same time, when one of them- Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910- is being prepared to be the next PROMOTION.