Happy to see you!!

With regard to Georg Rotlewi- no matter what you end up doing with the sourcing on that, it is a superb piece of chess history work.

On our present issue here, I'm not dead against the large number of small numbers, but it's nagging me that it's still not the optimal solution.

That kind of referencing is simply not done- especially not on such a brief text.

There's a reason why it's not done. Also, I have a feeling Daniel would prefer a method that doesn't have a number reference after almost every sentence in the intros.

I would prefer a method that avoided that as well. People shouldn't feel that they are reading a scientific paper when they read our intros. I understand that <crawfb5's> intro is indeed written in a concise and lively style- excellent and entertaining writing for the chess history buff or even casual reader. But the numbers after every sentence- it gives a cosmetic feel of "in your face pedantry" that might turn people off.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's possible to be too pedantic about chess history itself. We need to know our information is properly sourced, and we need to be able to prove that in the notes/sources section of our edits.

Regarding your post in my forum:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Capablanca’s Reply to Lasker> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929

<Seven Alekhine Articles> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

If I find more, i will post them here.

An alternative would be to have nothing in the text and list sources. However, then you either have to detail why the source is a source or leave the diligent reader to dig into your sources to find out what's sourced to what. I think that's sacrificing a bit too much for a small increase in readability.

a) to put the <Dr.> ahead of <Emanuel Lasker> the first time he is mentioned

b) Capitalize <World Champion> and <Tournament> and so on, if referring to specific events or persons

c) Perhaps add the country to a city (like New York City, NY, USA or Montreal, CA)

d) Maroczy is wongly spelled Macrozy 2 times.

I have just created a mirror edit collection and added your complaint here:

Game Collection: WCC: Karpov vs Kamsky FIDE Championship 1996

Question for <Tabanus> and other colleagues-

Does anyone have the correct round numbers for these games?

Second question-

<Site should be "Elista RUS".>

We editors don't have direct editing access to the game site fields.

When we eventually edit this page and submit it in html format, I wonder if we will be able to change the site field ourselves in that way?

At any rate, we certainly can ask Daniel to do it once we get this one done.

Optically the last paragraph is too long. I would start a new paragraph at "Lasker had planned a 1904 match..."

"In late 1904, Marshall was then able to propose terms..." seems wordy. How about "Marshall proposed terms..."

"taken more seriously by Lasker, although negotiations eventually broke down." Having the reasons for the breakdown would parallel the failed 1903 proposal.

"Marshall was then finally able to successfully negotiate terms with Lasker nearly identical..." feels a bit clumsy to me and should include the year the agreement was reached. Maybe "In 1906, Marshall successfully negotiated terms..." Also start a new paragraph here.

We'll take all suggestions under serious advisement when we do compose the final.

Latest draft should come in tomorrow, or the next day- As I say, <Big> is tight for time at the moment.

<Optically the last paragraph is too long. I would start a new paragraph at "Lasker had planned a 1904 match...">

I'm going to leave that as originally written.

<"In late 1904, Marshall was then able to propose terms..." seems wordy. How about "Marshall proposed terms...">

This isn't just a style issue, it's an issue of missing content which I think you have astutely sensed.

I agree that:

<"Marshall proposed terms">

is clearly better style than

<"Marshall was then able to propose terms">

But I think there is missing content implied by the "was then able"- something changed between 1903 and 1904 that enabled Marshall to make an offer more acceptable to Lasker.

This is directly on point with your next edit suggestion:

<"In late 1904, Marshall was then able to propose terms that were taken more seriously by Lasker, although negotiations eventually broke down." Having the reasons for the breakdown would parallel the failed 1903 proposal.>

I have asked <crawfb5> to flesh out what appears to be missing, which is extra information that would make the logic of the negotiation narrative clearer.

<crawfb5> has generously agreed to revisit his sources and look for this information, but at the end of the day we may have to face the possibility that he may not be able to find that information. If he can't find it, we will have to "edit around" the problem.

<"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." New paragraph. Break it up into two sentences. "Marshall was more successful in tournament than match play. The Lasker match was a disaster for him as he failed to win a single game.">

This here is actually the newest draft:

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

This draft is <NOT THE ONE WE ARE WAITING FOR to> see if <crawfb5> can find the information <Tim> and I have requested. We will have to wait for <crawf> to get back to us before posting a further revised draft.

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

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

<Lasker vs Marshall 1907

New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis

Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth 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

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 for a championship match with Géza Maróczy in 1906, but Maróczy 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 Maróczy 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.

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

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

3Wiener Schachzeitung, 1904, page 364.

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

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

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

7New York Daily Tribune, 10/28/1906, page 12.

Game Collection: WCC Kramnik-Topalov FIDE Championship 2006

I have added your EDIT information:

<After defeating Gata Kamsky in the eight-game challenger match, Bulgarian grandmaster Veselin Topalov once again found himself preparing for a World Championship title match.>

"once again found himself preparing" is really awkward.

<The match was grueling and dynamic>

When you think of it, please supply a suggestion to change <"once again found himself preparing">?

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

<The match was grueling and dynamic>

What about cutting the <with five decisive games,> as well?

Leaving this:

Although I have posted our most recent draft of Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907,

<But I think there is missing content implied by the "was then able"- something changed between 1903 and 1904 that enabled Marshall to make an offer more acceptable to Lasker.>

One of the possible changes may have been his tournament successes. On page 75 of the 1905 'Wiener Schachzeitung' he is quoted <Ich hoffe, in Europa Leistungen zu vollbringen, welche mich berechtigen, Sie auch ohne Kampf als geschlagen zu betrachten.>* from an open letter to Dr. Lasker prior to his departure from New York (apparently for his 1905 match against Janowski).

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

Thanks for that additional insight and information- it seems quite revealing and on point.

I'll put it in the mirror now.

Here is a draft edit for Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934

You can view it right at the top of the page, and here it is in the forum:

<Alekhine vs Bogoljubov 1934

Baden Baden, Villingen, Freiberg, Pforzheim, Stuttgart, Munich, Bayreuth, Kissengen, Nuremberg, Karlsruhe, Mannheim, Berlin

In the years since the Alekhine-Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929), a new generation of strong players had emerged, including Salomon Flohr of Czechoslovakia, Isaac Kashdan of the United States, Max Euwe of the Netherlands, Andre Lilienthal of Hungary, Mir Sultan Khan of India, and Mikhail Botvinnik of the USSR. In addition, the former world champion Jose Raul Capablanca was still trying to arrange a rematch for the title.

In the fall of 1933 both Capablanca and Alekhine were in the United States, but the champion reported that he was "indisposed" to discuss a rematch with the Cuban. The British Chess Magazine speculated that "the financial situation" was the main obstacle to setting a date.1 Alekhine insisted that a rematch conform to the exact conditions of the "London Rules," most saliently the challenger's responsibility to guarantee a $10,000 dollar purse. At present, Capablanca could not arrange the funds.

Given longstanding hopes of an Alekhine-Capablanca rematch, and the wealth of new chess talent, it came as something of a surprise when Alekhine accepted Bogoljubov's challenge to a second match, to be played under identical conditions as their first. Notably, these conditions did not conform to the "London Rules" financial stipulations. Bogoljubov had arranged a purse of $6,800 to be paid Alekhine should he win, and $5000 should he lose.2 There could be up to 30 games, but the winner had to score at least 6 wins and 15 1/2 points, meaning that there was also a necessary minimum number of games to be played.3 Games 1-3 were played in Baden Baden, 4-5 in Villingen, 6-8 in Freiberg, 9-10 in Pforzheim, 11-12 in Stuttgart, 13-15 in Munich, 16 in Bayreuth, 17-18 in Kissingen, 19-20 in Nuremberg, 21 in Karlsruhe, 22-24 in Mannheim, and 25-26 in Berlin.4

In the spring of 1934 Alekhine reported that he was aware he had a hard task ahead of him, but he felt confident. According to The Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, "the prevailing opinion of the chess world suggests that ...Alekhine will retain the WC title. The people's expectations to see substantial and exciting games will surely be met."5 The British Chess Magazine seemed somewhat less optimistic about the potential quality of the match, predicting that "With all deference to Bogoljubow's chess strength, it is difficult to imagine him testing the holder to the utmost."6

By game 17, with the champion leading 11-6, the match was all but over, and Alekhine coasted home to an easy victory. The American Chess Bulletin promptly declared the result "wholly in accordance with general expectations."7 Three years later, in an annotation he wrote to game 4 of the match, Alekhine disparaged the lack of quality in both his own and Bogoljubov's play: :

"This game – more than any other – proves how useless from the sporting point of view was the arrangement of this second match, and at the same time explains my indifferent play on a number of occasions."8

1 British Chess Magazine, October 1933, page 423.

2 Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946, Skinner and Verhoeven, McFarland 1998, page 364

3 Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, 1934, page 96

4 Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946, Skinner and Verhoeven, McFarland 1998, page 490.

5 Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, April 1934, page 97.

6 British Chess Magazine, April 1934, page 152

7 American Chess Bulletin, May-June 1934, page75.

8 My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937, Alexander Alekhine, Dover 1995, page 187.>