|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 115 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-06-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
I made your requested edit, but I believe it should be: According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because <they played> for a win prematurely. |
|
| Jun-06-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
That's a good point as it sounds better, so please make it According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because they played for a win prematurely. |
|
Jun-06-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Ok it's done. |
|
Jun-06-14
 | | Annie K.: <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. 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> According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because they played for a win 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>> No clunking now. :) But looking at the whole paragraph again, I think the order of the two sentences <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>> would be better switched? This seems to flow much better:
<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. He had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<11> Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10> According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because they played for a win prematurely.> Or even this:
<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. After preparing for the match for several weeks in Ostend, Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10>, <11> According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because they played for a win prematurely.> |
|
| Jun-06-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <Annie K.>
I was thinking about something like this also, but the problem is that revenge belongs first, then preparation in Ostend, and finally studied hundreds of games. So my suggestion for
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> is Janowski was eager to take revenge,<10> and had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<11>. He claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10> |
|
Jun-06-14
| | Annie K.: That's fine by me. :) |
|
| Jun-06-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Please change
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> to Janowski was eager to take revenge,<10> and had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<11>. He claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10> |
|
Jun-06-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <Karpova>
Requested change is made. |
|
Jun-06-14
 | | OhioChessFan: What word translates to "prematurely"? If it's there, fine, but if it's not, I think that's a substandard choice. |
|
Jun-06-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
<OhioInTranslation>: "Ohijo" Yes "prematurely" is there in the text, from the given citation: ###############
10 "Algemeen Handelsblad", 3 June 1910, p. 9. Provided in Delpher, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... #################
Here's the actual passage, in Dutch (though <dak> may insist, again, that it's really German): <"...in de grootste helft der partijen heeft lasker de slechtste stolling gehad en alleen doordat de tegenpartij te snel op winst speelde verloor hij, doch niet lasker won maar de andere verloor actief zijn partij."> "My" translation, subject to being woefully poor, so if any "Dutchmen" (really Germans) are around they may correct me: <"In most of his games Lasker has had the worst position, and did not win these games. Rather they were lost by his opponents, who tried to cash in on the victory too quickly."> ####################
I like the "cash in on" translation because a monetary idiom is actually there in the Dutch text. "winst" is "profit," as in "winsting at the roulette table." I think.
<dak> has fluent "fake Dutch" German, so I believe he can give a more accurate reading. |
|
| Jun-07-14 | | dakgootje: Hi!
Quick reply.
Winst is <both> profit [eg: Due to low production costs, Apple made an extraordinary profit]; <and> victory [eg: With a late rush, FootballersA got the victory over FeetandballsB]. And sure, your profits at the roulette table will be "winst" as well. |
|
| Jun-07-14 | | dakgootje: btw:
<Stonehenge: Interesting, I always use 'op winst spelen'. Never 'voor' de winst spelen.> That's interesting.
Perhaps StoneCat can expand whether my interpretation of 'op winst spelen' was correct, or whether nuances are just slightly different after all. :) Could be important to decide on the precise idiom. |
|
| Jun-08-14 | | Boomie: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <predicated on Lasker not losing his title to> Does anyone else think "predicated on" is awkward?
This sounds better to me:
"On November 12, 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, assuming that Lasker retained his title against Carl Schlechter." |
|
Jun-09-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Tim>
Didn't we already have a lengthy discussion on this sentence, with many tries? I'm not criticizing your new try, but I think the back story of edits on this should be reviewed. |
|
| Jun-09-14 | | Boomie: <WCC: I think the back story of edits on this should be reviewed.> I don't know how to search for these edits. In any case, I don't care for the results. I mean "predicated on not losing"? Who talks like that? |
|
| Jun-09-14 | | Karpova: <Boomie>
The discussion started with this post: WCC Editing Project chessforum |
|
| Jun-09-14 | | Boomie: <Karpova: The discussion started with this post> Thanks.
We did discuss this at the end of April but we got distracted and never agreed to anything. Or I can't find the resolution reading a few pages past the discussion. |
|
| Jun-09-14 | | Karpova: See my post from May 1st: WCC Editing Project chessforum (the last point covered). |
|
Jun-09-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Thank you!
I have also reviewed the previous discussion, and I think <Tim's> sentence is better than anything we came up with before: "On November 12, 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, assuming that Lasker retained his title against Carl Schlechter." |
|
Jun-09-14
| | Annie K.: Wouldn't say that's better - 'assuming' could easily be interpreted as 'taking for granted'. In fact I really like 'predicated on' just the way it is. |
|
| Jun-09-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
I wonder why you changed your mind, considering what you said back then. It's good if it sounds formal as it was a necessary formality. Lasker may have lost to Schlechter, in fact he was extremely close to losing his title. So <predicated on> appears better to me than <assuming>. An even more formal way of putting it may be in order, but I guess the sentence would become too clumsy with something like <under the condition>. What about <providing that>? Btw., shouldn't it be
On November 12, 1909 both masters signed
instead of
On November 12, 1909, both masters signed
? |
|
Jun-09-14
| | OhioChessFan: <I have also reviewed the previous discussion, and I think <Tim's> sentence is better than anything we came up with before: "On November 12, 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, assuming that Lasker retained his title against Carl Schlechter."> I don't like it. The cases are messed up. They signed, past tense, assuming, whatever tense that is, Lasker retained, past tense, suggests that Lasker had <already> retained his title. An analogus sentence: <OhioChessFan> quit looking at the draft, assuming that all changes were finalized. |
|
Jun-09-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Annie Not Yannie: Wouldn't say that's better - 'assuming' could easily be interpreted as 'taking for granted'. > Yes, that's the usage I came up with in my analogy. In particular, it could be interpreted as "taking for granted that it already happened". <In fact I really like 'predicated on' just the way it is.> I agree with <Boomie> it's awkward but I think it's the best we have. |
|
Jun-09-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Karport: What about <providing that>? > Again, the tense issue gets murky with any -ing word there. |
|
Jun-09-14
| | OhioChessFan: Instead of "predicated on", "contingent upon" is a possibility, eg, <On November 12, 1909, both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, contingent upon Lasker not losing his title to Carl Schlechter.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 115 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
