I have followed you into the fora of our helpful experts <whiteshark> and <thomastonk> and I see that the discussion is still going on!

I wish <whiteshark> would give us his version of the German quote I put in his forum, but I don't want to ask him twice about it. Everything we get here has to be 100% voluntary.

I do find it amazing that <whiteshark> and <thomastonk> and <you> are interested enough in a detail like this to investigate it so closely- but you know what I think that history is all details.

I suspect if we weren't interested in getting to the bottom of even the rarest of details we wouldn't be here in this forum.

Not to mention, look what happens when you rigorously pursue something like this- new information! <thomastonk's> assertion about <Siegbert Tarrasch> is actually quite big news in chess history circles eh?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

<The Match for the World’s Championship>

<Geza Maroczy withdraws from his Compact and Frank J. Marshall will play Dr. Lasker during January, 1907.>

Events have moved swiftly since the last issue of the Bulletin made its appearance. The chess world was hardly prepared for the announcement from the other side by cable, about the middle of September, to the effect that Geza Maroczy would not be able to keep his engagement to play Dr. Emanuel Lasker for the championship of the world. But what was least expected has come to pass, and the Lasker – Maroczy contest is postponed indefinitely.

The cable message was all too brief and the only information vouchsafed by it was that the Hungarian champion was prevented by politics from fulfilling the conditions of the agreement signed jointly by him and Dr. Lasker at the rooms of the Rice Chess Club on April 6 last. It added that Mr. Maroczy was prepared to pay Dr. Lasker the forfeit of $500 which, by the way, he had failed to post with the Empire Trust Co. as per agreement and, further, that he was willing to go on with the match under the same conditions a year hence. Aside from this, which came through Georg Marco of Vienna, after repeated attempts to reach Mr. Maroczy had failed, no word of any kind has reached here from Budapest.

Dr. Lasker had been a bit troubled concerning the absence of the Hungarian’s deposit, but had not seriously questioned the European master’s good faith at any time. The champion accepted the situation with his customary sang froid and prepared to make the best of a bad bargain. He has not yet, however, made a demand for the Hungarian’s money. There is a strong feeling here that Dr. Lasker should, in justice to himself, accept the forfeit in question and thereby establish a wholesome precedent. Several of our contemporaries have seen fit to severely arraign the Hungarian, but we reserve comment until he has been given opportunity to more fully explain the unfortunate occurrence.

But a short time had elapsed after the above report had been circulated in the press, when, as if to allay the fears of a grieving fraternity, Frank J. Marshall, fresh from his latest exploit at Nuremberg, stepped into the breach and announced his readiness to take the place of Maroczy and thereby assure to the chess world the much desired event of which untoward happenings had threatened to deprive it. It required but one meeting between the masters, who have completely buried all past differences, for them to reach an understanding whereby they may be able to begin play by the middle of January next. This is, in short, that, instead of each player raising $2000 in stakes through backers, they play for a purse of $1000, the same to go to the winner of the match. The loser will, of course, receive his proportion of the income, including club subscriptions, gate receipts and the income from the special mail service being arranged by the Bulletin in conjunction with Lasker’s Chess Magazine. The advantages of this plan are too obvious to be discussed at length.

In order to raise the purse of $1000, the players will solicit subscriptions from “patrons” in sums of $10 and upward, every such sum entitling the subscriber to a place on the official roll of honor, which is to become part of the record of the match; free admission to all games; a memento of special design, suitably inscribed, in addition to the mail service.

On this basis, there is no reason whatever why not alone Americans, but Europeans as well, not to mention chess players of other hemispheres, should not be identified with this truly international encounter. That the response will be liberal and prompt cannot be doubted, and the principals have made up their minds to enter the arena not later than the first month of the New Year.

As we go to press, we are in reciept of the issue of <Deutsche Wochenschach> for September 23, containing the first statement made by the Hungarian champion on the subject of his match with Dr. Lasker. <Wochenschach> credits the statement of Maroczy to the <Neuen Pester Journal>, which, translated, reads as follows:

“According to the contract, the match should have been begun in Vienna, provided I had succeeded in inducing the Vienna Chess Club to accept the conditions made by Lasker. In spite of my endeavors, I failed in this and consequently we cannot begin the match. Financial causes have not prevented the making of a contract between the Vienna Chess Club and Lasker, for two patrons of the club, viz., Baron A. von Rothschild and Herr Leopold von Trebitsch, have most cheerfully placed the sum demanded by Lasker at my disposal, but they named their own conditions. Lasker, for instance, desired that we continue the match in Vienna until one had won three games, draws not counting. On this basis we would, at the worst, have played three games and, at the best, a great many games. The Vienna Chess Club wanted to secure from five to ten games. (The club, by the way, did not consider it worthwhile to have part of a match played under its auspices.) The club desired that the games played at Vienna should be regarded as a completed match, with the understanding, however, that the result should not be decisive, as far as the championship was concerned, if Lasker should so stipulate. This condition Lasker considered unacceptable and we accordingly renewed negotiations. Owing to the distance seperating us, correspondence requires so much time that we have not been able to obtain results up to date. With regard to political mnatters interfering with the match, these refer to the situation in Cuba, where the second part of the match was planned to take place. That is now out of the question and I am sure that Lasker will at once admit this. I do not deny that a chess match in the midst of a revolution would be highly interesting, but I hardly believe we could preserve our equanimity in case a stray bullet should penetrate the ceiling of the play room. I am, therefore, not to blame if we cannot begin the match this year, albeit Lasker made more than one stipulation which no master but myself would have accepted. I, however, wanted to play and acceeded to Lasker’s every wish. Even now, at any time, I am prepared to play in Vienna under the conditions named, after which, when circumstances permit and peace has been restored, we could play in America next year. The conditions, may they be prescribed by Lasker or the Vienna Chess Club in whatever form, I shall accept, but I am not responsible for the circumstances that the chief factors cannot agree.”

<Deutsche Wochenschach> makes the following comment on the above:

It appears it is not easy nowadays to bring about a match, a condition of which is the traversing of half the globe. We do not after all understand why so much weight is placed in New York upon a formality such as the non-payment of a forfeit. If Lasker insists on adhering to his own conditions to play in three stages at Vienna, Cuba and New York, and Vienna happens to withdraw, he has no right to demand a forfeit, unless he has retained the right of arranging the match. This seems not to have been the case. The position of the Vienna Chess Club appears perfectly reasonable. According to Maroczy’s statement, Lasker need only go to Vienna and the fight may begin – <Deutsche Wochenschach>, September 23, 1906.

Upon having the above statement submitted to him, Dr. Lasker said he could not understand what Mr. Maroczy meant by saying: “We renewed negotiations.” As a matter of fact, according to the champion, the last communication from Mr. Maroczy reached him about June 20, since which time he has been left entirely in the dark. The conditions of the Vienna Chess Club, set forth in Maroczy’s letter to the champion, were, though not disclosed by the latter, accepted by Dr. Lasker at the time.

Of course Wikipedia has errors. And sometimes someone even messes with a page in purpose... but the result tends to be short-lived. The Encyclopedia Britannica has errors too. And, unlike Wikipedia's errors, they persist until the next edition years later.

Generally, when a Wikipedia entry asserts something that needs verification, you do see the little warning telling you that the source is missing, or even that the statement is disputed.

My complain about Wikipedia is not about comprehensiveness, rigor, or accuracy of information, but about the choppiness of style, weak grammar, and poor organization of articles, which seem to be inevitable given the way it works. Put edit after patch after edit after patch after edit, etc., without a preconceived general plan, and you get the tax code, the U.S. health care system, and Wikipedia.

BTW, I am pretty sure that there are already scores of chess historians regularly contributing to Wikipedia, checking sources as rigorously as y'all do. :)

I am also pretty sure that if chessgames.com adopted the wikipedia model, perhaps restricting editing rights to those with premium memberships, then good edits, error correction, information expansion, etc. would progress more quickly here as well.

The agreement entered into between Lasker and Maroczy has been published in its April issue, page 245. It is there stated that the match shall be played in three places, the first of which is to take place in Europe, the two others in America. Article 11 deals with the forfeit, which was to be deposited on June 1, and article 12 appoints a committee of five, who, in the event of their acceptance of the office, would have had the power to decide all disagreements. All the other stipulations were merely of a technical nature. The articles were signed on April 6th and duly witnessed.

Before Maroczy’s departure, he and Lasker had a meeting, in which they exchanged letters. Lasker’s letter empowered Maroczy to conduct the negotiations with a club, or several clubs, for the European series of the match. Maroczy’s letter gave the same power to Lasker in regard to the American series. Maroczy also gave Lasker the power to sell in the name of both the contestants the right of the first publication of the games, of which they were, according to Article 7 of the agreement, “jointly the owners.” These documents are dated May 19.

Some time afterwards the Rice Chess Club made an offer to Lasker to purchase a hundred season tickets for a thousand dollars if the contestants would play the final series of the match in New York under the auspices of the club, admission to be solely by ticket. Lasker accepted the offer. The Havana Chess Club declined a proposition by Lasker to play the middle portion of the match on the island, stating that the Cuban players would be interested only in the decisive struggle at the finish. Lasker thereupon approached other clubs, among others Memphis, with which an agreement was later come to.

On June 1st Lasker deposited his forfeit; Maroczy failed to do so.

On June 23rd Lasker received a letter from Maroczy, which was written in German and translated literally, reads as follows:

Ostend, 1906, June 11th

Dear Friend Lasker:

Exactly now I have a reply from Vienna, viz.: The Viennese gentlemen are ready to give five to six thousand crowns (about $1000-$1200). For this they want a match five games up where draws have to be counted. As we do not want to count the draws, I cannot give a definite reply, please therefore to inform me (of your views). It is eventually more favorable to us, because we certainly have not to play at Vienna more than nine games. Perhaps we would make this a preparatory match as an exercise. I am very busy and have no time to do anything by letter; must do everything later in person. I do not know whether my forfeit has already arrived or not. If not, please have patience. I give you the guarantee that it will arrive, probably my friend is not in Hungary, but travels. I give as guarantee the part of our income due to me. You know that I want to play, but it is difficult to order the matter by letter. Please reply what I shall begin with Vienna. To play every day is a little too much for me, but it would not be done differently here at Ostend. I play yet too “simultaneously,” but slowly I begin to warm up.

Dear Friend Maroczy:

Your letter which arrived yesterday has made me very glad. I see by it that in spite of your very bad start you are now in good form. Your position today is better, not far from the top. I wish you much luck to the final spurt and hope that you will carry off first honors.

As to the proposal emanating from Vienna, it does not come up to my expectations. I would rather have adhered to the original stipulation, and six thousand crowns are not a very good renumeration. But in spite of that it is better that we accept the proposition than delay the decision. The Viennese games will simply be counted as match games, only that for our arrangement with the club the draws count, but not for the match. If – what is exceedingly improbable – one of us should gain three points before four draws have been made, we must consider the other games that are still to be played at Vienna as not belonging to the match. But to prevent that, we, or the chessworld, do (oe does) not take the latter games seriously, let us play the Viennese games for a small stake, say two hundred dollars. Please write whether you agree to this, and repeat these conditions in your letter, so that I can publish this as soon as you have concluded the agreement with Vienna.

I have made the enclosed agreement with Messrs. Cassel and Helms (concerning the journal of the match). I expect also that a few New York journals will take an interest in the match and buy the right of first publication for a small sum.

There cannot be a match at Havana. The players there expected to see the finish of the match, but the Rice Chess Club insisted on that portion of it.

Yours with best wishes,
E. Lasker

No reply came to this letter. After I had been waiting for about two months the Brooklyn Daily eagle, at my request, kindly sent a cablegram, reply prepaid, to Maroczy, inquiring whether he was ready to play the match or not. No answer came. A wire was also sent to Marco, by the same paper. It was a few weeks later that Marco responded. The laconic message, sent in German, said, “Maroczy ready to pay – (forfeit presumably) – or to play next year under same conditions. Cannot play on account of politics.”

September 11, 1906

Dr. Emanuel Lasker

Dear Sir:
Information has reached me that your proposed match with Mr. G. Maroczy for the championship of the world, has been postponed for a year. Considering the length of this period, I believe that I am entitled to, in the meantime, challenge you for the honor to which I aspire. I am willing to accept the essential conditions come to in your agreement with Mr. Maroczy, but as I am unable to guarantee my raising of the stakes of $2000, I am ready in the event of my failure to do so to make such concessions as may seem fair to both parties concerned. I shall be happy to draw up an agreement with you at your earliest convenience, and I beg to propose in the event of their acceptance, to nominate Messrs. Professor I. L. Rice, W. P. Shipley, and J. Herbert Watson, as umpires, to decide any questions in which we should find difficulty in agreeing. Please address your answer to one of the leading clubs.

Fraternally yours,
FRANK J. MARSHALL

September 11, 1906

Mr. F. J. Marshall

Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of today’s date, I beg to say that I shall be glad to break a lance with you for the championship of the world. As to the framing of conditions, I do not anticipate any serious hitch, but in any event shall be glad, in case of divergence of views, to ask the gentlemen you have named to constitute a tribunal for the decisions of disputed points. Please call or send a duly empowered representative.

The terms of the agreement between Marshall and Lasker for a match involving the championship of the world require in most of its points little elucidation or comment. The match is eight games up, draws not to count. This is a slight change from the previous custom dominant at Steinitz’s time and may be taken as a step toward the rehabilitation of the customs of the Morphyan period which was satisfied with matches lasting two or three weeks.

The fact is, matches of three or four months duration have the tendency to tire the players, who have not only to bear the burden of a long and exhausting struggle, but in the periods of intermission, unavoidable in a long contest of this kind, are subject to considerable nervous strain. Nor does the chess world gain by the length of a match. What it wants to see is a nearly balanced combat in which the highest form of tactics is combined with the highest form of strategy, which is not marred by mistakes and where the wins are gained by great efforts and slight margins. The amateur values one fine game more than any number of games of lesser merit. Hence the contestants should never be required to play unless in the very best “form.” Fatigue of any kind, worry and excitement, will cause the position judgment, the fighting humor and the capacity for work of the greatest master to deteriorate. A match for the championship should therefore be played only under conditions and in an environment that set the players, bodily and mentally, at ease.

It is for this reason that the participants in the proposed match, in the article concerning the purse, appeal to the chess world. It is true that by playing the games of the match in public, so as to render access easy to the man who is only slightly acquainted with chess, and bhy charging for admission they hope to solve the vexing problem of obtaining due compensation. But a match without a prize to the winner would be unsatisfactory from every standpoint, and from a worldly view, highly speculatory. After all, a chessmaster has never yet gladdened the hearts of his heirs by leaving a large estate. Still, his works are appreciated by many thousands, yea many generations. Compilers of books derive profit out of the children of his brains. Shall such a man be without the slight rewards that bring comfort and ease? It would be an ungenerous and ungrateful world that would demand such a sacrifice. If by chance it would do more than what might be expected, the consequences of the mistake would be easy to bear by both parties.

The winner of the match will receive a purse of a thousand dollars and the remainder of the purse will be used for defraying the necessary expenses, such as hiring a suitable hall, letting the people know where and when to see the play, providing for their comfort in many ways, etc.

A chess match is after all not played for the amusement it gives to the principals, nor does it appeal to a few club members only. Why then should the large army of those who take some interest in the royal game and play it at home, be excluded from viewing the masters at work? The mere result is not an index of the complexity and the interest of the problems that have to be solved while the game is in the making. The onlooker lives the game that he who reads its score merely views it from the outside. Let therefore the rooms of play be wide open to all lovers of Caissa. Let them be attractive and a place fit for modern men to visit an stay in. The cause of chess will only benefit thereby.

This match appeals to chess players everywhere, and hence to chess players everywhere this appeal is directed. Patrons of chess live in all parts of the globe, and of chess clubs there is a goodly number. A championship match is not alone of local interest. It has a claim to the consideration of all followers of our pastime.

1. The match is to be eight (8) games up, draws not to count.

2. The first game to be played on January 4, 1907.

3. The time limit to be fifteen (15) moves an hour.

4. There shall be six (6) play days per week. No more than three (3) games shall be begun in any one (1) week, and not on consecutive days.

5. There shall be six (6) play hours per day; between one 91) p.m., and eleven (11) p.m. 6. The players shall jointly be the owner of all the games.

7. During the match, each player, by written notice to his opponent, served prior to twelve (12) o’clock noon of the regular playing day, may postpone the game to the following day, but this privilege can be used by each player no more than six (6) times.

8. Mr. Walter Shipley, to be the Treasurer.

9. In consideration of the difficulty of obtaining a backing amounting in all to four thousand ($4000.00) dollars, we hereby agree to ask Mr. Walter Shipley, No. 404 Girard Building, Philadelphia, Pa, to declare his willingness to accept contributions for a purse. Each contributor of an amount not less than ten ($10) dollars, shall have the right to witness each game of the match, he shall receive the service of the Match Journal, free of cost and a Memento.

10. In case by December 10th, it should be found that the purse falls short of one thousand ($1000.00) dollars it will be understood that there is not sufficient interest for the match, which will, therefore, be declared off.

11. In case the purse will be at least one thousand ($1000.00) dollars, each player will be bound by a forfeit, (whose amount will then be fixed) to fulfill all the conditions agreed upon by mutual consent. The winner of the match shall receive one thousand ($1000.00) dollars as a prize and the remainder of the purse shall be equally divided between the players to help in defraying their expenses.

12. Messrs. Professor I. L. Rice, Wm. P. Shipley, J. H. Watson, having kindly agreed to accept the position as referees, all points in dispute between the two contestants shall be submitted to them and their decisions shall be final and not subject to appeal.

13. In order to give all chess lovers, whether they be club members or not, an opportunity to witness the contest, the games shall be played as much as possible, in public, except to patrons. These incomes shall be equally divided between the players to defray their expenses and to furnish a purse for the loser.

14. In each city, where games of the match will be played, either of the players shall select from the patrons a second. And a committee shall be selected to declare the series begun, to decide minor points of dispute, to order the series closed and to announce where and when the next game is to take place. From the decisions of this committee an appeal to the referees shall be possible but notice of appeal must be served and the appeal must be in writing.

"I hope that you can use this information. My gift to your project."

This is not <our> project, it's as much yours as anyone else's. All cg.com members are welcome and encouraged to participate, especially members such as yourself, who generously offer vast research experience and fruit from their gigantic libraries.

You have outdone yourself. Not the first time I'll call you "invaluable" to chess history work here at cg.com, and in this case to the WCC Editing project. But you are indeed invaluable.

Fascinating, and we are especially happy to have the exact Match Conditions from a primary source. That is golden and we'll certainly use, and cite, part of the complete text in our Draft Edit for this match.

In addition, we now know precise details about the "Geza affair," which is an important part of the narrative leading up to the <Lasker-Marshall 1907> Match.

Thank you so much for dropping by with encouraging words!

<Jimmy Wales> would be very pleased by your opinion of Wikipedia. I do agree with some of your points on Wikipedia in general.

But I'm afraid that the chess history on Wiki remains in a sorry state. I found numerous errors in their current <Vladimir Petrov> article, for example- but, and this is my point- only someone doing "deep research" would have uncovered such errors. The current WCC intros here at cg.com are riddled with errors. Some of them, such as this one, are close to completely wrong: Game Collection: WCC: Euwe-Alekhine Rematch 1937. So we intend to do deep research, which is one of the reasons we're taking our time on this.

Of course most of the facts on chess Wikipedia are correct, but that's not an endorsement. Even the sloppiest of researchers, such as <GM My Typesetter Plagiarized Kasparov, not Me> can get most of his facts straight on a good day.

We never said we won't <use> Wikipedia, we're just not going to use any of the text from their chess history articles as citations for the facts we'll present in the intros. I research chess history every day on Wikipedia to check their source links, although scads of them are dead.

Some of these source links have led me to incredibly valuable resources, from primary material available online to entire books I've purchased or stolen (yes, stolen- by downloading them).

Actually my "snobby tone" about Wikipedia in the mission statement isn't borne out by my actual use of it. Hats off to Jimmy, then!

heh... so it was you in the Billiard Room with the Wrench.

Yes as you know, to date no documentation of any Doctoral Degree granted to <Johnny Alekhine> has surfaced. And it's not for want of looking either.

According to Edward Winter the earliest reference to "Dr. Alekhine" may have been in <Wiener Schachzeitung> January 1926, p. 29.

I have not seen this source though- do you have access to it?

In (chess note 437) Edward Winter also reports that both <Brian Reilly> and himself searched for evidence that Johnny got his doctoral degree, but they failed to confirm this.

<Ken Whyld> also did some looking and here's what he reports:

"Alekhine had no claim to the doctor title. He enrolled in the doctoral program, but registered only two of the four courses required. I have seen a photo-copy of his academic transcript. The title was probably 'awarded' to him by du Mont in the English translation of <My Best Chess Games 1908-1923> where the early editions featured it on the title page. Unlike the mendacious Zukertort, Alekhine did not claim the false title at first, but when it 'stuck' he would certainly have found it a help to his career."

-Fiala and Kalendovsky
"Complete Games of Alekine Vol.3"
Moravian Chess, 1993
p. 162

Here is an excerpt from a letter Johnny Alekhine wrote to Norbert Lederer dated November 2, 1924:

"...At present I am busy with editing the publication of my games collection and at the same time with the preparation for the doctoral examination at the Sorbonne... political and social sciences."

-"The Russell Collection"
Item No. 1369,
p. 64

(Cited from "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol. 3," p.187)

###########

So it seems there is some physical evidence (transcript) and anecdotal evidence that Johnny was indeed studying at the Sorbonne.

Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935

<Needing a new opponent for his next title defense <<<(and still unwilling to play Capablanca again)>>>, and with Bogolubov no longer a credible challenger in anyone's eyes, Alexander Alekhine picked a man who had lost two matches to Bogolubov, Max Euwe of The Netherlands.>

It is both disingenuous and ill-informed to state flatly that Johnny Alekhine was "still unwilling" to play Capa.

Without context and explication, this paragraph makes it seem like Johnny simply did not wish to give Capa a rematch. The truth of the matter is much less pejorative to Johnny.

<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.

3. What happened at the Match?>

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

<Karpova: So far, I could not find out how exactly the challenge of Dr. Euwe for 1935 came about.>

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

<"As early as June 1934, even before the world championship match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow had finished, Euwe had cabled Alekhine signifying his agreement to play a match for the world championship on Alekhine's terms.... One important point was that Euwe had not been a signatory to the <<<London Convention of 1922,>>> so Alekhine felt quite justified in stipulating financial conditions that were considerably easier than those he was insisting on from Capablanca.">

-Skinner and Verhoeven
"Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946"
MacFarland, 1998
p. 534

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

<"It seems... that the next match for the title will be between Dr. [sic] Alekhine and <<<Dr. Max Euwe>>> of Amsterdam, whose challenge was accepted by the former 'in principle,' pending the outcome of the match with Bogoljubow.">

-"American Chess Bulletin"
April 1934
p. 66

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

<"Euwe... stayed at home during the summer of 1933... Invitations for all kinds of tournaments and simultaneous displays kept arriving... but all were... refused. Inexplicably, one of these letters does not get an immediate reply. It is an invitation from... Alekhine: he wants to play a match against Euwe, similar to their 1927 encounter- but this time on a big passenger ship to the Dutch Indies and back... Five games on the way there, five during the return voyage. The stake: the world championship if need be... Euwe puts the offer from the World Champion aside for the moment and then forgets about it...

One evening in 1934... Euwe suddenly remembered Alekhine's letter of some months earlier... Euwe himself says of this occasion:

<<<'(...) at that point the decision had in fact been made: I would challenge Alekhine to a match for the world championship! This decision didn't happen by chance, it was preordained>>>.'>

<and still unwilling to play Capablanca again>

<"Dr. [sic] Alekhine and Dr Max Euwe... have agreed to play the next match for the title the latter part of next year...

The champion has also announced that he will be prepared, within four months of the conclusion of this engagement, to play a return match with Jose R. Capablanca udner the agreement of 1922, stipulating, however, that the amount of the purse must be guaranteed in <<<gold>>> dollars.">

-"American Chess Bulletin
May-June 1934
p. 75

(cited from
Edward Winter
"Capablanca"
MacFarland, 1989
p.234)

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

<"The September <British Chess Magazine> (pages 383-384) noted that in New York at the beginning of August Capablanca described 'Dr. [sic] Alekhine's latest statement, that the fund of $10,000 for a return match must be guaranteed in gold, as <<<'another deliberate stumbling-block'>>> in the way of a match, not justified by the London agreement of 1922.">

Just to clarify- this is the only part of the quote that is direct speech from Capa: <<<'another deliberate stumbling-block'>>>

Edward Winter
"Capablanca"
MacFarland, 1989
p.234

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

<"During the Moscow tournament in February-March 1935 Capablanca gave an interview to the <Moscow Daily News>. 'He considered Dr. [sic] Alekhine's retention of the title without a match against a serious competitor <<<unjustifiable...>>> Alekhine should, in the first instance, play the promised return-match with himself.">

-British Chess Magazine
April 1935
p. 189

(cited from
Edward Winter
"Capablanca"
MacFarland, 1989
p.234)

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

<We can add details about the failed matches that led up to the successful 1907 agreement, but at some point it seems too much detail in a short intro.>

Please don't worry about that- it's good to have a giant surplus of information from reliable sources, no down side to this. It gives us incredible depth.

We can still make use of the new information in a very concise edit.

I'm sure of it.

As I stated before, in my opinion we shouldn't make any edit longer than the longest existing intro.

Although Daniel thought I was asking him for 60K of space for each intro, and he didn't complain about it either.

LOL DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SPACE THAT IS.

I emailed him right back and told him something akin to what I just posted here: <in my opinion we're not planning to make any edit longer than the longest existing intro.>

The longer intros have more than sufficient space for what we want to say eh? And some of them are really short. That's where we can come in with valuable and interesting new information.

As I was saying over in <TheFocus> forum, Daniel has granted our forum "Dictator for life" status, so we know everything that goes in this forum stays as long as cg.com is alive. This place will become a legacy of posted chess history research.

I discovered a code pecadillo, which is why I've left the first part of your DRAFT EDIT un-italicized.

If a paragraph starts and ends with a web link, no matter what you do, everything after that will be italicized.