|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 117 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-10-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <tbon>
Heh... that's actually a really beautiful song eh? Instructive too. |
|
Jun-10-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova, Annie>
So like this now right?
##############
In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against 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 before reaching a final decision.<6> In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910). Lasker and Janowski played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) <8> in Paris from October to November 1909, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).<9> On November 12, 1909 both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10> ######################
I put that all right underneath the FOOTNOTES section of Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 under the header <Placeholder>, because I think that looks excellent now, and certainly we don't want to lose track of it. <Karpova> when you want something changed in the actual mirror, just let me know. |
|
| Jun-10-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
I think we should still keep it open for discussion, as this passage, with a new source added, will require an update of the footnotes section. And this doesn't need to be done more than once, if it can be avoided. |
|
Jun-10-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Absolutely. |
|
Jun-11-14
 | | OhioChessFan: <In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against Lasker in Paris> That's a pretty weak construction. How about:
"In May 1909, Janowski's wealthy patron Leo Nardus financed an exhibition match against Lasker in Paris......." |
|
Jun-11-14
| | OhioChessFan: <While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6> Additionally, he had accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908.> How about "While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision. Lasker also had to consider final preparations for a match with Carl Schlecter he'd contracted for in November 1908 and scheduled for early 1910."? |
|
Jun-11-14
| | OhioChessFan: "contracted for" seems a touch awkward. I'm trying to work in "negotiated" or "completed negotiations" etc. |
|
Jun-11-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
Please edit from this block of text here:
<In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against 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 before reaching a final decision.<6> In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910). Lasker and Janowski played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) <8> in Paris from October to November 1909, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).<9> On November 12, 1909 both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10>> |
|
Jun-11-14
| | WCC Editing Project: This sentence is just about perfect as is, I believe: <In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910).> |
|
Jun-11-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Please edit from this block of text here: > I'm not on board with that. You can hardly expect people to edit only from the drafts except when they edit from the current kibitzing. |
|
| Jun-11-14 | | Karpova: <OCF>
A new source was introduced, which makes a change of the footnotes in the text and the footnotes section necessary. That's why this paragraph shall be edited before being put into the draft. Else you put it in, make all the necessary changes, someone objects to it and you have to do it all again. |
|
| Jun-11-14 | | Karpova: <OCF: "In May 1909, Janowski's wealthy patron Leo Nardus financed an exhibition match against Lasker in Paris......."> While it looks fine, I guess one may argue against it that it doesn't become entirely clear whether Janowski or Nardus played Lasker in that exhibition match. |
|
| Jun-11-14 | | Karpova: <OCF: How about "While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision. Lasker also had to consider final preparations for a match with Carl Schlecter he'd contracted for in November 1908 and scheduled for early 1910."?> As detailed here WCC Editing Project chessforum I would like to keep the mention of a Schlechter match as vague as possible. If we put in too many details, we will most likely introduce wrong information. That's why the only necessary information is
a) Schlechter's accepted challenge in November 1908.
b) The WC match between them at the beginning of 1910. This way, it should become clear to the reader, that another title match in between was hardly possible. And more information is not needed. |
|
Jun-11-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Else you put it in, make all the necessary changes, someone objects to it and you have to do it all again.> <grumble grumble> Okay. <I guess one may argue against it that it doesn't become entirely clear whether Janowski or Nardus played Lasker in that exhibition match.> Yeah, a valid point. |
|
Jun-11-14
 | | Annie K.: <Comrades> I think this paragraph looks very good now. Don't have a problem with anything in the rest of the intro either. :) |
|
Jun-11-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
<Steamed Clams>
I have to concur with the learned member from the <Negev Desert> on this. The paragraph above and the rest of the intro in the mirror are reading mighty fine indeed. Excellent work by <Karpova> and <Soviet>. |
|
| Jun-12-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 As the deadline is approaching, please put in the paragraph In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against 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 before reaching a final decision.<6> In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910). Lasker and Janowski played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) <8> in Paris from October to November 1909, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).<9> On November 12, 1909 both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10> replacing the old one.
Please keepn in mind that the footnotes in this paragraph have already been changed, and need to be changed in the rest of the draft. The new source, Nr. <7>, is 7 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1908, p. 376. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... |
|
Jun-12-14
| | OhioChessFan: <In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against Lasker in Paris, > Deadline approaching, need to quickly find a stronger formulation.....noun/verb/object....... In May 1909, Janowski's wealthy patron Leo Nardus financed an exhibition match against Lasker in Paris. Surely the match link clarifies it was Janowski and not Nardus who played. |
|
Jun-12-14
| | OhioChessFan: I think the "in addition" is a bit awkward, but I'm about to give up on anything better. <On November 12, 1909 both masters signed an agreement for a title match > "both masters" is a tad redundant. I still prefer "they". |
|
| Jun-12-14 | | Boomie: <OhioChessFan: I think the "in addition" is a bit awkward, but I'm about to give up on anything better.> How about "Also"? It works as well to connect the two sentences. "While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6> <Also>, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)." |
|
| Jun-12-14 | | Boomie: <"both masters" is a tad redundant. I still prefer "they".> I concur with the Commadore here. |
|
Jun-12-14
| | Annie K.: 'Also' was a possibility I have been thinking about too - it may be a little "too conversational", but it does look more natural. No big issue either way. I am neutral on the "both masters" phrasing, and actively disagree with changing the subparagraph involving Nardus - not only is the current construction completely valid as is, it's also clearer - but, mostly, because it's considerably more *elegant* than the proposed change. |
|
Jun-12-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
"In addition" is better- "also" is way too informal.
I agree with the <Kiteh> here: <I am neutral on the "both masters" phrasing, and actively disagree with changing the subparagraph involving Nardus - not only is the current construction completely valid as is, it's also clearer - but, mostly, because it's considerably more *elegant* than the proposed change.> |
|
Jun-12-14
| | WCC Editing Project:
<Karpova>
You may have noticed I put in the new paragraph and source by inserting it in the existing text. I am afraid to screw up the notes.
So I ask you-
Every note before the new paragraph stays the same?
Every note after the new paragraph is increased by one, right? And in the Footnotes, every note after the new <7> is increased by one? |
|
Jun-12-14
| | OhioChessFan: No thank you please on starting a sentence with "Also". Pardon me while I shudder. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 117 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
