Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Karpova> I made the following changes you asked for:

<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.<24>>

<24 "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...>

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

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

You also elaborated more on that in this post:

<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.>

Thanks also for supplying the deep background information on http://kramerius.nkp.cz/kramerius/h....

But I think this problem can easily be solved just by naming <who> did the criticizing in an active construction. The "as being" and "being" objections are minor, but supplying a subject for the sentence is important here for clarity, as <Ohio> originally mentioned.

Example:

<A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>>

Is "SCHACH" the "leading periodical"? Was the article written by "Eduard Miksh"? http://kramerius.nkp.cz/kramerius/h...

Then that should be named as he subject of the sentence. This will make it absolutely clear to the reader where this criticism comes from.

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

or

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

or

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<perifidious>

Well met! And thank you.

So now we know that "onward(s) and afterword(s)" is an idiomatic difference between British and American English.

Aha! Thanks for your clarification, and apologies for my mistake on that topic too.

I should never have doubted your diligence.

With respect to "understanding," I'd like to make a few points.

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

1. I find it more difficult than usual to understand the posts because we are editing two drafts at the same time.

2. You understand more in one day than I do in six months.

3. You wrote <"I apparently didn't understand that one. By the way, I still don't but it's not worth spending more time on my confusion.">

I strongly disagree. It's worth spending as much time as possible to clarify points that might confuse you or any other valued member of the Soviet.>

Gallant of you, but no "blame" accrures to you or anyone else.

I hope this will help clarify:

"Sonny's draft might not even be in the car."

Both of these are <Karpova> drafts so perhaps she should decide what she wants.

I suggest to change

"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.<24>

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

the following way:

The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12> Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>"

The criticism I described before comes from the 'Wiener Schachzeitung', not the 'Bohemia'. So it was probably Georg Marco, but the author is not mentioned. The 'Bohemia' described the copyright issue, and 'SCHACH' is merely the topic of the page devoted to chess.

---

I propose instead of

"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 following:

"Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class education in chess technique.<3> He was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>"

---

Regarding onward/s and afterward/s, I guess that we should be leaning towards AE in our drafts, not BE, but which sentence flows better:

1a) "From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.<1>"

1b) "From the end of the 19th century onward, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.<1>"

2a) "Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, predicated on Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>"

2b) "Shortly afterward, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, predicated on Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>"

---

Plaese 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

Suggestion about onward(s) and afterward(s).

Sometimes the issue can be settled by removing the word.

For example:

"From the end of the 19th century, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.<1>"

<Karpova>

This looks very good to me:

<The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12> Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>>

This looks good too:

<"Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class education in chess technique.<3> He was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>">

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

I put this in the draft:

In this case, these two

"The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12> Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>"

and

"Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class education in chess technique.<3> He was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>"

shall be put into the draft.

---

<Boomie>

I would not want to drop <Shortly afterwards> from <Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, predicated on Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>>, as it links the signing of the agrement to the the preceding match. Else you only have two sentences, one with the info match from October to November, the next one with the date 12 November.

<Karpova> ok I put the first one in, but I'm not sure exactly where the second one goes.

Here is the existing draft:

<He became known for his strong combinational skills.<2> 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>>

Please tell me exactly where to insert this:

<Jess>

This

Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class education in chess technique.<3> He was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>

shall replace

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>

so that the end of the first paragraph looks like this:

The time control was 15 moves per hour.<9> "Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post let Janowski draw the lot to decide who would commence the match with the white pieces.<13>

The " after <9> should be eliminated.

---

I would turn this

The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12> Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>

into one paragraph

This is sort of run onny. I definitely don't like "declared to be" in reference to a previous noun.

<The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low>

I don't think "low" is right. "small" or "slim" maybe, although that adjective at the end of the sentence is a bit awkard anyway.

<Furthermore, the press contained itself,>

How about:

"There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning"

<Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games,>

How about:

"Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage......"

or

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Karpova>

I made the last two changes you asked for.

1. <The " after <9> should be eliminated.>

2. "one paragraph": <The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12> Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24> A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>>

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

I think these two <Ohio> edits would be a significant improvement, for both clarity and style:

1. <There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning>

Yes I too was having a problem thinking about how to solve this issue.

I find your analysis convincing, but I find the -text here- method to be choppy, and I don't like the use of parentheses in general for the same reason.

I agree with these two changes:

Turn

The match received limited attention from the public as Janowski's chances were considered low, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12>

into

There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning, and it had been the second title match in a short span of time.<12>

and

Furthermore, the press contained itself, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

into

Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<24>

---

on this one:

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>

what about

The winner would be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting, and would receive the 5,000 francs prize donated by Nardus.

---

I was wondering if maybe this one should be kept a bit more vague:

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>

what about

<Karpova>

I made the two changes you asked for.

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

This is a good idea, but it needs an "a" instead of a "the."

Like this:

<The winner would be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting, and would receive <<<a>>> 5,000 francs prize donated by Nardus.>

"a" and "the" are notorious in English, but in this case there's an actual rule to follow. If something as been mentioned already, use "the," and if not, use "a."

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

I think this is excellent:

<Jess>

In this case,

change

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the games as being of low quality, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>

to

A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the quality of the games, with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>

---

So this

The winner would be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting,<9> and would receive a 5,000 francs prize donated by Nardus.<12>

is the current suggestion to replace

I will summarize some open/pending questions in this post, to facilitate discussion:

---

<1.>

"Lasker accepted the challenge,<4> but the negotiations broke down when Janowski insisted on 10 games up and Lasker refused more than 8 games up.<5>"

The expression <games up> is considered a bit unclear. It was used in the source, so I kept it. Comparing to other contemporaneous matches with such a <games up> clause, makes it appear that <the first to score 8 or 10 victories was to be the winner>, and not the one who wins the majority of 8 or 10 games respectively.

---

<2.> onward/s and afterward/s

The open question is which way to go in these two sentences:

"From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.<1>"

"Shortly afterwards, on 12 Nov 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, predicated on Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter .<9>"

<OCF> suggest <onward> and <afterward>. <perfidious> noted that the <s> at the end would be British English. I think that at least <afterwards> should not be deleted from the sentence in question, so this question remains open. As we are rather leaning towards American English for the Intros, the options <onward> and <afterward> would be favored. However, to me it seems that the <s> provides for a bit more fluent reading.

---

<3.>

"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>"

This shall be changed and the current suggestion is

"The winner would be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting,<9> and would receive a 5,000 francs prize donated by Nardus.<12>"

---

<4.>

"Lasker got the first move in game 1, which started at 4 pm.<13> The match began with Lasker winning a miniature, after Janowski blundered a piece on move 19."

I was wondering if this should be somehow better connected. Should it, and if so, what about