<Karpova> Ok I hope I did it right.

It looks fine, just a few changes:

-

"He claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<12>"

He claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<11>

-

"There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning, and it was the second title match in a short span of time.<13>"

There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning, and it was the second title match in a short span of time.<14>

-

"A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the quality of the games, claiming that Nardus' sponsorship was the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<12>"

Thank you so much.

That's really chatty. How about:

".......which Lasker won easily (or handily) (+7 -1 =2)."

<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.>

I still don't like "both masters". I likewise don't like the tense problem of the last clause. They signed an agreement......provided that... That doesn't work for me, but I guess I'm being outvoted.

<Janowski was eager to take revenge,>

Take revenge over.......what? How about:

Probably, as the agreement had been published in newspapers. The fact that he wanted to play a WC match against Lasker doesn't mean, that it had to take place prior to the Schlechter match.

---

<OCF: ".......which Lasker won easily (or handily) (+7 -1 =2).">

This looks as if we introduced our own opinion there. That Lasker emerged as the clear winner is obvious from the result, but whether he won easily or handily is a different matter and depends on the games they played, not just the result (it may imply that Janowski hardly put up resistance, for example).

---

Please change

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>

to

On November 12, 1909 they signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10>

---

<OCF: Take revenge over.......what? How about:>

I think the current text sequence makes it clear what the "revenge" was for:

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

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 they signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10>

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,<11>

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

Janowski wanted to get revenge for the (+7 -1 =2) drubbing he received in his last match with Lasker.

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

<Ohio> "E-Bay Rules" will apply, and at the risk of ruining your week, might you explain (again) how the "E-Bay Rules" work in the WCCCP?

I fully admit I already forgot how they work, although you've explained them to me quite clearly in the past.

Please change

Janowski was eager to take revenge,<11> and had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<12>.

to

<Karpova>

<verpletteren> is the decisive term.

<OCF: If Janowski didn't use the word "crush"(I understand the difficulty of translating a slangy term), that's editorializing.>

It would have been a direct quote, if he had said "crush".

Thanks <Ohio>.

You never know which of our newer members is going to drop by on D-Day, which was just passed eh?

Did you celebrate? <Boomie> played WWII board games, and I watched a couple of BBC documentaries.

"D-Day" was a big item in my house because my father wouldn't shut up about it.

And that's not all. He used to type out letters from folks in Leningrad when the Nazis had the city cut off for 900 days.

He'd type out some of these letters and then tape them to our refridgerator.

--

<<Janowski heeft het vurigste verlangen Lasker in het nagaan te verpletteren, [...].>

<verpletteren> is the decisive term.

<OCF: If Janowski didn't use the word "crush"(I understand the difficulty of translating a slangy term), that's editorializing.>

It would have been a direct quote, if he had said "crush".

Whatever you call the translation of a term, it is a necessary evil if we want to make use of sources not written in English.>

Crush seems perfect for 'verpletteren'.

The combination with 'vurigste verlangen' (literally: fiery desire) implies the version in Dutch is, if anything, stronger than 'crush'. But I can't think of an equivalent single-verb stronger alternative for crush - which is rather clear already.

Ok it is sent to <Big> now, who will HTMLize it and then pass it on to <Bigger>.

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

**DUE DATE- THE DAY I WILL SUBMIT THIS DRAFT TO <Daniel>: Two weeks after the previous draft has actually been promoted, checked by us for four days for errata, and then the official page is actually fixed.

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

<Ohio> I can only speak for myself, but you can edit any of my JFQ drafts marked "finished" as you like.

No comment or edit suggestion will ever be lost, because I log them all and save them- with external backup.

I'd prefer "they jointly" or just "they".

<wherein the match was to last 30 games, >

I'd prefer "stating" to "wherein".

<the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909.>