<Karpova> in the example you give, you can see that the <offset> text is a direct quotation without using quotation marks.

Daniel has done this for lengthy quotations, of which there are far too many in his intros to be frank.

Interestingly, you can see <internal ""> marks inside the direct quotation as well.

As far as additional ways of changing the font, we'll have to wait to see what <crawfb5> can figure out, since he is making great strides in becoming an "html" wizard.

In addition, Daniel is actually a computer programmer, and if we make some specific requests for him to write us some new code for new font features, he might well help us too.

<Admin manual> Don't forget Daniel has the TOP SECRET REAL MANUAL eh? lol

I feel I should say something though- sometimes simple and clean is better than too many bells and whistles? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Daniel actually used that exact phrase in his last email to me about the code, "bells and whistles."

I am encouraged though by <crawfb5's> mention that he doesn't think there will be any problem with italicizing books/magazine/newspaper titles in the bodies of the intros.

*That* I think is really important and I'm glad you brought it up a few days ago.

Getting back to biting the hand that feeds us, one of the worst things about the existing intros is how obvious it is that they were quickly and sloppily put together.

An intro that is more than 50% one quotation from one source- like this one- Petrosian-Spassky World Championship Rematch (1969)- is by definition a lazy and terrible intro. Like the kind of "essay" you might "write" at 4 in the morning just a few hours before it was due for the high school history teacher.

Much better to find just the most relevant parts of a quotation and weave them into the fabric of the narrative.

That takes time and a lot of work.

That's where we come in, and Daniel has generously given us a lot of time to do this.

I would switch these paragraphs:

(1) <The match was held from April 1 to June 14, 1937 in Baden-Baden (games 1-3), Villingen (games 4-5), Freiburg (games 6-8), Pforzheim (games 9-10), Stuttgart (games 11-12), Munich (games 13-15), Bayreuth (game 16), Bad Kissingen (games 17-18), Nuremberg (games 19-20), Karlsruhe (game 21), Mannheim (games 22-24), and Berlin (games 25-26).6>

(2) <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."7 The British Chess Magazine predicted that "With all deference to Bogoljubow's chess strength, it is difficult to imagine him testing the holder to the utmost."8>

As (2) still delas with the match predictions, while (1) already indicates the start of the match and also fits better to the following one (<By game 17...>).

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

<Footnotes:
I would more clearly distinguish them from the text, in brackets (1) and either italicized [[(1)]] or italicized and smaller font [(1)] (preferrred).

Sources: Space between the number and the magazine>

You're not actually looking at the "real format" there- that seems to be the easiest way to write the drafts so it will go in the html code and then produce the properly formatted notes.

As I mentioned before, <crawfb5> thinks there will be no problem in figuring out a way to give us a "sneak peek" at our drafts in html format. We just have to be a little patient; he is working around the clock. And the work he is doing right now is absolutely crucial.

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

<If you want he month, then <5Wiener Schachzeitung, 1904, page 364.> was the December issue.>

Thanks, I put the month in.

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

<<Washington, DC (Game 9), Baltimore (Game 10), and Memphis (Games 12-14).>

No comma before <and>>

That's an optional call, as both are actually correct. I'm going to leave it as is. I think in a long sentence full of parentheses, the extra comma is visually helpful.

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

<In general, no capitalization of terms like <Champion>, <World Champion> or, if referring to specific ones, <Match> and <Tournament>?

Even more nitpicking: No country abbreviations for cities? E. g. there are communities in France called Montreal.>

Yes, we are going to go for the more modern "almost no capitalization" standard, on the grounds that such capitalization as we (including me) were earlier advocating is already anachronistic.

Examples like "Montreal, France" are not crucial because almost nobody's ever heard of such places. Visual aesthetics is more important, people can google the city names if they don't know them.

We will follow the original WCC intro convention (although it's a bit inconsistent) of not including the country name of cities.

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

<Nardus has his own player page: Leo Nardus>

<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. >

I know I am in love with commas, but I'd prefer one after "tournament".

<Marshall, who was in England at the time, stipulated that the match should be played for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year.>

Why was he in England? I think that sentence could be broken up, with the answer to the question included, eg, "Marshall was in England for ________. He proposed that the match should be played for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year."

<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.>

Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934

<I would switch these paragraphs:

(1) <The match was held from April 1 to June 14, 1937 in Baden-Baden (games 1-3), Villingen (games 4-5), Freiburg (games 6-8), Pforzheim (games 9-10), Stuttgart (games 11-12), Munich (games 13-15), Bayreuth (game 16), Bad Kissingen (games 17-18), Nuremberg (games 19-20), Karlsruhe (game 21), Mannheim (games 22-24), and Berlin (games 25-26).6>

(2) <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."7 The British Chess Magazine predicted that "With all deference to Bogoljubow's chess strength, it is difficult to imagine him testing the holder to the utmost."8>>

Yes! Much, much better your way, thank you. Changed.

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

<Furthermore, we should keep in mind that not everyone knows where cities like Villingen or Pforzheim are located, so maybe <The match took place in Germany and was held from April 1 to June 14, 1937 in Baden-Baden (games 1-3...>>

Also excellent idea, done.

"Elista Diaries. Karpov-Kamsky 1996" by Anatoly Karpov & Ron Henley (R & D Publishing, Manasquan, 333 pp.)

and filled out the round numbers (the site field number is correct) and dates (which were previously in January! but were every other day from June 6 till July 10).

Three games have incorrect (according to the book) scores: Rd. 1: Add the sealed move 57.Bd5, Rd. 3: Add 50.Ra6+, and Rd. 15: Delete move 42 (last move 41...Qe1+).

The book has incorrectly July 28 for both rd. 12 and 13. I put July 30 for rd. 13.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

<<At the age of 27, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. >

I know I am in love with commas, but I'd prefer one after "tournament".>

I'm going to leave that one as is.

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

<<Marshall, who was in England at the time, stipulated that the match should be played for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year.>

Why was he in England? I think that sentence could be broken up, with the answer to the question included, eg, "Marshall was in England for ________. He proposed that the match should be played for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year.">

It's not relevant enough to the narrative to say- or find out for that matter- why Marshall was in England at this time. The relevance lies in the fact that Marshall was dictating terms according to his own convenience, which understandably miffed Lasker.

I'll leave the sentence as is, except I'm replacing "stipulated" with "proposed"- much better word choice, thank you.

"proposed" is better than "stipulated" because it has a more neutral connotation. We should always be striving to present the facts and let the reader draw her own inferences. "Stipulated" is biased rhetoric here on my part, it leads the reader towards the idea that Marshall was dictating terms. He was, but I don't need to use the more loaded word choice- "stipulated"- to present this case.

A subtle and excellent edit, <Ohio>. This is why they pay you the big money.

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

<<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.>

I still don't like this sentence. At all.>

Hmmm yes I also think it should be re-written, at least so that "Marshall" is only said once in the sentence.

Now that you put <5Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1904, page 364.> in Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

You may want to change

<5Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, 1934, page 96> from Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 to <5Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, April 1934, page 96>

Proposal:

Done.

This is proving kind of helpful, albeit absolutely maddening to me for the last three hours, to have two Draft Edits on the table at the same time.

Earlier I was also looking at them side by side for consistency- that's why I changed my "venue list" to match the same form <crawfb5> used.

Ok so please remember!

We always put the month in on <Neue Wiener Schachzeitung> right?

I was just about to ask you if you had a suggestion to improve that sentence, and here you are doing it already.

<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, yet the Lasker match was still a disaster for him as he failed to win (even) a single game.>

Using "yet" here reverses the meaning of the sentence.

<I know this one has been batted around, but I don't like it. I can't quite explain why, but let me meander through it:

I don't like the failure of the word "and" to connect 2 similar thoughts. The first clause makes a statement that is a fairly common characteristic of chess players, and describes a generally true statement about Marshall's career. The second clause describes a "disaster", a particularly extreme example of the tournament vs. match play issue mentioned in the first sentence. Therefore, I think the sentence needs more of a connection than the simple "and". Here's a first try with 3 missing words, and even at that I'm not totally thrilled with it:

Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, and the Lasker match was a(n) (1)______ (2)_________ (3)________ of that. It was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.

Mix and match ideas:
1. especially particularly typically

2. glaring frustrating galling irritating vexing

3. example demonstration display>

Since then, I've come up with the possible configuration "...the Lasker match was a prime example of that. It was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game."

Here is the issue <Ohio> has with the sentence, and it's not a simple issue.

From the "Ohio's Mouth."

Or, from the "Mouth of the Ohio River," if you enjoy more poetic prose:

<<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. >

I know this one has been batted around, but I don't like it. I can't quite explain why, but let me meander through it:

I don't like the failure of the word "and" to connect 2 similar thoughts. The first clause makes a statement that is a fairly common characteristic of chess players, and describes a generally true statement about Marshall's career. The second clause describes a "disaster", a particularly extreme example of the tournament vs. match play issue mentioned in the first sentence. Therefore, I think the sentence needs more of a connection than the simple "and". Here's a first try with 3 missing words, and even at that I'm not totally thrilled with it:

Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, and the Lasker match was a(n) (1)______ (2)_________ (3)________ of that. It was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.

Mix and match ideas:
1. especially particularly typically

2. glaring frustrating galling irritating vexing

I did remember your post, but it didn't supply an actual alternative sentence we could try.

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

<Since then, I've come up with the possible configuration "...the Lasker match was a prime example of that. It was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game."

"prime example" is a bit colloquial, but everything else seems to go too far the other way and sound overly stilted.>

I don't like "prime example" at all sir.

Let me re-read your prior theoretical post and think on it- in the mean time, by all means keep spitballing sentence ideas.

I was not sure if <yet> would work, what I meant to convey was that

Marshall was better at tournament than match play

The Lasker match was bad even for his own standards though

Now the question is what kind of information you want to express:

1) Did Marshall fare worse than expected, even though the expectations were low to begin with

If you feel it does belong there, my suggestion would be something on the lines of...

Aha I have you exactly now.

As written, it could be either (1) *or* (2).

<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.>

Almost all <Marshall's> matches were disasters.

It's not editorializing to say that "The Hindenburg crash was a disaster."

<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, and the [Lasker/world championship] match was a disaster for him, as he failed to win (even) a single game.>

I can't see any real difference between what you wrote here and what <crawfb5> wrote?

Ah ok your sentence is smoother.

Actually I like your sentence. Here is an alternative version of it:

<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, and the match was a disaster for him. He failed to win a single game.>

<Almost all <Marshall's> matches were disasters.>

This one is more accurate to the historical facts, I think:

What's our source for this statement?

You know I have two Lasker "biographies" and neither one of them has such a list.

<chessmetrics> is not adequate to this task, it has too many missing events in it.

We may need to call in <Phony Benoni> for his <Gaige> eh?

I think he has a full set of <Gaige.>

Here's the version of the claim from the original intro: