<Annie, Colleagues>

<<He had also won matches against <Curt von Bardeleben>, <Jacques Mieses>, <Henry Edward Bird>, <Joseph Henry Blackburne> and <Jackson Whipps Showalter>. >

No reason for the "had" there.>

<Esteemed Soviet>

Very soon I will post which draft we will select for the "next promotion."

<Ladies and Gentlemen>

This is now official:

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

**CURRENT DRAFT UNDER INSPECTION FOR PROMOTION: <Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910>

**DUE DATE- THE DAY I WILL SUBMIT THIS DRAFT TO <Daniel>: Submission Day <June 14, 2014>

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

I'd just like to add how nice it feels, at least to me, that we *do* in fact have a team of Ladies and Gentlemen.

WE ARE CO-EDUCATIONAL

<Tim> You realize this makes you a "Co-ed" eh?

<Karpova>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

On this topic, I wanted to make a point about another topic.

As you already know, this is the bibliographical reference for FOOTNOTE <4>:

"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (Jan 1906), p.126

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

Before I enter it into your draft, I want to bring this up-

You and I like to do our footnotes in a slightly different style.

I was thinking a few days ago that this is fine with me.

I do my footnotes the way I was taught to do them in university, out of habit, but also because I like how it looks that way.

You do them your way, and I think you should do that too.

Both our styles are academically acceptable and I don't think we have to make our footnotes style exactly the same.

Anyways, getting back to the point, might you re-write this footnote the exact way you would like it to go into your draft? That's the way I'll enter it in the draft.

If I just put it in my style-

"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (Jan 1906), p.126

<Jess>, as Lasker was the author I would write it like that

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

I hope that's ok with you.>

I'll try to give it a good read-over before Dew-Day. That said, it might be that I'll only happily mingle by the time of the next draft. Bit busy at the moment - partly with doing things, and partly about procrastinating doing those things.

<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.>

", and Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910" can be cut since the previous sentence said:

Please change

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.

to

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.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<Karpova>

---

<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 think I would like an 'also' in here, as aversion to drawing isn't necessarily directly related to playing strength:

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

---

<Financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, in May 1909 Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against world champion Emanuel Lasker in Paris, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). 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.4 They played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) 5 in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).6 It's possible that Lasker's contract with Carl Schlechter and his departure for America did not allow for negotiations for a world championship match with Janowski in 1909.>

Chaotic... I find myself asking 'so what?' after 'While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France', and the answer, preceded with "it's possible", at that, only comes after a description of the exhibition match.

How about something like this?

<While Lasker had no objection in principle, his departure for America and possibly his contract with Carl Schlechter, did not allow for negotiations for a world championship match with Janowski in 1909.4 They played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) 5 in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).6 >

---

<He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

Clunky phrasing: since there are no quotes, and there is a slight tense shift in the middle, the second part of the sentence can be construed as either being the continuation of Janowski's opinion, or as a factual/editorial statement. I would suggest modifying along the lines of synchronizing tenses, replacing 'but' with 'and', and inserting quotes if possible. Examples:

<He considered Lasker's play to be weak, and his opponents' losses to be more due to trying to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

<He commented that Lasker's play was weak, and the world champion's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

---

<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>>

to

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

The second one -

<While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.>

- I understand why you omitted the speculation, but as is, I still want to ask 'so what' after this sentence, since if they could play an exhibition match soon after, Lasker's leaving France obviously can't have been a serious obstacle. The real reason is still patently missing. Therefore, the speculation, marked so, but in the more "muted" form I suggested, may still be a good idea.

If Eddy could pull it off, I'd like to go back and compare the original finished drafts with the submitted drafts.

<He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

<He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

Perhaps using two sentences would help.

I have a general feeling that "but" isn't correct there, although I'm not persuaded "and" is right either. Maybe "although". I might play with that some.>

If his play was weak, he'd be expected to lose. Instead his opponents lost. So there's some contradition and tension there. I'm not a big fan of buts, but I'd much prefer to to "and" here.

Although is better, but even so..

What about 'yet' or 'only'? I think I like yet.

<Perhaps using two sentences would help.

"He considered the world champion's play to be weak. He thought Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.">

Perhaps, but the sentences are related - so I'd lean towards keeping them together, possibly by using a comma or semi-colon. Semi-colon? Yeah, think so. You know, in Dutch we call these ; things simply dot-comma. Easier :)

<<While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.>

- I understand why you omitted the speculation, but as is, I still want to ask 'so what' after this sentence, since if they could play an exhibition match soon after, Lasker's leaving France obviously can't have been a serious obstacle. The real reason is still patently missing. Therefore, the speculation, marked so, but in the more "muted" form I suggested, may still be a good idea.>

We thought about this about a month ago - I think around the 30th of April.

Anyway, the original sentence was <While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.> to which I protested, partly on 'so what'-grounds. The current sentence was the best we could agree on, in order to decrease so-whatting without introducing speculation. And the 'while' in the original sentence was a bit illogical - which was subsequently solved in the new sentence.

Please change

He was noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>

to

He was also noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>

---

We had this discusion before, and I'm against including speculation as it rather spoils the text. I also don't see the necessity, as when Lasker was back in France, they negotiated a WC match and signed the agreement right after their 2nd exhibition match.

"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."

If it helps, that's what it is based on:

In:

<Hij heeft thans honderden partijen van Lasker nauwkeurig bestudeerd en beweert, dat deze hoegenaamd geen kunstwaarde hebben en zelfs niet sterk gespeeld zijn. In de grootste helft der partijen heeft Lasker de slechtste stelling gehad en alleen doordat de tegenpartij te snel op winst speelde verlor hij, doch niet Lasker won maar de andere verloor actief zijn partij.>

=

<He has now carefully studied hundreds of games by Lasker, and states that these don't have artistic value at all and even are not played strongly. In the majority of the games, Lasker has had the worse position and only because the opponent played too quickly for a win he lost, Lasker didn't win but the other actively lost his game.>

I'll think some more about the "evaded" 1909 WCC match issue.

<Boomie: <<He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.>

Perhaps using two sentences would help.

"He considered the world champion's play to be weak. He thought Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely.">>

I like this two-sentence version, and <dakkie>'s suggested semicolon version too, although in this format I would prefer 'their victory(/ies)' or 'their advantage(/s)' to 'the victory'.

And looking at <dakkie>'s translation, maybe saying that Janowski called Lasker's play "weak" may be too pejorative here; he wasn't *quite* that rude. ;s