|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-02-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
I made this change now:
<He was also noted for his low percentage of draws.<3>> |
|
| Jun-03-14 | | Boomie: <they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely> <Annie K: I would prefer 'their victory(/ies)' or 'their advantage(/s)' to 'the victory'.> How about:
"they tried to cash in prematurely" |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 "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." There doesn't seem to be a consensus as how to change as yet. I would keep the victory prior to prematurely, as it is closer to the text and the reader doesn't have to wonder what tried to "cash in". But maybe "on their victory/ies prematurely" may be an improvement. Regarding the summarizing "weak", if it is considered unfitting with regards to the translation, this is what Janowski basically claims: 1) We are always referring to "hundreds of games", and this in 1910. So these may be most of if not even all of Lasker's serious games up until then. 2) In these games, Lasker's games are described as not having been played strongly. This does not directly mean that he played weakly yet, but denying strong play already sounds pretty pejorative. Keep in mind that Lasker had won most of the events up until then. 3) He then goes on to say that in most games, Lasker got a worse position. This means that up to a certain point, he must have played weaker than his opponents. However, we still cannot determine the meaning of "worse position" intended by Janowski. 4) This becomes clear in the next part, when Janowski claims that Lasker's opponents lost when trying to cash in on the victory prematurely. So when Lasker got a worse position, it was close to, if not outright, lost. 5) He goes on to take away every merit of Lasker by turning him into a passive (but lucky) victim of his opponents. He didn't play strongly, got a worse position (i. e. winning chances for his opponents), and his opponents then went astray and lost. They actively lost, Lasker passively won. I don't think that this critique is captured by "Not very strong" or "not particularly strong". This would again leave open the question of comparison. Did Janowski consider him to be not actually in the top 3 or top 10 or top 50? However, when he refers to hundreds of games, we have to assume he means all the grandmasters and masters Lasker faced during his career, and it what Janowski said indicates, that he though Lasker was actually worse than them. Not a surprise, as Lasker didn't play chess, but dominoes. |
|
Jun-04-14
 | | Annie K.: <Karpova> yeah, Janowski certainly did *imply*, even strongly, that he thought Lasker's play weak, but it seems he refrained from actually using that word. Given that he was still obviously quite rude, I just don't know if it's a good idea to go that extra length in his place, <because> that could backfire: anybody shocked enough by the reported statement could look up the original, think 'oh, he only said "not strong"', and come away with the impression that Janowski had been "maligned" by this "exaggeration". Keeping the slightly less pejorative phrasing, on the other hand, will still convey Janowski's conceit clearly, and here the inquisitive reader will find no "exonerating circumstances". Well, that's my take on it, up to you. :) OK, these are my latest attempts at this part, also adding an 'only' because I think it helps clarify: <He considered the world champion's play to be weak. He thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> <He considered the world champion's play not to be strong. He thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> Or the semicolon versions:
<He considered the world champion's play to be weak; he thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> <He considered the world champion's play not to be strong; he thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> I would be fine with any of those. |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | Karpova: I think that <not strong> is the wrong way to go. If <weak> is considered inappropriate, another solution would be to not paraphrase Janowski's remarks, but rather describe what he said about Lasker. I mean something like <Janowski decried Lasker's playing strength> or <Janowski made disparaging remarks about Lasker's playing strength>, etc.. Perhaps other expressions would be more fitting. |
|
Jun-04-14
| | Annie K.: Why do you think that 'not strong' is the wrong way to go? It's not so much that 'weak' is inappropriate, rather that it just overshoots the mark a bit. Describing rather than paraphrasing would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case, I think; Janowski's comments are a juicy detail, just the sort of thing to capture a reader's interest. :) |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | Karpova: <Annie K.>
For my taste, <not strong> is too close to what Janowski actually said about Lasker's play. So it may be seen as an almost direct quote of the weakest criticism aimed at Lasker. |
|
Jun-04-14
| | Annie K.: OK, but why would it be wrong to use a near-quote, or even a quote for that matter? Such a short one would fall well within fair use? |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | Karpova: It gives a wrong impression of Janowski's criticism. The reader will believe that Janowski simply called him not a strong player, perhaps just questioning his superiority over the other chessplayers (his WC status), when he does so much more by claiming that he was lost in most games and won by sheer luck. Imagine annotations to a chess game. Move 35 is called an inaccuracy, move 37 a mistake and a move 40 is called the losing blunder. If you hadn't access to the annotations and asked where the loser went wrong, and I told you that move 35 was an inaccuracy, I would have correctly quoted the annotator. However, it wouldn't be too enlightening an answer. |
|
Jun-04-14
 | | perfidious: <Boomie: "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."> My preference would be for the second sentence as follows: <He thought Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to prematurely cash in on their putative victory.> As an alternative, one could strike 'putative' altogether, or pluralise victory. |
|
Jun-04-14
| | Annie K.: <Karpova> hmm, I see what you mean. Janowski comes across as plenty rude in any case, but you do have a point there. :) OK, so one of these?
<He considered the world champion's play to be weak. He thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> <He considered the world champion's play to be weak; he thought Lasker's opponents only lost because they tried to cash in on their victories prematurely.> |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | dakgootje: <perf><<He thought Lasker's opponents lost because they tried to prematurely cash in on their putative victory.> As an alternative, one could strike 'putative' altogether, or pluralise victory.> I'd scrap putative. It's a dictionary word that makes the text less accessible for non-natives. If we'd want to use the meaning, I'd go for apparant or presumed. |
|
Jun-04-14
| | perfidious: <dakgootje> Y'all must have read my mind, for I too prefer 'apparent'. |
|
Jun-04-14
| | Annie K.: Neither fits, because we are reporting Janowski's opinion, and he didn't think there was anything illusory about Lasker's opponents' "victory", or at least advantage. What was clearly proven illusory was Janowski's impression; but that's another matter. :) |
|
| Jun-04-14 | | Boomie: The idiom "cash in" seems unnecessary.
Using "win" instead also eliminates the need for "victory(ies)". "they tried to win prematurely". |
|
Jun-04-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
<Colleagues>
I agree with <Tim> that "cash in" is a jarring idiom here. But it may be exactly the right idiom. It's consonant with Janwoski's personality, since it's a gambling term and he was a gambler. Also, that's what he actually said, isn't it? |
|
| Jun-05-14 | | Karpova: I agree with <Annie K.>, we are reporting Janowski's opinion here and he is pretty straight forward about it. By inserting <putative> or <apparent> we would include some kind of judgement, when we should just report as truthfully as possible what he said. It's just important that the text makes it clear that it's Janowski's opinion - the reader can make up his mind about it himself. <Boomie: "they tried to win prematurely".> Apart from what <Jess> wrote, I wonder if such a rewording would make clear that Janowski considered their positions to be won. And I don't think that this is covered by the <win prematurely> version, as I can very well try to win from an equal or even inferior position (often the reason for losing a dead drawn game). It would rather create the impression that Lasker's opponents were somehow playing much more aggressively against him, but this is not Janowski's opinion. |
|
| Jun-05-14 | | dakgootje: <WCC Editing Project:
<Colleagues>
I agree with <Tim> that "cash in" is a jarring idiom here. But it may be exactly the right idiom. It's consonant with Janwoski's personality, since it's a gambling term and he was a gambler. Also, that's what he actually said, isn't it?> Ah, yes, no, yes - let's say it's hard to say. The essential part of the quote here is "te snel op winst speelde". And the expression 'op winst spelen' isn't actually used nowadays. Rarely used - at best. So that makes an appropriate translation harder. To play for a win, would be 'voor [de] winst spelen'. Instead, '<op> winst spelen' seems a bit more.. decisive. You're counting on victory, and go fully for that result - not taking prisoners. Which probably increases the chances to lose as well. All players 'spelen voor de winst' generally, but perhaps Morozevich is one of the few who 'spelen op de winst'. But again, translating it is a bit shaky - as it's hardly used in Dutch nowadays and I don't think there's a standard & generally accepted English translation. |
|
Jun-05-14
 | | Stonehenge: Interesting, I always use 'op winst spelen'. Never 'voor' de winst spelen. |
|
| Jun-05-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova: I wonder if such a rewording would make clear that Janowski considered their positions to be won. And I don't think that this is covered by the <win prematurely> version> Yes. This is the problem. To make it equivalent to "cash in", something would have to be added - "they tried to win advantageous positions prematurely". I'm not sure this is much of an improvement over "cash in". |
|
| Jun-05-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 "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." A new try:
<According to the challenger, Lasker got worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because of playing for a win prematurely.> This should be closer to the text, especially emphasizing Lasker's worse positions (not the opponents' advantageous positions), and thereby clearing up the "playing for a win" part. |
|
Jun-05-14
| | Annie K.: 'Convert their advantage prematurely', maybe? I also noticed that 'cash in' it was on the idiomatic side, but I think it works too. The really clunky part for me was the 'but', the spirit of which is exactly what I now express with the 'only' addition.... and I have a slight preference for the semicolon version. :) |
|
Jun-05-14
| | Annie K.: <Karpova> cross post - I'm fine with that too. Possibly with 'had' instead of 'got'. |
|
| Jun-06-14 | | Boomie: <Annie K.: <Karpova> cross post - I'm fine with that too. Possibly with 'had' instead of 'got'.> I agree that "had" is generally better unless we want to emphasize that Lasker got himself into trouble. This is what Janowski is implying, isn't he? |
|
| Jun-06-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Janowski might be implying that Lasker got himself into trouble, but I agree that <had> is better. Janowski himself is not explicit on how Lasker got worse positions - <In de grootste helft der partijen heeft Lasker de slechtste stelling gehad> - merely saying that Lasker had them, so we should probably do that also. So please change
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. to According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because of playing for a win prematurely. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
