< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-09-13 | | Karpova: We should not forget that Marshall won Janowski vs. Marshall, Match 2 (1905) and his opponent was cherry-picked by the great Dr. Emanuel Lasker himself for a WC match! If you are okay with <but>, so am I. Yet, maybe something like <nonetheless> or <however> could be fitting also, to make clear that the result was not contradicting the first statement and was yet worse than expected. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: Well <chessmetrics> "confirms" the claim. Unfortunately, <chessmetrics> is not <reliable primary material>, it can only be used as a guide for further research. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WCC Editing Project: I can't see any real difference between what you wrote here and what <crawfb5> wrote? Ah ok your sentence is smoother.>
As far as I can see, the reason the original doesn't flow smoothly is the repetition of "Marshall", and my version solves that problem. So, of course, do most of the other proposals here. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> hehe yes I retracted my outrageous claim. What do you think about "disaster"?
<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, but the Lasker match proved an unmitigated disaster. He failed to win a single game.> "however" is weaker than "but" for a reversal.
"nonetheless" is best, but it doesn't flow well in the sentence: <Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, nonetheless the Lasker match proved an unmitigated disaster. He failed to win a single game.> Normally you want to start a sentence with "nonetheless." What about this:
<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play. Nonetheless, the Lasker match proved an unmitigated disaster; he failed to win a single game.> |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: Ok I just put this in the actual mirror edit:
<Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, but this match was truly a disaster for him. He failed to win a single game.> I'm going to leave it like that for now, but please don't hesitate to post more versions. <Switch> I put a call in to <Phony Benoni>. Maybe he will help us with the truth claim in question. |
|
Sep-09-13 | | Karpova: At least http://www.edochess.ca/players/p485... confirms it, which is more reliable than chessmetrics. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | OhioChessFan: <Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, but this match was truly a disaster for him. He failed to win a single game.> Maybe the first clause should be approached from the same direction as the second clause, that is, in reference to the poor performance in match play, eg Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but ____________ |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | OhioChessFan: Maybe: Marshall usually(typically?) fared worse in match play than tournaments, but this match was truly a disaster for him. He failed to win a single game. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | OhioChessFan: I don't have a problem at all with the repetition of "Marshall" especially if it's in two sentences. My problem is with the transition between the first clause and the second. "more successful" to "disaster" demands more of a transition than "and" IMHO. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> you are brilliant. <EDO Site> is the kind of resource we are aspiring to become. Their book references for the <Lasker> page, including <Gaige>: <References
Books
Cornil, Le Café de la Régence, page 245
Feenstra Kuiper, 100 Jahre Schachturniere, page 268, 302
Feenstra Kuiper, 100 Jahre Schachzweikämpfe, page 85
Forster, Amos Burn, page 350, 962
Gaige, Chess Personalia, page 240
Golombek, Golombek's Encyclopedia, page 172
Hannak, Emanuel Lasker
Hilbert, Napier, page 198
Hooper and Whyld, Oxford Companion (1st ed.), page 178
Hooper and Whyld, Oxford Companion (2nd ed.), page 217
Reichhelm and Shipley, Chess in Philadelphia, page 18> I added it to the mirror now:
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: I still think it should be one sentence, not two. And I'm not particularly fond of "truly"... |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
I like one of your suggestions quite a bit better than what I put in there- <Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but> I added a "truly" for more emphasis of the point.
Here's what it says now:
<Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but the Lasker match was truly a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.> |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Switch> hmmm how *do* you do that... Ok I'll cut out the truly.
Here's what it says now:
<Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but the Lasker match was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.> |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Steamed Oysters on the Half Shell> I will now attempt an edit draft for Game Collection: WCC: Capablanca-Alekhine 1927. If you have time, please take a look at what's there at the moment, and if you have access to any good information from primary sources, please post it here in the forum when you can. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | OhioChessFan: <Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but the Lasker match was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.> I dislike the "but" greatly. "and" doesn't transition enough, and "but" suggests "as opposed to" what follows. I think there needs to be something added to "and" to facilitate the general reference of not doing well to the especially bad example of the Lasker match. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: Why is it, in any case, that we put so much emphasis on how horribly Marshall fared with nary a mention of how well Lasker did? Lasker was the winner of the match, yet in the section about the match itself (as opposed to its rules or background) he's only mentioned once, and that in a sentence about Marshall ("the Lasker match"). Is there a general consensus that the only news in this match was Marshall's terrible performance and that Lasker's commanding victory was just its logical consequence, or is this lopsidedness an editorial judgment? If it's <not> just an editorial judgment, can we back it up with a reliable source? Besides, the intro seems to treat the match itself as almost an afterthought, with most of the content being about the background; I think the last paragraph could do with another sentence or two. |
|
Sep-09-13 | | Karpova: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Interesting hint from Tom Harding: <In 'The Field', on 17 December, Leopold Hoffer attacked Lasker for winning the match very easily with a negative endgame-based style of play, unattractive to sponsor and spectators. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
<SwitchingQuylthulg> Unlike Marshall, Lasker is featured in 7 WC matches so I think it's ok if the intros concentrate more on the challenger (while for example Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Lasker 1894 could be used to introduce Lasker). |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Karpova: <SwitchingQuylthulg> Unlike Marshall, Lasker is featured in 7 WC matches so I think it's ok if the intros concentrate more on the challenger (while for example Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Lasker 1894 could be used to introduce Lasker).> I'm with you when it comes to <introducing> the players - in this case, the role fulfilled by the first paragraph, which is entirely about Marshall and tells us who he is. I see no need for a similar paragraph about Lasker, though a couple words would not be amiss. When it comes to what actually happened in the match, though, I think attention should be divided more evenly; every match is new and fresh, and while Lasker may be already familiar from previous matches, his performance here is not. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: One more thing.
At the very top, the following list of host cities is given... <Lasker vs Marshall 1907
New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis> ...yet the game-by-game breakdown doesn't mention Chicago: <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).> Game 11, the Chicago game, ought to be added. |
|
Sep-09-13 | | Karpova: <SwitchingQuylthulg: When it comes to what actually happened in the match, though, I think attention should be divided more evenly; every match is new and fresh, and while Lasker may be already familiar from previous matches, his performance here is not.> I get your point, though it again boils down to this very sentence <Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but the Lasker match was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.>. We may rectify this a bit with a quote from page 163 of the May July 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung'. Siegbert Tarrasch 's book 'Der Schachwettkampf Lasker-Marshall 1907' (Nuremberg, Germany, 1907) is presented there (54 pages overall, quoted were pages 53 to 54): <Laskers Spiel in diesem Wettkampf verdient trotz mancher Fehler, wie sie eben jedem vorkommen, größte Anerkennung.>* or <In den schlimmsten Situationen kennt er keine Panik, und seine Defensive ist immer stark, stets ist ein Tropfen Gift in seinen Verteidigungszügen enthalten.>** If all of this is too long, we could simply quote from the same page (not the book presentation, but a news item announcing the end of the match) that it <hat mit einem großartigen Siege Laskers geendet.>*** * Lasker's play in this contest deserves maximum approval, despite of some mistakes which happen to anybody. ** In the worst situations he knows no panic, and his defense is always strong, ever a drop of poison is contained in his defensive moves. *** ended with a great victory for Lasker.
P.S.: One of the problems with this match is that mainly Tarrasch (but also Maroczy) was considered Lasker's main rival for the title, yet they had not played a WC match. But both had decisively beaten Marshall, so they always compare each others results and play against Marshall. The match itself was pushed in the background and instead of being an end in itself in discussions, was a mean for comparing Tarrasch and Lasker. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | Phony Benoni: <WCCED> I used to own the Gaige set, but gave it away years ago to a friend who still sends a thank-you card every year. I do have Di Felice, who uses Gaige as a a resource. While he does have mistakes, I don't think he'd screw up a Lasker tournament. Here's the statement in question:
<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).> I'll doublecheck at home tonight, but judging from Lasker's ames in the database it looks as though he played in only four tournaments between Hastings 1895 and Cambridge Springs 1904, all of which he won: St. Petersburg 1895-96 (1895)
Nuremberg (1896)
London (1899)
Paris (1900)
So that claim may well be true, though perhaps a bit overblown since Lasker was barely active in those nine years. However, there is one clear inaccuracy. Marshall was only 26 at the time of Cambridge Springs 1904; he didn't turn 27 until August, three months after the tournament. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Switch>, <Phony Benoni> Thank you for finding those factual errors, <Chicago> and <Marshall's age at Cambridge>. Those are being corrected in the "html" draft right now. <Phony Benoni> thank you for helping us with your <Di Felice>, that's a big help! |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Switch> I'm sure you are right about more being needed about Lasker at the end. Also, thanks for catching that CHICAGO FIRE error- that was a big save on your part. <Karpova> Thank you for supplying us with those sources about Lasker in this match- we can use them to talk more about Lasker at the end of the draft. Thank you so much!! |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio> we are still pondering "the sentence." The draft is not final yet. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Phony Benoni>
I'd like to be more specific even- thank you for the depth of your response to my question. It's helping us make a decision on this. I think it likely now that we will cut this passage out altogether: <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).> |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|