|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 119 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-15-14
 | | OhioChessFan: <the world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present.> I'd prefer "with many celebrities present".
< Georg Marco was the match director, the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny.> This should be "and the seconds".
<The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws.> "which" refers back to "leg" but that is an unclear connection. Needs work but nothing is coming to mind at the moment. |
|
Jun-15-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Winner is he who wins most of the games, with draws counting ½ point. The winner's prize depends on the number of subscriptions, additionally the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores.> If I am reading that correctly, all of that should be in quotation marks. |
|
Jun-16-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
I may be reading this wrong, but I don't think <Karpova> is giving the "Pester Lloyd" summary word for word here: <The "Pester Lloyd" summarized the conditions thusly<8>: Ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Winner is he who wins most of the games, with draws counting ½ point. The winner's prize depends on the number of subscriptions, additionally the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores.> I believe that <Karpova> has paraphrased the "Pester Lloyd" summary. If so, then no quotation marks are needed, and also the beginning of the sentence isn't really necessary- <The "Pester Lloyd" summarized the conditions thusly> could be dropped, which would clear up any confusion. I didn't write it so I don't know for sure- <Karpova> will be sure to clear up any confusion. |
|
| Jun-16-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 Please effect the following changes:
---
The world champion accepted the challenge and they both published a statement on December 3, wherein the match was to last 30 games, the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909.<5> to The world champion accepted the challenge and they jointly published a statement on December 3, stating the match was to last 30 games, the winner would need a +2 score and the match would take place at the end of 1909.<5> ---
On January 7, 1910, the world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present. to On January 7, 1910, the world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club with many celebrities present. ---
Georg Marco was the match director, the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny.<9> to Georg Marco was the match director, and the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny.<9> |
|
| Jun-16-14 | | Karpova: Paraphrasing of the 'Pester Lloyd' summary was indeed necessary, so this is not a direct quote and should not be in quotation marks. |
|
| Jun-16-14 | | Karpova: <Jess: If so, then no quotation marks are needed, and also the beginning of the sentence isn't really necessary- <The "Pester Lloyd" summarized the conditions thusly> could be dropped, which would clear up any confusion.> This may be dropped, but there is a reason why I included it in the first place. The 'Pester Lloyd' reports were written by Emanuel Lasker himself, but this summary was not. If you click on the link given in the source, even if you don't understand what's written there, you'll see the paragraph above under the heading <Weltmeisterschaftskampf Lasker-Schlechter> which was mostly source for the summarized conditions, and then below Lasker's report begins (<<Die erste Partie> von <Dr. Emanuel Lasker>>). I thought (and still do think) that it is worth clearing that up. Else, someone may errouneoulsy believe that Lasker himself reported the conditions thusly, what he didn't. Maybe there is a different way of introducing it, e. g. According to the "Pester Lloyd",<8> the conditions were: [...]. |
|
Jun-16-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Requested changes made.
With regard to the "Pester Lloyd" issue, I advise dropping that introductory sentence altogether. The extra information that disambiguates what <Emanuel Lasker> wrote and what he didn't write can easily be included in the footnote. ###############
I also advise dropping the use of "thusly" and "additionally" in all cases, because those words are no longer in common usage. So "...summarized the conditions thusly:" would become "summarized the conditions as follows:" "additionally," becomes "In addition," |
|
| Jun-16-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
Right above that passage, we have Goldman's quotation: - Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title."<7> - You see that he used almost the same introduction for the "Deutsches Wochenschach" infromation, as I did for the "Pester Lloyd". How did he do that? It doesn't seem to be the case that he put it into quotation marks. And I wonder if it isn't even more confusing without an introduction as to where those conditions were published, considering that we just wrote that the final conditions were never published. And then we present a relatively detailed summary of the conditions (especially if just introduced with "The conditions were"). This may be perceived as an obvious contradiction in the text, so I kind of like the "constraining" effect the more explicit mention of the source has. |
|
Jun-16-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
That's a good point. I think you are correct, and should leave it as you wish. I would still avoid using "thusly" unless it's in a direct quote (as it is in the first case you mention). |
|
| Jun-16-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
For sure, I'm open for more elegant ways of introducing the "Pester Lloyd" part, but as a first try, I suggest to change The "Pester Lloyd" summarized the conditions thusly<8>: Ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Winner is he who wins most of the games, with draws counting ½ point. The winner's prize depends on the number of subscriptions, additionally the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores. the following way
According to the "Pester Lloyd",<8> the conditions were as follows: Ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Winner is he who wins most of the games, with draws counting ½ point. The winner's prize depends on the number of subscriptions. In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores. |
|
Jun-16-14
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Karpova>
Ok I made the requested change. |
|
Jun-16-14
| | OhioChessFan: <and a shared 1st at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).> Slightly better would be "shared firsts at...."
<that the match was to be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public.> This could be tightened up. Maybe "the match was to be played sometime between December 1909 and March 1910" or something similar. |
|
Jun-16-14
| | OhioChessFan: Maybe the Pester Lloyd should be introduced to modern readers, something like "A leading chess periodical of that time(that Lasker often contributed to), the Pester Lloyd, summarized........" |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 Please change
Schlechter shared 1st place with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), following up with 1st places at Vienna (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and a shared 1st at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908). to Schlechter shared 1st place with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), following up with 1st places at Vienna (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared firsts at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908). ---
"Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match was to be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public.<6>" I suggest
Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909 that they were ready to play a public title match sometime between December 1909 and March 1910.<6> -- The 'Pester Lloyd' was not a chess periodical and so its importance for chess history mainly rests on Lasker's longterm chess reports covering many important events (e. g. the Janowski and Tarrasch matches, negotiations with Capablanca and Rubinstein). While (chess) periodicals were mentioned before, e. g. 'Chess Monthly' in Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890), they were never introduced. And I don't think that it is necessary or even helpful to the reader. He can see from the footnotes list, that Lasker wrote articles for the newspaper. In this case, the point I tried to make was that it was not Lasker who wrote about the conditions there, so mentioning his contribution there may rather confuse and could lead to the wrong impression that Lasker may have written it (or was the source at least). Not that I doubt the conditions reported there, but I want to avoid a wrong impression and keep it as neutral as possible. |
|
Jun-17-14
| | OhioChessFan: <Schlechter shared 1st place with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), following up with 1st places at Vienna (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared firsts at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).> I just realized I suggested "first" after a series of "1st" usages. I think there is a distinct difference between "1st place" and "first" but it's something to think about. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Karpova: Is there a difference relevant to the draft? <First> seems to be the wider term, covering all meanings, while <place> may be used in distinction to <prize>. There should rarely be a difference between <place> and <prize> though, as prizes are usually shared between players on the same place in the final standings. But a special tie-break system or perhaps something unusual about the prize money or distribution thereof could be imagined. As such a differentiation is not present in the intro, I don't think that this needs to bother us. |
|
Jun-17-14
| | OhioChessFan: <The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws.> Okay, "win" refers back to "game 5" and not leg as I'd previously thought. This one still needs work. Maybe:
The 1st leg ended after the challenger won game 5, following 4 draws. Or:
After 4 draws, the 1st leg ended when the challenger won game 5. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Karpova: Is it really that confusing? When I wrote it, I thought it was clear that <win> would refer to <game 5>. The legs of the match only signify the change of location, from Vienna to Berlin. But they don't have any meaning towards the result itself. So you could say that Schlechter won leg 1 (and Lasker leg 2) but such a win had no meaning whatsoever with regards to the match. The first leg ended after 5 games, the second leg was again 5 games, regardless of the results of the individual games. But the proposed variations
The 1st leg ended after the challenger won game 5, following 4 draws. After 4 draws, the 1st leg ended when the challenger won game 5. appear to me to be more confusing. They may create the impression that the win in game 5 caused the end of the first leg. We have to keep in mind such clauses as in Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886 for example. So there is a real reason why a reader may get confused. |
|
Jun-17-14
 | | Annie K.: <Comrades> I'm having a busy week - will catch up on Friday or so. :) |
|
Jun-18-14
| | OhioChessFan: <The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws.> 3 possible changes, all listed in one sentence:
<The Vienna leg of the match ended after the fifth game, which the challenger won after four draws.> 1. "Vienna" instead of "1st".
2. "fifth game" instead of "game 5".
3. "won" instead of "had mananged to win". |
|
Jun-18-14
| | OhioChessFan: <or analysing on their own boards> analyzing |
|
| Jun-18-14 | | Boomie: <"won" instead of "had mananged to win"> I agree with this change. If we want to point out how the game was won, we should use another sentence. Schlechter's win in game 5 was considered lucky and weighed heavily on his conscience which explains his conduct of game 10. So it would make some sense to mention this. However I wouldn't mind of this was omitted. |
|
| Jun-18-14 | | Karpova: <OCF>
Your suggestions look fine, but I wonder if it's really necessary to change <1st> to <Vienna>. ---
Please change
The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws.<12> to The 1st leg of the match ended after the 5th game, which the challenger won after four draws.<12> ---
Please change
He reported that about 400 spectators were present during the resumption of game 7, crowded around the masters' board or analysing on their own boards.<15> to He reported that about 400 spectators were present during the resumption of game 7, crowded around the masters' board or analyzing on their own boards.<15> ---
<Boomie>
We have something like that already at the end, after game 10. It fits in much better there, explaining Schlechter's conduct in the last game. Apart from that, the suggested sentence contains assumptions hard to prove/source (if at all possible) and which probably already constitute editorializing. |
|
Jun-18-14
| | WCC Editing Project: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 <Karpova>
Ok I made the requested changes. |
|
Jun-19-14
| | OhioChessFan: <The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days.> I would slightly prefer:
"After 4 rest days, the 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin." |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 119 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
