<In the 20th game, Steinitz played a combination right out of the opening which netted Zukertort's queen, forcing him to resign, ending the match with a score of 10 to 5.>

A little sloppy and unspecific. Maybe:

In the 20th game, Steinitz played an early combination which netted Zukertort's queen on the 19th move, forcing him to resign, and ending the match with a score of 10 to 5.

I have a very slight concern with "forcing". But any decent chessplayer understands what that means. Just bringing it up for consideration. A possible alternative that clarifies the pertinent point the game ended in 19 moves:

What about this here?

<In the 20th game, Steinitz played an early combination which netted Zukertort's queen on the 19th move, compelling him to resign, and ending the match with a score of 10 to 5.>

I put this in for now- but I can still change it.

I prefer "compelling", but I also prefer "compelling him" to "compelling a (noun) resignation.

"..compelling him to resign..."

"..compelling him to immediately resign.."

"..compelling to resign immediately.."

But then I think the best way to include it is the way you had it before, as an adjective.

So I think this is best for sense, meaning and flow?

Anyways I changed it to this now:

"played"....."ending".....

The "and" conjoins "prompting" (or compelling)and "ending", so they are parallel.

So your preferred choice is this: <In the 20th game, Steinitz played an early combination which netted Zukertort's queen on the 19th move, compelling an immediate resignation, and ending the match with a score of 10 to 5.>

or this: <In the 20th game, Steinitz played an early combination which netted Zukertort's queen on the 19th move, prompting an immediate resignation, and ending the match with a score of 10 to 5.>

Right?

I like "prompting" a bit better, because we know there are positions where the loss of a Queen doesn't "compel" a resignation- there may still be fighting counterplay.

If we say "prompting" then we give Zukertort some choice in the matter, which of course he had.

Here's the actual game, although I don't think this necessarily should factor too much, or at all, in our editing decision unless we were writing an article about the game itself, instead of an intro to the match.

But just for fun let's look- Steinitz vs Zukertort, 1886

Here's the "sting at the end of the tail" of the combo, netting the queen:

18.Nxf6+

click for larger view

Looks hopeless, I'm sure any master would resign this position.

So what is your choice- prompting, compelling, or forcing?

I'll quote the horror movie <Saw>:

Tal-Botvinnik World Championship Match (1960)

"No sooner did Mikhail Botvinnik regain his title, the chess world became entranced by charismatic young Latvian named Mikhail Tal."

<After Mikhail Botvinnik regained his title, the chess world became entranced by a charismatic young Latvian named Mikhail Tal.>

"Tal won the 1958 interzonal tournament at Portoroz, then helped the Soviet Union to retain the Chess Olympiad; before going on to win the 1959 Candidates Tournament with 20 out of 28 points--a point and a half ahead of second place Paul Keres."

<Tal won the 1958 interzonal tournament at Portoroz. He then won the 1959 Candidates Tournament to become the next challenger for the World Championship>

"With such intuitive sacrifices, he created vast complications, and many masters found it impossible to solve all the problems he created over the board, though deeper post-game analysis found flaws in some of his conceptions."

"The conditions of the match were changed for the first time since 1951: the 24 game format was replaced with an unlimited game format, with the first player to win 6 games being declared champion. The rematch clause for the Champion, which had been discarded since 1963, was brought back into effect."

<The conditions of the match were changed for the first time since 1951. The 24 game format was replaced with an unlimited game format with the first player to win 6 games being declared champion. Also the rematch clause for the Champion, which was discarded in 1963, was reinstated.>

"Korchnoi continously complained that he was being stared at by a member of Karpov's team during play, a parapsychologist who supposedly possessed hypnotic powers."

"In 1960, the chess world gained a new champion who seemed to breathe new life into the ancient game. Mikhail Tal seemed to have ushered in a new era; and perhaps he did, but his tenure as champion was soon to be nipped in the bud."

<In 1960, the chess world gained a new champion who breathed new life into the ancient game. Mikhail Tal seemed to have ushered in a new era. Perhaps he did but his tenure as champion was short lived.>

"A chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. And as a young man with those famous fierce, hooded eyes and that imposing hooked nose, he bulldozed all before him. Until, that is, the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. "Iron Mike" sought closed positions and endgames in a very successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy."

<A chain-smoker and heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. With fierce, hooded eyes and imposing hooked nose, he crushed all before him until the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. "Iron Mike" sought closed positions and endgames in a successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy.>

"I think that I lost to him, because he beat me!"

This is better to remove the two "news".

The existing intros are so sloppily written that it's often difficult to know what's going on unless you take your time and look really carefully. For example, your mistake in the following case is not your fault, it's the fault of the original intro writer.

Tal-Botvinnik World Championship Return Match (1961)

The following text from this intro is a cited direct quotation from <Larry Parr>, but the original intro writer has simply copied and pasted the text from a web source and neglected to put quotation marks around it. To be more precise, the original writer neglected to use the site editing marks to make the text half sized (instead of surrounded by quotation marks), which is how they signify direct quotations in these intros.

<A chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. And as a young man with those famous fierce, hooded eyes and that imposing hooked nose, he bulldozed all before him. Until, that is, the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. "Iron Mike" sought closed positions and endgames in a very successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy.>

So in this case, you've edited a direct Larry Parr quotation because you didn't notice it was a direct quotation, because the original intro writer forgot to make the text half sized (in lieu of quotation marks).

As you know, you *can* partially edit direct quotations by cutting parts of them out, but to do this you must use ellipses...

But without supplying ellipses where necessary, you can't just change

<as a young man with those famous fierce, hooded eyes and that imposing hooked nose>

to

<With fierce, hooded eyes and imposing hooked nose>,

because that's not what the cited source actually wrote.

The total lack of even a passing resemblance to academic rigor in the existing intros makes our job very difficult, which is why we have to examine every detail with such care.

In addition, with respect to your other style edits, I'd like you to supply your specific reasons for most of them, for those that are more than just proofreading edits.

For example, in this intro Karpov-Korchnoi World Championship Match (1978) why is "intimidated" better than "stared at"? I'm not saying it's not better, I just want to know why you think it's better.

With regard to style edits, if it seems I'm working faster, and with less information, with <OhioChessFan> it's because I am. The reason I can do this is that I've already spent several months (yes, months) working intensively with him on the two cg.com bios that I wrote: Vladimir Petrov and Johann Jacob Loewenthal.

Due to spending all this time with <Ohio>, frequently day after day after day, I currently have a very good sense of his editing style. We now have a kind of rhythm, or short hand communication stemming from all of this previous experience. And even then, note that <Ohio> still frequently supplies specific reasons for some of the style or content edits he wants.

Last, and I've already made this proviso very clear to <Ohio>, who understands this, be advised that some, many, or even most of these intros may well end up being <entirely> re-written.

For example, from my previous post, a <Larry Parr> quote from a dead weblink that calls Botvinnik "Iron Mike" is very unlikely to survive according to the standard we are trying to set. It's badly written- long on purple prose and short on actual information. Plus I don't know where to find the original because the link is dead. No unsourced direct quotations will be used in this project.

Also, I will not be keeping any quotations or "copy n pastes" from <Graeme Cree, Mark Weeks, Larry Evans, Ray Keene, or Eric Schiller>. I'm not necessarily saying they are bad writers (Larry Parr is a bad writer), but none of them ever supplies a proper citation for the source they get their information from. We are not keeping, or adding, any information to these intros that's not properly cited to a reliable source, preferably a primary source where possible.

When you post your edits, please link the Mirror collections, not the original WCC collections.

So, in this case, I need you to link this Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Tal 1960

and not this Tal-Botvinnik World Championship Match (1960).

<After Mikhail Botvinnik regained his title, the chess world became entranced by a charismatic young Latvian named Mikhail Tal.>

Enacted (that means I replaced the original text with your edit}.

<Tal won the 1958 interzonal tournament at Portoroz. He then won the 1959 Candidates Tournament to become the next challenger for the World Championship>

Enacted.

<These sacrifices created vast complications which his opponents found difficult to solve over the board, though deeper post-game analysis found flaws in some of his conceptions.>

Enacted.

Game Collection: WCC: Karpov-Korchnoi 1978

<The conditions of the match were changed for the first time since 1951. The 24 game format was replaced with an unlimited game format with the first player to win 6 games being declared champion. Also the rematch clause for the Champion, which was discarded in 1963, was reinstated.>

Enacted.

<Korchnoi complained that he was being intimidated by a member of Karpov's team during play, a parapsychologist who supposedly possessed hypnotic powers.>

Logged (that means I didn't edit the text yet, but I posted your edit as a "suggestion").

Game Collection: WCC: Tal-Botvinnik Rematch 1961

<In 1960, the chess world gained a new champion who breathed new life into the ancient game. Mikhail Tal seemed to have ushered in a new era. Perhaps he did but his tenure as champion was short lived.>

Enacted.

<"A chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. And as a young man with those famous fierce, hooded eyes and that imposing hooked nose, he bulldozed all before him. Until, that is, the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. "Iron Mike" sought closed positions and endgames in a very successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy."

<A chain-smoker and heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. With fierce, hooded eyes and imposing hooked nose, he crushed all before him until the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. "Iron Mike" sought closed positions and endgames in a successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy.>>

and

<<"I think that I lost to him, because he beat me!"

<"I think that I lost to him because he beat me!">>

As explained above, these are direct quotations from source and we can't just change what the original author wrote.

Game Collection: WCC: Tal-Botvinnik Rematch 1961

This is better to remove the two "news".

<In 1960, the chess world gained a champion who breathed new life into the ancient game.>

Thanks for taking the time to make this most recent passel of fine style edits. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure the "internet" will as well, once we're all finished.

If we ever finish.

Having now gone through all of your last passel, I'm pleased to be forced to amend this:

I wrote

"In addition, with respect to your other style edits, I'd like you to supply your specific reasons for <most of them>, for those that are more than just proofreading edits."

More accurate would be <some of them>.

I prefer "intimidated" because it better explains how Korchnoi was disturbed. After all, everyone in the audience is staring at him.