|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-09-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Steamed Editors>
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 Ok just so we don't keep editing stuff that's already been changed or cut, here is the most recent draft- the NOTES are not properly configured yet so please just ignore those here. In addition, the infamous "sentence" here is very likely to be cut altogether when we add in some new material about Lasker at the end (thanks again to <Switch> and <Karpova>): <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.> #############
This draft is also posted at the top of the mirror edit. <Html Mock up Draft>: Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal. He returned to New York City at the age of 15 and was described as being “...of considerable promise, whose reputation has preceded his arrival here.”1 At the age of 26, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. 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 Marshall, who was in England at the time, proposed the match should be for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year.. Lasker replied that the stake had to be at least $2,000 per side and he flatly stated, “Time and place of the match to be determined by the holder of the title.” Lasker also mentioned that he would prefer the organizers to supply a purse because he considered it “a hardship that chess champions should be obliged to find their own stakes.” Lasker planned a 1904 match with Siegbert Tarrasch that was postponed because of the latter's skating accident.3 In late 1904, Marshall issued a new challenge with terms that were taken more seriously by Lasker, although negotiations eventually broke down.4 Marshall's backers were unwilling to make the required $500 deposit without assurances that Lasker would do the same and they took exception to Lasker reserving the right to name the match time and location. With his funding at serious risk, Marshall broke off negotiations. 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), Chicago (Game 11), 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. |
|
| Sep-09-13 | | crawfb5: <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).>> Um, <my> suggestion was to drop the last sentence relating to Hastings, not the one about Cambridge Springs: <At the age of 26, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs (1904) tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker.> |
|
Sep-09-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <crawfb5> lol quite right, quite right. Not unlike "Operation Market Garden," I went "one sentence too far." Luckily, your Html mock up is there now in all its current glory with the exact sentence you wanted. |
|
Sep-09-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <crawfb5> Let me just fix up the "mock up" for group editing purposes because I'm just noticing now that the "Macrozy" is still in the html field? We'll want to change that eh? |
|
Sep-09-13
| | WCC Editing Project: There you go, Kenny-
<Lasker signed terms with Geza Maroczy 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> |
|
Sep-09-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Marshall, who was in England at the time, proposed the match should be for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year..> Extra period here, I'll fix it in the mirror but again we don't want this to escape the final "html feed". |
|
| Sep-09-13 | | Boomie: Although Lasker wasn't very active between Hastings 1895 and Cambridge Springs 1904, it should be noted that he was playing at the top of his game. His result at London (1899) is one of the best results in tournament history. Chessmetrics ranks this result 3rd best in history. This is just in case you want to add more about Lasker to help explain the wholesale slaughter. Marshall was the unfortunate victim but there was nobody who could have challenged Lasker at that time. |
|
| Sep-09-13 | | crawfb5: We have three factors contributing to the perfect storm: 1) Marshall wasn't particularly good at match play
2) Lasker was very good at match play
3) Lasker was clearly the stronger player
While no objective observer expected anything other than a Lasker victory, I suppose it depends on who you ask as to how much of a surprise it was that Marshall won no games. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | Phony Benoni: Lasker's tournaments from 1895-1904 confirmed as listed earlier, at least according to Di Felice. He did participate in some Rice Gambit events, such as losing a match to Chicgorin in 1903, but those can hardly be counted as serious events. I think <crawfb5>'s revision is good; certainly finishing two points ahead of the World Champion is worth mentioning. The only other comment I'd make is whether Cambridge Springs 1904 was a "very strong" tournament. There were a number of weaker players there, and I'd rather reserve "very strong" for tournaments where the player strength is high from top to bottom. But this is certainly a minority viewpoint, and hardly a serious objection.. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | Boomie: Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Petrosian 1963 <...Zurich Candidates tournament (the same one won by Vasily Smyslov).> The parenthetical phrase is unnecessary. If we want to include it, just make it a part of the sentence. "...Zurich Candidates tournament won by Vasily Smyslov." <Petrosian finally won the right to challenge...> The word "finally" doesn't add anything.
"Petrosian won the right to challenge..."
<...the 1963 World Championship match, and won...> A comma is not needed before "and" unless part of a list of more than two items. "...the 1963 World Championship match and won..."
<This time there was no provision in the rules for a return match, so Botvinnik retired from world championship competition, leaving Petrosian to hold the title unmolested for a full 3-year cycle.> Feels like a run-on sentence. Call me Hemmingway but I don't care for patchwork, Henry James sentences when elegant terse ones will do nicely. "This time there was no provision in the rules for a return match. Botvinnik retired from world championship competition. Petrosian held the title unmolested for a full 3-year cycle." <"Botvinnik on the match"> Are we putting quote marks around quotations?
<The match was conducted in Moscow from March 23 to May 20, 1963. After 22 games, Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian became the 9th World Chess Champion.> This is a new paragraph. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | Boomie: Game Collection: WCC: Petrosian-Spassky 1966 <In 1966 Tigran Petrosian met popular challenger Boris Spassky who entered the match a big favorite.> I feel a bit uneasy with this sentence. "popular" seems out of place. I am leaning toward cutting it into two sentences. "In 1966 Boris Spassky challenged Tigran Petrosian for the title. Spassky entered the match a big favorite." <Not only had Spassky convincingly defeated Keres, Geller and Mikhail Tal in candidates matches, he had also played model chess in a universal style.> Another run-on sentence. I'm not sure what "model chess in a universal style." means but that's not unusual. There's a giant heap of stuff I don't understand. However I wonder how many readers will know what it means. "Spassky convincingly defeated Keres, Geller and Mikhail Tal in candidates matches. He played model chess in a universal style." <At a strictly personal level, if not to the manor born, Spassky was certainly to the gracious manner born.> Ay Chihuahua! El Greco was to the mannerism born...heh. Spassky was/is a nice guy. There must be a better way to say that. Or is it irrelevant? <In the match Spassky achieved numerous promising positions only to run into a record number of exchange sacrifices and other sophisticated holding maneuvers.> New paragraph. What was the old record of exchange sacrifices? Needs a comma after "In the match" "In the match, Spassky achieved many promising positions only to run into numerous exchange sacrifices and other sophisticated holding maneuvers." <He thrashed about and found himself two points down after 10 games. He evened the score after game 19, but Petrosian won the 20th and 22nd games to clinch the title defense, +4 -3 =17.1> A simple statement about the match result would clear up this mess. <The match took place in Moscow between April 9 and June 9, 1966. After the full 24 games, Petrosian defended his title of World Chess Champion.> The first part should appear at the top. The second replaces the previous "thrashing" paragraph with the addition of the match score. "After the full 24 games, Petrosian defended his title of World Chess Champion, +4 -3 =17." |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | Karpova: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 <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.> If we want to say something about Lasker's success also, and not only Marshall's defeat, we could still keep it short by adding that according to Siegbert Tarrasch Lasker's play deserved greatest approval. I quote the relevant part of my earlier post again:
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.> (Lasker's play in this contest deserves maximum approval, despite of some mistakes which happen to anybody.) Now, also the question is how to translate <größte Anerkennung> best into english. If you prefer <greatest> or <maximum> and <approval>, <appreciation> or <acknowledgment> or so. Then maybe something like
<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. Lasker's play instead was said to deserve greatest appreciation by Tarrasch.8> 8Wiener Schachzeitung, May-July 1907, page 163 |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Tim> Thank you!
Webmaster's cabinned in the mirrors. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | Karpova: Draft for Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 David Janowsky was born in Poland but later relocated to France. From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments [(1)]. Among his successes are a win in Janowsky vs. Marshall Match 1 (1899) and a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at Barmen (1905). He became known for his strong combinational skills. [(2)] Financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowsky played an exhibition match against world champion Emanuel Lasker in Paris, in May 1909, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship and while Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France [(3)]. They played a second exhibition match [(4)] in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerging as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2) ([(5)]. Despite of the last setback, Janowsky got his shot at the title of world champion in late 1910, after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn Lasker – Schlechter (1910) match in January and February. Janowsky was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker. He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents tried to cash in the victory prematurely. Janowsky wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but domino." [(2)] The match for the world championship was held from November 8 to December 8 in the Kerkau Palace in Berlin. Leo Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs (4,690 K) for the winner, declared to be the first to score 8 victories. Lasker needed only eleven games to achieve that goal, losing not even once (+8 -0 =3). The match received little attention as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games which therefore couldn't be printed. The games were also criticized as being of low quality with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest. [(6)] [(1)] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487...
[(2)] Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1910, page 252 [(3)] Wiener Schachzeitung, August 1909, pages 234-236 [(4)] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1909, pages 410-413 [(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1911, pages 32-33 |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | Karpova: We will write <Janowski> instead of Janowsky. Hyperlinks to the events/pages for:
<David Janowski>, <Janowsky - Marshall (1899)>, <Geza Maroczy>, <Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905)>, <Leo Nardus>, <Emanuel Lasker> and <Lasker - Schlechter (1910)>. Furthermore:
[(2)] is source for <Janowsky was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker. He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents tried to cash in the victory prematurely. Janowsky wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but domino."> (could become a separate paragraph) [(6)] is source for the whole paragraph it's attached to (note that "grandmasterly" is written on page 33). |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 <DRAFT EDIT> by <Karpova> Updated David Janowski was born in Poland but later relocated to France. From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments [(1)]. Among his successes were a win in Janowski vs. Marshall, Match 1 (1899) and a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905)). He became known for his strong combinational skills. [(2)] Financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an exhibition match against world champion Emanuel Lasker in Paris, in May 1909, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship and while Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France [(3)]. They played a second exhibition match [(4)] in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2) ([(5)]. Despite the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title of world champion in late 1910, after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) match in January and February. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker. He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents tried to cash in the victory prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes." [(2)] The match for the world championship was held from November 8 to December 8 in the Kerkau Palace in Berlin. Leo Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs (4,690 K) for the winner, declared to be the first to score 8 victories. Lasker needed only eleven games to achieve that goal, without losing a single game (+8 -0 =3). The match received little attention as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games which therefore couldn't be printed. The games were also criticized as being of low quality with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest. [(6)] [(1)] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487...
[(2)] Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1910, page 252 [(3)] Wiener Schachzeitung, August 1909, pages 234-236 [(4)] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1909, pages 410-413 [(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1911, pages 32-33 |
|
Sep-10-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WCC Editing Project> What's happened to all the sources at Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907? Also, we'll have to tackle a citation style question - if the same source is cited more than once, should we use multiple numbers once (like Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934) or the same number many times (like <Karpova> did with citation 2 at Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910)? I like <Karpova>'s solution better; no need to waste space. (Indeed, I was already wondering why it wasn't done that way.) |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Switch> Oh yes I like <Karpova's> method better as well, thanks for pointing that out. I vote we adopt <Karpova> citation method as seen on Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 ###########
Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 lol sources are in a locked html vault.
Seriously they are intact and thriving, and we'll all get a chance to look at them soon. The Draft up there now is just a preliminary look at the re-write which has been pasted from an html viewer. <crawfb5> will add his sources into the code frame later, and then send them to me. Then you can look at them. |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Switch>, <Karpova> I just thought of something with regard to citation method. If all of the numbers lead to reference sources, then <Karpova's> method is the more rational choice for us. But what if we want to use numbers to lead to "additional information" or "text footnotes" as well? In that case, wouldn't we'd need consecutive numbering in the actual text? Example:
<Flintstone defeated Rubble in the controversial 10th game to become the first champion of Bedrock.[1] Rubble's overuse of the unsound Triceratops variation of the Ruy Blockhead may have compromised his chances in this match.[2] In addition, the unwelcome interruption by Joe Rockhead's Volunteer Fire Department during the second game had visibly upset Rubble.[1] [1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22
[2] Previously, Rubble had enjoyed great success with the Triceratops variation in his match against Raquel Welch. [1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22> Wouldn't consecutive numbering be better in this case? Or am I imagining it? |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> what kind of money is this here? (4,690 K) |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: Re: <Flintstone-Rubble 10,000 BC> Actually I guess it doesn't matter what the numbers lead to in the citation section, does it. I thought it might confuse the reader in this case, but now I think it might not confuse the reader. However, I'm generally confused so we should get some more opinions. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | crawfb5: <What's happened to all the sources at Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907?> With everyone screaming for 1001 changes, they keep getting out of step with the text. I WILL NOT FIX THEM AGAIN UNTIL THE TEXT IS FINALIZED. PERIOD. STOP. END OF DISCUSSION. |
|
Sep-10-13
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <WCC Editing Project: But what if we want to use numbers to lead to "additional information" or "text footnotes" as well? In that case, wouldn't we'd need consecutive numbering in the actual text?> I have no idea what you mean. In this case...
<[1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22[2] Previously, Rubble had enjoyed great success with the Triceratops variation in his match against Raquel Welch. [1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22> ...the second listing of <[1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22> is completely unnecessary. Just list each source once. Triceratops Variation? Was this Gothic Chess? |
|
Sep-10-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <...the second listing of <[1] Bedrock Chess Review April 10,000 BC, p. 22> is completely unnecessary. Just list each source once.> Yep that's right. I knew something was amiss with my example. So it doesn't make any difference what the number refers to in the citation section. I do like the <Karpova> style here I have to say, but maybe others will offer opinions as well. I'm still going to wait a bit before changing the citations in my draft, because as <crawfb5> mentioned, once you start editing text that already has notes, it's really easy to get confused. When I changed the paragraph order in my draft I got so confused I actually had to go back and look up every single one of the references again. <Gothic Chess> Very good, heh... I was indeed thinking of Ed Trice when I wrote the intro. |
|
| Sep-11-13 | | Karpova: <Jess>
<what kind of money is this here? (4,690 K)> This must be the Austro-hungarian Krone, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
