I've been moving to a new school so I've had less time than normal.

I've seen that originally, the WCC history pages called every 2nd match between the same players for the WC title a rematch and I think that it's good if we drop that habit (except for, when it was actually announced as such - was it ever?).

Here is the standard I created in the mirror collections about a month ago:

1. Only previously contracted 2d encounters are called rematches. This includes the Alekhine-Euwe rematch and the contractually obligated Botvinnik-NN matches.

2. All other 2d or more encounters are called return matches.

Also, if you look carefully at the wording of the actual existing WCC matches, they don't even follow the pattern you describe.

It appears to be totally random which events they call "rematches" or "return matches."

However, I'm glad you raised this point again, although it's already been asked and answered previously in our forum here, because you've prompted me to think of a new question.

Question: Do we need to label "return matches" at all?

What I mean is, we must label contractual rematches as "rematches," because that was part of the actual previous match conditions.

But in the case of other 2d encounters, is it necessary to call these "return matches" at all? Maybe these matches don't need any kind of extra label.

Yes. The contract for the first Alekhine-Euwe match included the right of the loser to a rematch within 2 years.

The contract for Botvinnik's matches with Smyslov and Tal explicitly gave the sitting champion the right to a rematch if he had lost.

I think maybe some other matches after these had contractual rematches in the conditions too, but I don't want to speculate without a book in my hand.

Thanks for your answer! I had seen that you followed the new pattern in the mirrors, but I just wanted to bring this point to attention again, although I agree with you on this point.

I would say that these 2nd matches need no special labeling as <2nd match> or <return match> at all, when the 1st match didn't lead to a change of the title holder.

After all, these are then just "regular" WC matches and it's in a way "coincidental" (if there is no contract for a rematch) that the same 2 players meet again. So, Dr. Euwe had to face Alekhine in his 1st title defence, while the challenger to Alekhine could have been someone else than Bogoljubov, had the demands been met.

Your 2nd post raises an interesting question also. Originally, I meant with the question those <return matches> and not the rematches, whether one of them was labeled ever as a rematch officially (my post is probably a bit confusing since I asked that question before going into detail about the <return matches>).

Now my question is this:

In this post WCC Editing Project chessforum you said that <Non-contractual "rematches" should be labeled "return matches," as here>.

So the label <rematch> should only be used if there was a contract for such a match. And not in case of the wider use of the term <rematch>, when the previous WC gets another shot at his successor (so that there couldn't have been a Capablanca - Alekhine <rematch>, but only a <return match>)?

My own opinion is that we don't need to make any special designation for a simple "return match." However, if folks did want to use "return match" as a designation for non-contractual rematches, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

With respect to the second question you raise:

<What is other people's opinion? Designation <rematch> if contractually obligated or in every case the predecessor gets to play his successor?>

I favor using "rematch" only for matches that were contractually stipulated in the original match.

If we extend the meaning of "rematch" further, I think it muddies this explicitly legal characteristic, to the extent that another term should be used-

"non contractual rematch" for example.

Such a phrase seems unwieldy and unnecessary.

Well it's only been a few minutes and despite what I just said, I am already losing sleep over this.

I changed my mind, I agree with you that we shouldn't use "return match" at all, not just because it's unnecessary, but also because it could cause confusion by implying an inaccurate state of affairs.

As <Karpova> wrote, <the challenger to Alekhine could have been someone else than Bogoljubov, had the demands been met.>

All edits, suggestions and new materials have now been logged into their respective mirror collections. We are up to date.

<Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but grew up in Montreal. Returning to the United States as a young man, he rapidly rose to the top of American chess.>

Anything more specific than "young man" would be welcome. "Early 20's" "Mid 20's", whatever it was.

<Capablanca, having felt robbed of his chance to win the title in the traditional fashion, convinced Lasker to play, but Lasker did so only on condition that his resignation be accepted, and he be regarded as the challenger. Lasker's resignation was not widely recognized at the time, nor today, therefore this match is generally regarded as the one in which the title changed hands.>

<crawfb5> is currently working on a final draft for Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907.

The point at which the status quo of the intro is really reflected in the mirror is the point at which a draft is considered finished. The collection of reliable and properly sourced information is much more important than any other consideration at the moment.

I've been speaking with Daniel and he's ok with our goal to finish within one year. This shouldn't be considered license to be lazy, but it should be considered an acknowledgment that we have a chance here to do the real work to create the first accurate history of the WCC ever to be put on the internet. With all due respect, those created by <Cree> or <Mark Weeks> or <wikipedia> or anyone else to date simply don't cut it by even the grossest of actual academic standards. Put more flatly, they don't *have* any academic standards, and therefore it's no surprise that they are not accurate enough to be considered historical documents.

We aspire to an academic standard and that's what we'll achieve, too, I have no doubt about it.

That said, you are correct. We do need to push on with drafts or we'll never finish. I am currently working here Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 on a final edit for an intro which will be completed this weekend.

As we discussed previously over at your place, you are super encouraged to create an edit draft at any time. That would be super excellent. Also great, I should add, since I seem to be quoting the <Reggie Perrin> show here.

One more thing- all of the style edits you or <Tim> have made so far will be retained in any final draft edit, unless that actual section itself is discarded, which may happen in some cases.

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

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Capablanca felt robbed of his chance to win the title in the traditional fashion and convinced Lasker to play a match. Lasker agreed, with the condition that his resignation of the title be accepted and he would be considered the challenger. Lasker's resignation was not widely recognized at the time, nor today, and therefore this match is generally regarded as the point at which the title changed hands.>

Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but grew up in Montreal. He returned to New York City as a young man of 15 and was described as being “...of considerable promise, whose reputation has preceded his arrival here.” [1] He rapidly rose to the top of American chess.

In 1904 at the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. This was the first time Lasker had finished lower than first since Hastings (1895).

Marshall began his first round of negotiations with Lasker for a world championship match in 1903. Lasker deemed Marshall's conditions inadequate and did not take the proposal seriously. He wrote to Walter Penn Shipley, “The challenge was from beginning to end unacceptable.” [2] As with other world championship matches, funding, possible matches with other challengers, and other issues presented obstacles. Lasker had planned a 1904 match with Siegbert Tarrasch that was postponed because of the latter's skating accident. [3] In late 1904, Marshall was then able to propose terms that were taken more seriously by Lasker, although negotiations eventually broke down. [4] Lasker signed terms with Geza Maroczy in 1906, but Macrozy failed to make his cash deposit by the deadline and was considered in default. [5] Marshall was then finally able to successfully negotiate terms with Lasker nearly identical to those of the Macrozy match. The notable exception was a purse of $1000 raised by Shipley instead of stakes of $2000 per side. [6] The time control was 15 moves per hour and no more than three games were played per week, with eight wins required to win the match. [7] The match was held from January 26 to April 8, 1907 in the cities of New York (Games 1-6 and 15), Philadelphia (Games 7 and 8), Washington, DC (Game 9), Baltimore (Game 10), and Memphis (Games 12-14). Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, and the Lasker match was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.

[1] Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1/9/1896, page 10.

[2] Hilbert, J. S. Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphia's Friend of Chess, 2003, page 255.

[3] Wiener Schachzeitung, 1904, page 364.

[4] American Chess Bulletin, January 1905, pages 1-2.

[5] Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 10/28/1906, page 9.

[6] American Chess Bulletin, December 1906, pages 237-238.

A few points- I'll have to talk to Daniel again but I think he needs to adjust his source code to accommodate hyperlinked names of players and tournaments in the new intros. I'm sure he'll be able to do this.

Second point- We need to decide on a consistent method of source documentation and footnoting.

At issue: Do we want to footnote a source for every single discrete piece of information, as <crawfb5> has just done for his new Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 draft- or do we want to follow a modified MLA format and footnote only <direct quotations> from sources, and then after the footnotes, list <sources> separately?

<footnoting everything>

Pros: Makes it easy, or at least possible, for anyone to dig up the corresponding source for every fact in the intro.

Cons: Poor "readability" issue? What I mean is, one of the reasons for the MLA style is so readers won't be "interrupted" by a footnote after every paragraph or even every sentence.

Personally I favor a modified MLA format.

The "modification" I have in mind is this: in MLA style, normally the sources are just listed, usually without page numbers in the case of full length books.

But in our short intros, I think we should add the exact page numbers to all the materials in our sources section, including books.

Opinions?

We should decide these things sooner than later, because we are going to make a "real life" test edit in the very near future. We are going to change an actual existing WCC page.

So before we actually change one of the pages, we want our standard for these and any other issues you can think of to be consistent across all the intros.

<Finally> I should add, that following majority opinion of the most active of the WCC editors, we are going to change the plan.

We will not submit an "omnibus file" of all finished edits.

In the mean time, here is an example of what I mean- Vladimir Petrov

<Notes

(1) The NKVD (Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs) was a predecessor of the KGB.

(2) Galina Petrov-Mathis <Star Extinguished Before its Time> Riga, 2008

(3) Galina Petrov-Mathis <Star Extinguished Before its Time> Riga, 2008

(4) At Rostov-on-Don 1941, the USSR Championship semifinal was organized into four separate sections. When the tournament abruptly ended, Petrov sat second in his section, a half point behind Tolush.

(5) Alexei Shirov, with Sergey Voronkov and Vladimir Dedkov <"Restoring the Annals of Latvian Chess History"> http://chess-news.ru/node/5341

Sources

Andris Fride <Vladimirs Petrovs: A Chessplayer's Story - From Greatness to the Gulags>, Caissa Editions, 2004.

Galina Petrov-Mathis <Star Extinguished Before its Time> Riga, 2008

Sergey Grodzensky <The Lubyanka Gambit>, Olympia Press, Moscow 2004

Alexei Shirov, with Sergey Voronkov and Vladimir Dedkov <"Restoring the Annals of Latvian Chess History"> http://chess-news.ru/node/5341>

The <sources> section should actually be alphabetized by the last name of the author.

The "modification" I'm speaking of is to add the exact pages, and page ranges, from the books.

So, for example,

Fride, Andris. <Vladimirs Petrovs: A Chessplayer's Story - From Greatness to the Gulags> Caissa Editions, 2004. Pp. 12-14, 33-40, 44-46.

Do we need to put the exact page numbers in a book source like this?

Maybe we don't need to. Might be good to force readers of our intros to read the entire book to get the info we found.

heh.

At any rate, we do have to figure this out before we send in a final draft of a collection to <Daniel>. He has specifically asked us to formalize a consistent method of footnoting and sourcing and to email him an example.

Thank you! In your example of Petrov, there are no direct quotations footnoted.

But you suggest to only footnote these directly, to form an equivalent to the Petrov's <Notes> section for direct quotations?

While all other info should be sourced like the <Sources> section in Petrov's biography?

<The "modification" I'm speaking of is to add the exact pages, and page ranges, from the books.

So, for example,

Fride, Andris. <Vladimirs Petrovs: A Chessplayer's Story - From Greatness to the Gulags> Caissa Editions, 2004. Pp. 12-14, 33-40, 44-46.>>

<If these sources are only added at the end and not referenced in the text, the page numbers seem mostly useless as the reader won't know what information from the text he will find on any of the pages from the book.>

Yep that's right. I guess that's why MLA format doesn't put the exact page numbers in the sources section.

Also, right again about the Petrovs footnotes. In MLA convention other information than direct quotations can also be footnoted.

I should add that the <notes> section of the Petrovs bio looks stranger than it should, because the web source in one note has no page numbers.

In addition, the software program I used to convert the Russian book by <Galina Petrovs> from a PDF to a word file, so that I could translate it with the Google translator, renders the original pagination useless.

In short, after I convert a book from PDF to word file the page numbers can no longer be recorded.

Hopefully new technologies will solve this problem. Particularly an improved code for the <Adobe Reader X> (paid version) that I use for PDF-word conversions.

Anyways normally the "notes" section would have exact page numbers for each numbered note, instead of <NO PAGE NUMBERS> as in the Petrovs bio.

(weeps) I didn't have access to any page numbers for the information I sourced in the <Notes> section! (buries face in hands)

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

You know, at the risk of waffling, I'm now thinking that the way <crawfb5> just sourced his new <Lasker-Marshall> draft might be the simplest and most powerful way to convey where our information comes from.

Is there a "readability problem" in his draft? I'm wondering about this. Would it be annoying for a reader to see so many numbered notes in the body of the bio?

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

<Karpova> I should note on an only somewhat related topic that I don't think you have succeeded in your effort to combine the "footnotes" and "sources" conventions in your Rotlewi bio (which is excellent, btw):

Georg Rotlewi

Footnotes need to follow an arithmetical order in the footnotes section. The way you have it now, the reader has to look around and "hunt down" the actual numbers in the "sources" section.

I think you should think of a way to solve this problem:

<Sources

From the Wiener Schachzeitung: (1) Page 271, 1911; (5) Page 337, 1910; (9) Pages 179-180, 1908; (11) Page 379, 1911; (12) Pages 237-238, 1911; (13) Page 113, 1912; (15) Page 316, 1909; (16) Page 40, 1911

(3) Hamburg, Germany,Passenger List

(4) H Helms, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1911.10.12, page 2

(2) & (14) C.N. 5207, quoting pages 101 to 108 (2) & 106 (14) of Volume 5 of T Wolsza; Arcymistrzowie, mistrzowie, amatorzy...; 2007; Warsaw, Poland - Edward Winter's http://www.chesshistory.com/]

From J Donaldson & N Minev, The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein - Volume 1: Uncrowned King, 2nd edition, 2006, Russell Enterprises, Inc., Milford, CT, USA: (6) Page 74; (7) Page 77; (8) Page 120; (10) Pages 214-215>

Here, in what you label the "sources" section, the notes should follow arithmetical order, like this:

1

2

3

and so on.

There currently exists no sourcing convention in history that doesn't list numbered notes in arithmetical order. Except for the one you just invented!

I like the hyperlinks myself a fair bit, and I was pleased when I first noticed them in the intros to the old tournament games collections.

I disagree that they are a distraction. I doubt anyone feels compelled to click on one and then feel shock if they are suddenly navigated away from the page.

Aesthetically, I really like the Blue on the page and the option to have a look if you want.

I often "right click open in new tab" on them to have them up as a handy reference, expanding my options and personalized control of my reading experience of the intro. Sometimes I go back and forth between the tabs to check something or other.

That said, we can vote on it. Not to mention first we have to see if Daniel can actually write the code.

I think we should present Daniel with the hyperlinks so that if he can make a code for them, then we have that option if we want it.

At any rate, the most important thing now is to complete a test edit.

I think <crawfb5's> is ready to go and I'll have another by the end of Saturday, so not long before we're up and running.

Галина Петрова-Матиса

Should be <Galina Petrova-Mathis>.

<Is there a "readability problem" in his draft? I'm wondering about this. Would it be annoying for a reader to see so many numbered notes in the body of the bio?>

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with the small numbers in the text. If it was okay for you and the others, we could leave it as <crawfb5> had in his draft. But perhaps you want to wait for the decision until after you provided an example for your style.

Also, the hyperlinks are no prblem for me and I consider them a nice convenience, after all the reader can have a quick look if he wants.

Also, the reader should have gotten used to the blue hyperlinks, while the small footnote numbers can be easily ignored if so wished.