|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 108 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-08-14 | | crawfb5: I just sent in the Botvinnik-Bronstein intro. I'd hoped to get it in sooner, but I've been busier than usual. I try to save the proofreading for when I am reasonably alert, as Daniel now has to make any corrections I missed. As you may have seen in prior intros, odd things can happen near hyperlinks with typos, so I'd check nearby text carefully when proofing the version that goes up. |
|
May-08-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: Thanks so much <Big>! I really appreciate you going the "long mile" on this highly technical and time consuming HTML task. Please never worry about how long it takes to finish one- we are all of us busy, and nobody except you knows the TOP SECRET LAUNCH CODE. |
|
| May-09-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 I post the decisive part of the draft again with the numbers adjusted after including the new source, to show how it shall look like: Lasker defended his crown in the drawn Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February, and Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10> He had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<11> 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. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."<10> During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."<12> The match for the world championship was held Nov 8-Dec 8 in the Kerkau-Palast in Berlin.<13> Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner,<13> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.<9> 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.<14> Lasker got the first move in game 1, which started at 4 pm.<14> The match began at 4 pm with Lasker having the first move.<14> He won a 22 move miniature when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move..<14> He won a 22 move miniature when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move. Janowski played for an attack in game 2,<15> which was adjourned after 33 moves. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm the next day,<15> and the game ended in a draw.<16> Game 3 was a marathon game which had to be adjourned four times and Janowski defended tenaciously to salvage half a point after 101 moves.<17,18> The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in game 5.<19> Janowski defended stubbornly again in game 6 to split the point after two adjournements.<20> Lasker won game 7. 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.<21,22> After losing game 9 after adjournment, Janowski took a rest day.<23> Lasker also won games 10 and 11 and retained his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3).<24> 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> Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<25> A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the quality of the games, claiming that Nardus' sponsorship was the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<13> |
|
| May-09-14 | | Karpova: 1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487... 2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", July-August 1910, p. 252. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 3 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February 1927, pp. 29-30. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 4 "British Chess Magazine", September 1899, p. 373
5 "British Chess Magazine", December 1899, p. 509
6 "Wiener Schachzeitung", August 1909, pp. 234-236. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 7 Edward Winter, "Lasker v Janowsky, Paris,
1909", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
8 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1909, pp. 410-413. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 9 "La Stratégie", February 1910, pp. 60-61. In Edward Winter, "Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 10 "Algemeen Handelsblad", 3 June 1910, p. 9. Provided in Delpher, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... 11 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 9 November 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 12 Emanuel Lasker, "Ost und West", December 1910, p. 825. In http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... 13 "Wiener Schachzeitung", January 1911, pp. 32-33. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 14 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 10 November 1910, p. 10. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 15 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 12 November 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 16 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 13 November 1910, p. 11. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 17 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 14 November 1910, p. 4. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 18 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 16 November 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 19 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 25 November 1910, pp. 8-9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 20 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 23 November 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 21 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 1 December 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 22 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 3 December 1910, pp. 8-9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 23 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 6 December 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 24 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 11 December 1910, p. 13. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 25 "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... |
|
| May-09-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 "Lasker got the first move in game 1, which started at 4 pm.<13> The match began at 4 pm with Lasker having the first move.<13> He won a 22 move miniature when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move..<13> He won a 22 move miniature when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move." Please change this into
The match began at 4 pm with Lasker having the first move.<14> He won a 22 move miniature when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move. |
|
May-09-14
 | | OhioChessFan: < After losing game 9 after adjournment, Janowski took a rest day.> The repetition of "after" is a bit unflowing. Maybe the second "after" can be changed to "following", to wit, "After losing game 9 following an adjournment, Janowski took a rest day." I also think the last clause might be better as the first, something like "Janowski took a rest day after losing game 9 following an adjournment." Another try, not sure any of them is better than the original, just trying to avoid the double usage of "after". "When Janowski lost game 9 following an adjournment, he took a rest day." |
|
May-09-14
| | OhioChessFan: I just noticed all my tries have "an adjournment". The original doesn't use "an". Is that important either way? |
|
May-09-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 I put all changes in!
Thank you for putting a good "map" on the forum, which made it easy to make the changes. That said, possibly checking might be a good idea in case I made a mistake. |
|
| May-11-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Please replace
"After losing game 9 after adjournment, Janowski took a rest day.<23>" by After losing game 9 following an adjournment, Janowski took a rest day.<23> I like this of <OCF>'s suggestions best, because it follows the chronology (first losing game 9, then rest day)and the construction with <When> may imply causation. |
|
May-11-14
| | WCC Editing Project: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <Karpova> Good idea. I put it in now. |
|
May-14-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner,<13> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.> "declared to be" still sounds harsh to my ear.
< Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.> Likewise, "which therefore" is very unflowing. Two alternatives: "Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, and therefore they couldn't be printed without charge." "Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, so they couldn't be printed without charge." |
|
| May-14-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 "Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner,<13> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.<9>" <OCF: "declared to be" still sounds harsh to my ear.> What about
Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner,<13> who was to be the first one to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.<9> or something like that (maybe even just <the first one to score>? ---
"Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.<25>" I like the suggestion
Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, so they couldn't be printed without charge.<25> so please put it in. It avoids the <therefore> altogether. |
|
May-14-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Ok I put this in now:
<Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, so they couldn't be printed without charge.<25>> |
|
May-14-14
| | OhioChessFan: It's nice to have suggestions implemented, but I wouldn't mind to consider other voices before adding them to the draft. |
|
May-14-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
I do understand your point, but if the draft writer tells me "please put this in now" then I put it in now. That's a rule, or we'd have chaos. All editing must be done from the most recent mirror, and we can't have any mix ups about what is or is not in the current mirror. That said, you make a good point and I think I have a solution, or at least an idea: You or any other member of the Soviet is most welcome to repost any recent addition and offer it up for further editing opinions. Ie- "<Mighty Mike won the tournament, by a large margin.> is in the draft right now, but I'd like to know what the rest of you think about this construction?" And so on. |
|
| May-15-14 | | Karpova: The drafts are and always were open for discussion, so there seems to be no need to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The way it is now is the best solution, as this way the drafts are being actually improved. This would not be the case if one was to wait for a discussion to start. Sometimes the discussion doesn't even take place when it has been offered or was asked for. |
|
| May-15-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova>
"Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner, who was to be the first one to score 8 victories, with draws not counting. (maybe even just <the first one to score>?" It could be considerably shortened this way:
"Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the first one to score 8 victories, draws not counting." This assumes that the prize is for the winner, which seems obvious to me. I'm not sure the comma is needed if "with" is included. |
|
May-15-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <O'Shanter>
I think your idea is excellent.
<"Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the first one to score 8 victories, draws not counting."> |
|
| May-16-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Please change
Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs for the winner,<13> declared to be the first to score 8 victories, with draws not counting.<9> to Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <13> for the first one to score 8 victories, draws not counting.<9> |
|
May-16-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
Ok it's in the draft now:
Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <13> for the first one to score 8 victories, draws not counting.<9> |
|
May-16-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <13> for the first one to score 8 victories, draws not counting.<9>> I don't care for "one" there. It just has a sloppy sound to my editing ear. How about simply "player"? I am not sure on "for" and wonder if it should be "to". On the negative side of this suggestion, it does create a repetition of "to". |
|
May-16-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <OhioNorwayChessOlympiadFan> What about just deleting "one"?
<Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <13> for the first to score 8 victories, draws not counting.> |
|
| May-16-14 | | Karpova: This suggestion looks fine
Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <13> for the first to score 8 victories, draws not counting.<9> there is also a space needed between
Berlin.<13>Nardus |
|
May-16-14
| | WCC Editing Project: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <Karpova> Ok I fixed both of those requests now. |
|
May-17-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Adding up these 1909 purse(s) indicates that Leo Nardus helped the challenger raise their portion of the 7000 francs jackpot. > Lasker - Janowski (1909)
How does that 7000 francs fit into the chronology? Did Nardus put up 7000 francs for the 1909 exhibition matches but only 5000 for the world championship match? And I think <FSR> has an interesting speculation about the first exhibition match, to wit: <I suspect that Lasker pulled his punches in the May match in order to sucker Janowski's backers into sponsoring the later match.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 108 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
