<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.>

"game format was replaced with an unlimited game format"

Maybe we can find a way to remove the "game format" duplication.

Perhaps something like:

"The 24 game format was replaced with the first player to win 6 games being declared champion."

It looks like I took off my <WCC Editor> frock just in time.

Here is an audiovisual aid to help explain what I mean:

Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886

<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.>

Game Collection: WCC: Karpov-Korchnoi 1978

<"The 24 game format was replaced with the first player to win 6 games being declared champion."

Also I agree with you on the "Also" issue.>

Enacted.

It now reads:

<crawfb5> has supplied us with a full DRAFT EDIT for

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

You can see it easily because I put it at the top of the Mirror edit page.

<the first time Lasker had finished lower than first since Hastings (1895).>

<The 1978 World Chess Championship was played between challenger Viktor Korchnoi and champion Anatoly Karpov in Baguio City, Phillipines. The conditions of the match were changed for the first time since 1951. >

"The conditions of <the> match" imply it was a match lasting 27 years. I prefer this (and open to other suggestions) as a necessary clarification:

The Zukertort match includes this:

<The Polish-Jewish master Johannes Zukertort gained worldwide recognition when he won the international tournament in Paris, 1878.>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

Sorry, would you please clarify the edit you want to make here?

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker, the first time Lasker had finished lower than first since Hastings (1895).>

<I'd prefer ".....Lasker had not finished first since..">

<The World Championship match conditions were changed for the first time since 1951.>

Do you mean you want <International Tournament> capitalized?

And then standardized throughout?

Related to standardization, how do we feel about "The Polish-Jewish master"?

Are we going to identify each master in every introduction by geographical origin and religion/ethnicity?

I don't know.

<And then standardized throughout?>

Yes, whether upper or lower case. I think consistency is a sign of high quality writing. It can be very easy to have a lot of hands on deck writing in their own style and end up with a bit of inconsistent usage.

<Related to standardization, how do we feel about "The Polish-Jewish master"?

Are we going to identify each master in every introduction by geographical origin and religion/ethnicity? >

I am in agreement with Boomie that the "Jewish" reference should be dele.

<We should do it for all or for none, I think.>

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker, the first time Lasker had finished lower than first since Hastings (1895).>

I want "At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker, the first time Lasker had not finished first since Hastings (1895)."

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

<"At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker, the first time Lasker had not finished first since Hastings (1895).">

Enacted. Thanks for the clarification.

I'd like to point out that this particular edit represents a milestone in what might appear to be an endless task for us.

I agree, and lean strongly toward not including the religious referneces, unless there is some compelling historical back story that demands it.>

You and <BOOMERANG> make a pretty decent quorum, to my thinking.

Therefore, our consistent editing policy will henceforth omit religious "tag" references "unless there is some compelling historical back story that demands it."

Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886

Enacted.

I agree with <Ohio> that we need to establish a consistent policy of capitals/no capitals with respect to the vexing case of <"T(t)ournament.">

I have found this to be frustrating for years. When I'm writing about chess history I often find myself wondering when and where I should capitalize this word.

Let's get together and establish a policy.

Case by case.

In 1920 Alfred E. Neuman played in three major tournaments.

In 1920 Alfred E. Nueman played in three major international tournaments.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 tournament.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 international tournament.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Vienna 1848 gambit tournament.

#########

So my own inclination in the past has been =

<In 1920 Alfred E. Neuman played in three major tournaments.>

<In 1920 Alfred E. Nueman played in three major International Tournaments.>

<Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 tournament.>

<Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 International Tournament.>

<Alfred E. Neuman won the Vienna 1848 Gambit Tournament.>

Opinions?

As <Ohio> says, the standard we end up choosing is less important than the fact that we need to have a standard template we use for every intro.

I'm not sure if this visual aid will help us decide which standard to adopt, but just in case:

I think a case can only be made for capitalization when it is part and parcel of a proper noun.

<In 1920 Alfred E. Neuman played in three major tournaments.

In 1920 Alfred E. Nueman played in three major international tournaments.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 tournament.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Paris 1920 international tournament.

Alfred E. Neuman won the Vienna 1848 gambit tournament.>

The only one I would consider capitalizing would be 1848 <Vienna Gambit Tournament> (I would move the year, assuming it wasn't part of the formal name of the event).

It's clearly superior to the original!

A few points:

I would suggest to always write Dr. Lasker, like Dr. Tarrasch and so on. The title becomes part of the name in a way.

<the first time the first time Lasker had not finished first since Hastings (1895).>

Maybe expressing that someone managed to finish agead of Dr. Lasker, I mean to change the focus from Dr. Lasker not finishing first so that the second <first> can be avoided.

The only source used now is Soltis?

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker, the first time the first time Lasker had not finished first since Hastings (1895).>

Still needs a comma after "t(T)ournament". You doubled up on "the first time".

<Maybe expressing that someone managed to finish agead of Dr. Lasker, I mean to change the focus from Dr. Lasker not finishing first so that the second <first> can be avoided.>

<Karpova> raises a valid point. But I don't think that the repetition of "first" is necessarily a problem, so I feel the sentence is okay as written. And if we get rid of the second "first" in the sentence, we're going to inevitably end up with a second "won". But working with the idea of focusing on the other person....."Marshall" is the subject of the sentence, after all....sentence is a little long, isn't it...

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament, a full two points over (ahead of)world champion(World Champion) Emanuel Lasker. Marshall was the first player to finish ahead of (hmmm, doubling up "ahead of"?) Lasker since Hastings (1895).>

I like the two sentences.....don't want to double up "ahead of".....is it a problem to double up "Marshall" and "Lasker" in consecutive sentences....no....oops, do we need to name the players who pulled it off in Hastings.....soooooooooo......

Here's my current best effort:

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament, a full two points over world champion Emanuel Lasker. Marshall was the first player to finish ahead of Lasker in a tournament since Pillsbury and Chigorin finished first and second to Lasker's third at Hastings (1895).>

Hmmmmmmm. Getting really wordy. But okay, I think.

"...since Pillsbury and Chigorin at Hastings (1895)."? Fewer words, loses a touch of clarity.

And maybe the original with the doubled up "first" is okay.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

Right, I've added <Karpova> suggestions and <Ohio> paragraph as EDIT SUGGESTIONS.

I've also excised the original intro except for one part we may want to revisit.

I do have a suggestion. I think <crawfb5's> draft leaves plenty of room for more information, and that we should include some of the information <Karpova> has provided as EDIT SUGGESTIONS.

As a general rule for all intros, I think we should think of these three topics as the backbone of every one of them.

<1. How did the Match come about?

2. What were the conditions for the Match? The stakes, the number of games, the rules, and this could also include information about the backers, the venue, the referees, and so on.

<I would suggest to always write Dr. Lasker, like Dr. Tarrasch and so on. The title becomes part of the name in a way.>

I'm of two minds. I think it's a little stuffy and non-standard to include non- chess related titles.

On the other hand, many contemporaneous sources do include the non-chess titles, and maybe we should try to extend this tradition into the future?

I did notice something in one of the sources <Karpova> listed, where it said <Dr.[sic] Alekhine>.

I'm just going from memory so I could be wrong about every detail, except for the actual <Dr.[sic] Alekhine>.

I saw that for sure, and I believe that might have something to do with the fact that to date, nobody has been able to find a primary source confirmation from the <Sorbonne> that indicates Johnny Alekhine ever did become a Doctor.

I suppose this isn't relevant to <Karpova's> original suggestion, but I found it humorous to see the [sic] next to Johnny's Doctor title.

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

On a final note, related to <Ohio's> earlier point about the importance of consistency.

I know it might seem like it's going to take forever to finish this project.

Despite this, HOWEVER, I believe we can finish it before forever comes if we decide on a set of standards that will remain consistent throughout.

For example, the basic three point template I just posted for what I think should be the backbone of every intro.

We (Who's "we"? You got a turd in your pocket?) have already decided to eliminate religious "tag" references unless there's a compelling reason to include them in a given case.

Sorry for the <South Park> joke, but in fact I don't want to spend forever doing this project. So if I get a quorum of three with the same opinion, I say pull the trigger on it. So in this case <Ohio> and <BOOMIE> agreed on the religious "tag" issue and with me agreeing I considered that good enough for a QUORUM and a final decision on the matter.

Other examples still to be decided:

-CAPitALIzatiON.

-Non-chess related titles.

-Can you think of others?