What does that mean? There must be some raison d'etre for singling out Lasker as drawing. Both players drew. Was Lasker better in both games and couldn't convert the win? My review of those 2 games, especially game 7, doesn't suggest that.

Okay, I was going through one sentence at a time trying(successfully) to forget what I'd read before. So the speculation was correct, although the explicit reference of explanation wasn't addressed until the second mention of the 2 game blocks. So we have:

<Lasker was held to draws in games 6 and 7....Lasker was also held to draws in games 8 and 9, and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10.>

---

Please change

The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days.<14>

to

After 4 rest days, the 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin.<14>

---

Please change

Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and rapturous applause ensued.<18>

to

Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and the audience burst into applause.<18>

---

<OCF: Okay, I was going through one sentence at a time trying(successfully) to forget what I'd read before.>

I agree. FWIW, some people read things backwards to facilitate finding spelling and grammatical errors. They don't have the expectation the readership will likewise read backwards.

<It should be well established at this point, that Schlechter was leading the match and draws didn't help Lasker. Another positive aspect of these "game blocks" is that there can be a link to every game in the intro.>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

Requested changes made.

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

I think <"rapturous applause ensued"> is much better than <"the audience burst into applause.">

It's much better writing- vivid and descriptive, and not simply a flat recounting.

In this case, keep <rapturous applause ensued>, i. e.

please change back

Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and the audience burst into applause.<18>

to

Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8) and rapturous applause ensued.<18>

---

<OCF: Why do you then wait until the two game block of 8/9 rather then 6/7 to explicitly point that out?>

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 shared firsts at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).

to

Schlechter shared first place with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), following up with first places at Vienna (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared first places at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).

---

<Annie K.: 'Huge' is also a bit informal, at that - 'large' might be an improvement.>

To call a 36-player tournament consisting of 5 stages <large> seems like a huge understatement to me.

---

Please change

Theodor Gerbec wrote that "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," <2>

to

Theodor Gerbec wrote of Schlechter "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," <2>

---

Please change

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>

to

The world champion accepted the challenge and they published a joint statement on December 3, stating that 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>

---

The Goldman quote shall remain the way it is. And the 'Pester Lloyd' won't get an introduction.

---

<Annie K.: Lastly for now, I think Kronen should be translated to English, to synchronize with Marks?>

No, as the currency in question was not the crown, a British currency worth 5 shilling.

Please change

In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Kronen and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest.

to

In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Austro-Hungarian Krones and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest.

and

Game 4 was played in public in the Café Marienbrücke with a fee of two Kronen for a day ticket and 10 Kronen for booked seats.<13>

to

Sorry I'm late,

"first place" or "1st place" isn't necessary, nor is it the main usage nowadays.

I would rewrite the text from the first paragraph as follows:

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

Schlechter shared 1st with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at <Munich 1900>, won both <Vienna 1904> and the huge <Ostend 1906> tournament, and shared 1st at both <Vienna 1908> and <Prague 1908>

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

I put your requests in on these:

...wrote of Schlechter "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," <2>

The world champion accepted the challenge and they published a joint statement on December 3, stating that 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>

In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Austro-Hungarian Krones and the Berlin Chess Society 2,000 Marks for the contest.

(except I kept "krones" as "kronen.")

Kronen is already a plural forum. There is no such thing as "Austrian krones."

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

I didn't put this one in here-

Game 4 was played in public in the Café Marienbrücke with a fee of two Austro-Hungarian Krones for a day ticket and 10 Austro-Hungarian Krones for booked seats.<13>

for the same reason. The plural forum of the "Austrian krone" is "kronen," which you already had correct in the first place.

I agree with your <1st> suggestion, please put it in the way you suggested.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

I believe= I hope that <twilark> has that one in mind.

He has expanded many of the major player bios over the last few years, and I hope he gets to Bobby too.

As for me here, I'm currently gathering info and resources for this here, so if you come across any relevant sources, please drop them in my forum:

<Ohio>

You can be as real as you wish to be here or in any of my other forums.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I do understand your frustrations, and speaking only for myself, I do admit that I tend towards the "high handed" in my pronouncements. <Annie> I'm sorry I "lectured you" instead of phrasing my objections in a less condescending manner. You don't deserve that, especially not from me.

Point taken.

That said, I'd just like to say a few more things.

<Ohio>: In my opinion you are the best copy editor I ever met, and I hope you do not leave the WCC project.

I hope that we can continue to work together in common cause, and try not to get too angry at each other.

From the beginning we have been working under the principle that the draft writer will have final say on the last edit, at least on matters of style- as opposed to factual errors, typos and other problems.

That doesn't mean you can't lobby- I can recall several instances when you in particular succeeded in getting me to change my mind- such as the infamous "kicked off the match with..."

I know it can be lugubrious and frustrating at times to offer suggestions that the draft writer ultimately doesn't accept.

On the other hand, given the number of often mutually exclusive suggestions from editors, sometimes the draft writer can feel a little frustrated as well.

We all of us can't please all of the rest of us all the time.

What we can do is try to be as civil as we can to one another.

This sentence <needs> another word. I suggest:

<Colleagues>

I'm going to return the original function of the <WCC Forum> to the deposition and discussion of source materials relevant to the writing of new WCC intros. This is the way the forum started out, and now we will return to that original use of the WCC forum.

What I most need to complete, or even just further the project, is to convince existing writers to commit to creating new intros, and I also need to attract new writers to the project who can also commit to creating new intros. All three of the existing WCC intro writers currently support the cessation of public team editing. So this will no longer take place in the WCC forum.

I'm going to edit the rest of <Karpova's> Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910, but I won't be doing that in this forum.

<crawfb5> has agreed to have any new drafts he may write edited in this same way- one to one, with one writer and one editor, and again, not done in this forum.

I would like <Ohio> to help me edit my drafts, on a one to one basis. This could easily be done by email, but it's up to <Ohio> of course, and if he doesn't wish to do this, I'll respect his decision and make do with an alternate plan.

This decision has been made by the only three people who have actually produced new intros: <Crawfb5>, <Karpova>, and <me>.

We are all of us- both writers and editors- answerable first and foremost to <Daniel Freeman>, who gave me the go ahead and licence to manage this project. I might add that <Daniel> actually has the "final edit" on any new intros we produce here.

I'll also add that I need more writers or this will take forever. None of the current writers wish the public team editing to continue, and 1/3 of the writing force- <crawfb5>- dropped out almost immediately after the public editing phase started in the WCC forum. I can't be losing writers, I need to keep the ones we have and get new ones.

The draft writers are not answerable to those current style editors who wish to continue a team editing format, no matter how good those editors are. And you are good- very good. I'm ending the public team editing format, not editing.

<Ohio>, I have asked you personally, in both public and private, if you would edit my drafts. I would then be answerable to your skill and persuasion, if you accepted this task. This is up to you. I think you and I work best together in a one-on-one format. The only piece of writing I ever did at this website that I'm truly proud of is this- Vladimir Petrov. As you well know, you worked hard for what was it- six weeks or more on this? In my opinion, your editing was absolutely crucial in making this bio so much better than it would have been without you. But I don't think this would have happened in a "team editing" context.

Editing is important, but in academics and the publishing world, nobody does "public team editing."

Why? It doesn't work very well. And lately, it's been causing more calumny and hard feelings between draft writers and team editing proponents than I care for. I don't like to be around fighting, and I especially don't like to be around fighting in one of my own forums. I do this for fun, and frankly I don't need the extra grief the team editing format seems to have been causing lately.

I might point out again that this forum started out as a depository for source requests and the deposition of such sources and materials to help create new WCC intros.

<Karpova> this "online library" seems to be a promising resource eh?

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/mb

I tried to download the book, but you have to be a member of a "partner institution." That probably means member of a library?

I wonder why Amazon and House of Staunton feel they have the right to sell a book that's clearly in the public domain?

This would appear to be a useful games collection: