<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).>

This certainly sounds a bit strange as the WC match was proposed and then even another match played between those two later that year, but it was only an exhibition match. Sadly, this is the way my sources tell it (and I'm pretty sure that it also contributed to the 1909/1910 WC match confusion). My conjecture is the following:

After Janowski drew the first exhibition match, Nardus proposed a WC match and Lasker did not object. Yet he had to leave (Match ended on May 21, Lasker arrived in New York on June 5). So they couldn't negotiate in the meantime and when they met again in October, they played another exhibition match. Only afterwards could the real negotiation begin and the WC match was arranged for the next year (Nardus was very generous).

(this is not a suggestion to be included in the draft, it is just an attempt to pre-emptively answer possible criticism. Someone with good sources on Lasker or Janowski may shed more light on it).

Now more on the text itself:

<a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905)).>

The ) in front of the point is unnecessary and perhaps <the> should be inserted before Barmen (for the Meisterturnier = Master Tournament), i. e. <a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at the Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905).>.

<Jess> also thanks for silently correcting dominoes!

<Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) match in January and February.>

As match is contained in the hyperlink title, we don't need it in the text.

<The match for the world championship was held from November 8 to December 8 in the Kerkau Palace in Berlin.>

The building was not really a palace but called Kerkau-Palast (not to be confused with the Café Kerkau!) so translating Palast could be misleading, in the intro to Berlin Grandmasters (1918) it was solved by simply calling the playing venue <Kerkau-Palast> and I guess this would be fine here also.

What is more poetic?

a) the claw of the lion

b) the lion's claw

Further explanation is necessary and should be added to the draft anyways, not just to pre-empt criticism but also to tell the story as fully and clearly as we can.

I'm not sure which part of what you wrote needs to be sourced further?

<After Janowski drew the first exhibition match, Nardus proposed a WC match and Lasker did not object. Yet he had to leave (Match ended on May 21, Lasker arrived in New York on June 5). So they couldn't negotiate in the meantime and when they met again in October, they played another exhibition match. Only afterwards could the real negotiation begin and the WC match was arranged for the next year (Nardus was very generous).

(this is not a suggestion to be included in the draft, it is just an attempt to pre-emptively answer possible criticism. Someone with good sources on Lasker or Janowski may shed more light on it).>

Your paragraph sounds like a very clear and plausible explanation to me. Where real mysteries do exist, then we *are* permitted to make some reasonable assumptions, so long as we make it clear that's what they are.

This can easily be done by prefacing an explanation with "It's likely that... or "It's possible that...", depending on how sure you might be about your assumption. This is particularly acceptable in your case because you are currently "booked up" on the issue at hand. Your assumptions will arise from a strong knowledge of the available facts.

At any rate, I will look in my library if I can find any more sources on this. You already have <Winter's> article of course and cited from it, so it's "more than Ed has" you want. I hope colleagues will also try to help with additional sources on this issue.

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

<a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at the Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905).>

I added this.

###########

I put this in-

<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 match of January and February 1910.>

We don't need to call it a "world championship" match because that information is already in the sentence: "defended his crown."

We're going to go with no capitalizations throughout, and we can consider Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 to be the standard on this and all other issues. Bear in mind that we don't yet have a final draft for it. It will be the first, and the flagship draft for all consistency issues.

We still need to choose the notation system. I'm currently in favor of the system you use, and of course we know <Switch> likes it.

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

I put <Kerkau-Palast> in. I fully agree with your reasoning on it.

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

<On a sidenote, I think it would be a good use of <> to indicate hyperlinks in drafts posted here, e. g. 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))>.>

heh I had to look that up on google to find the right spelling myself.

Apparently <dominos> is also used, but I got the impression it's mainly spelled <dominoes>.

Oh!

potatos

potatoes

tomatos

b) the lion's claw>

This must be the Austro-hungarian Krone, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austr...>

I think "(4,690 K)" can and ought to be dropped; the actual prize was in francs (right?) and I can't see any Austro-Hungarian connection anywhere, apart from the sources used, so using that currency seems weird.

I can type out relevant sections of Ken Whyld's essay on <Lasker> from Edward Winter's <World Chess Champions> into the mirror edit.

I'm not sure how much use it will be because, irritatingly, there is no source documentation.

It's pretty interesting material though, and on point.

First though- do you have this book?

If you do have it, let me know. If you don't have it, I will type out the section dealing with the time frame you're working on in your draft.

<Edward Winter> on his list:

<"Every effort has been made to make these tables accurate and complete as at 1st January 1980. The odds matches of Staunton and Morphy were relatively important and have been listed in full, but otherwise only 'serious' events are recorded. The <<<editor>>> would be pleased to receive any information regarding errors or omissions.">

<I'm not sure which part of what you wrote needs to be sourced further?>

What I was aiming at were the actual WC match negotiations. So the whole part of why the 2nd 1909 match was only an exhibition while the 1910 one was for the WC. A reader could ask why, after proposal for a WC match after their 1st drawn exhibition match (against which no objections were raised in principle), their very next match that year was still only an exhibition. Suddenly, in 1910 they play a 3rd match, this time with the title at stake.

<We don't need to call it a "world championship" match because that information is already in the sentence: "defended his crown.">

You mean that in - <Despite of 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)> in January and February.> - we could write instead: <Despite of the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910, after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn <Lasker – Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)> in January and February.>?

<crawfb5> Thanks, then I'll use lion's claw.

<SwitchingQuylthulg> Agreed, the Krones reference need not be included.

Yes, that two pages (32-33 of the 1911) issue constitute their coverage of the WC match and are my source for the whole last paragraph (i. e. match details, copyright issue, press coverage, criticism of play and the "grandmasterly" remark).

<Jess: First though- do you have this book?>

There was the question of how to source the claim that Cambridge Springs 1904 was the first time for Lasker to not win the 1st prize since Hastings 1895.

Another source that could be used is:

<Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, page 259>

That's the report after the end of the Tarrasch match and there are not only match statistics but also the earlier tournament record of both contestants.

I'm just about to go to work, but I already edited a few things which you can see in the Mirror- Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908.

The one thing I want to say before heading out will answer a previous question you made.

In Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 I meant the sentence should look like this:

<after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn Lasker-Schlechter match of January and February 1910.>

Because "defended his crown" already tells us it was a WCC title match, we don't need to say "World Title" later in the sentence.

It's the same here in Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908-

You already say Lasker "defended his title" so you don't have to mention the name of the match again like this:

<When Lasker defended his title in <Lasker – Marshall world championship match (1907)> by the score (+8 -0 =7),..>

Instead you can say <When Lasker defended his title against <Frank James Marshall> in January-April 1907 by the score (+8 -0 =7),..>

I'll be back after work to edit more and also to type in that <Whyld> article.

<Colleagues> please help edit <Karpova's> smashing new draft when you have time/inclination?

Also, when you post Drafts in the WCC forum, please copy <Karpova> and put the words you want hyperlinked in these <> things?

It saves me a remarkably large amount of time when I'm putting the Draft into the Mirror Edit.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908

<In late 1880, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world with several tournament successes [(1)].>

You have room to tell us more here, to put in the tournament or match highlights:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908

Please tell us what < amour propre > means? It sounds like something good.

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

<The chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations>

Please give the full names of the chairmen? At first I thought Gebhardt and Schenzel were the German names for the actual Chess Federations.

In Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907, I think you should also use <ice-skating accident>, instead of just <skating accident>, as <Karpova> has done here in her draft of Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908:

<After Tarrasch suffered an ice-skating accident>

"ice-skating" is more precise, and it costs us only "4 spaces" of extra text to use this form in your draft as well.

b) the lion's claw>

Notice you have the wrong link at the top. So many links, so little whatevers.

<Siegbert Tarrasch was born in Wroclaw, Poland, which belonged to Germany back in 1862.>

<Siegbert Tarrasch> was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wroclaw, Poland) in 1862.

<amour propre>

Usually hyphenated. Amour-propre means self-love and appears in the philosophy of Rousseau and Pascal in connotations that are out of context with Dr. Lasker's comment. Perhaps Dr. Lasker was using the term to denote Dr. Tarrasch's complete devotion to chess. Or maybe he was joking about his devotion to himself. Dr. Tarrasch was a bit full of himself, wasn't he?

<Before he had acquired the title from Wilhelm Steinitz, Lasker had already approached Tarrasch for a match in 1892, but the latter declined, leaving Lasker with the impression that Tarrasch didn't consider him good enough yet.>

Are we using Dr. for both?

As I have not much time, just a few points:

<Jess>

< <When Lasker defended his title in <Lasker – Marshall world championship match (1907)> by the score (+8 -0 =7),..>

Instead you can say <When Lasker defended his title against <Frank James Marshall> in January-April 1907 by the score (+8 -0 =7),..> >

But in the 1st case, we get the link to the Lasker-Marshall match, in the 2nd just to Marshall.

<You have room to tell us more here, to put in the tournament or match highlights>

Including sources, the intro is already mre than 500 words long. While with Janowski it was hard to name a tournament success worthy of a title challenger, Tarrasch had many huge successes and that's also why the match was so eagerly anticipated. But I will have a look into it.

Agreed about the full names, Rudolf Gebhardt and Johannes Schenzel.

<Boomie>

Agreed about Breslau/Wroclaw.

I can tell you that we absolutely have latitude from our webmaster to write 500 words (or more) of text for any of the intros. I have already spoken with him about this.

I think we should think of writing <at least> 500 words for every intro. That's not a lot of text, and with less text than that we will suffer from leaving out hard won facts and accurate anecdotes that will enrich our drafts.

That said, although several of the existing WCC feature intros are a fair bit more than 500 words, I do understand the benefits of conciseness. That's why I counsel 500 words as a "bench mark" goal for each intro.

Due to the high quality of style editing we get from <Ohio>, <Boomie>, and <Switch>, we can really make our prose lean and concise- making room for more instructive and entertaining information.

As it stands now, your text is <434> words long. Plenty of room to add <Tarrasch's> tournament highlights there, and certainly they should be added. They will be in blue hyperlinks too, exciting and handy to click on!

Brings me to the next point- yes you are right, I hadn't thought of the benefit of retaining the blue hyperlink to Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907.

Are we limited to "regular" linking here, or can we use "defended his title" as a hyperlink to the Marshall match? The admins, if necessary, could make that edit.

<Notice you have the wrong link at the top. So many links, so little whatevers.>

Doh! Quite right, I'll fix that.

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

<<Siegbert Tarrasch> was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wroclaw, Poland) in 1862.>

Agree with you and <Karpova> on this- enacted.

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

<<amour propre>

<Usually hyphenated. Amour-propre means self-love and appears in the philosophy of Rousseau and Pascal in connotations that are out of context with Dr. Lasker's comment. Perhaps Dr. Lasker was using the term to denote Dr. Tarrasch's complete devotion to chess. Or maybe he was joking about his devotion to himself. Dr. Tarrasch was a bit full of himself, wasn't he?>>

I trust you, <Karpova>, and any others who might supply more hard information to sort out the complexities of mood on this. It is important to figure out if <Lasker> was complimenting <Tarrasch> or making fun of him. This is so important that if we cannot reliably find out which of these it is, we should drop the reference.

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

<Before he won the title from <Wilhelm Steinitz>, Dr. Lasker had already approached Dr. Tarrasch for a match in 1892. Dr. Tarrasch declined, leaving the impression that he didn't consider Dr. Lasker good enough yet>

Better, thanks. I'm going to put this version in here, since all non-chess related titles will be dropped:

<<In late 1880> should be <In the late 1880s> as the decade, not the year, is meant.>

Excellent catch, enacted.

##########

<<WCC Editing Project: I agree with you on that. There must be a way to re-write the sentence to retain the link, but also avoid repetition and wordiness. Let's try to think of a way to do that in a way that retains the hyperlink.> Are we limited to "regular" linking here, or can we use "defended his title" as a hyperlink to the Marshall match? The admins, if necessary, could make that edit.>

Interesting idea, but we can't do that at present. Also, I think it's best if the hyperlink is actually the name of the event. It is an interesting idea though. I will ask Daniel about it.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908

Siegbert Tarrasch was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wrocław, Poland) in 1862. In the late 1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world with several tournament successes [(1)]. He was a practicing physician who became famous for propagating and deepening chess development, which earned him the nickname "praeceptor germaniae" (lat. [[teacher of Germany]]). [(2)] In 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker singled out Tarrasch and Geza Maroczy as worthy contenders for the world championship, and said that the former had become a giant in chess thanks to his amour propre [(3)].

Before he won the title from Wilhelm Steinitz, Lasker had already approached Tarrasch for a match in 1892. Tarrasch declined, leaving the impression that he didn't consider Lasker good enough yet [(4)]. In 1903, Tarrasch challenged Lasker for a world championship match [(3)] to take place in autumn 1904 [(5)]. The conditions were published at the end of 1903 [(6)]. After Tarrasch suffered an ice-skating accident, the match was postponed indefinitely [(5)].

Meanwhile, Lasker negotiated for a world championship match with Géza Maróczy in 1906 without success. When Lasker defended his title against Frank James Marshall in January-April 1907 by the score (+8 -0 =7), comparisons were drawn to Tarrasch's previous victory (+8 -1 =8) against the same opponent in 1905, [(7)] as if the title match had only been a substitute for a match between the two German chessmasters.

Finally, the long-anticipated match was brought about after long negotiations in 1908. The chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations persuaded Lasker to accept a lower honorarium of 7,500 Marks (instead of the originally demanded 15,000 Marks), while Tarrasch even agreed to forgo an honorarium. The winner was the first to win eight games with draws not counting and received 4,000 Marks, while the loser got 2,500 Marks. [(8)], [(9)] The time control was 1 h for 15 moves [(10)].

The match began on August 17 in the Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf where the first 4 games were played. The contract stipulated that the match be relocated to Munich as soon as one competitor had scored three points [(11)] After Lasker achieved this score by winning the 4th game on August 31, the match continued in the Rathaus in Munich until September 30, when Lasker won the 16th game and the match (+8 -3 =5) [(12)]. Several commentators considered Tarrasch to have played below his ability and the result not to be representative of his true strength, yet Lasker's victory was regarded to be deserved as he had demonstrated his superiority. [(13)] [(14)]

[(1)] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p455...

[(2)] Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1934, pages 49-50

[(3)] Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, pages 95-96 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906)

[(4)] Emanuel Lasker, London Chess Fortnightly, Issue 2, September 1, 1892, page 15

[(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1904, page 364

[(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1903, pages 291-292

[(7)] Wiener Schachzeitung, May-July 1907, pages 163-164

[(8)] Wiener Schachzeitung, May-June 1908, pages 176-177

[(9)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, page 263

[(10)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, page 265

[(11)] Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1908, page 193

[(12)] Emanuel Lasker, Wiener Schachzeitung, Supplementheft 1908, pages 381-416 (originally from Pester Lloyd 1908)

[(13)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, pages 323-328

Sometimes, we have the citation placed <before> adjacent punctuation...

<After Tarrasch suffered an ice-skating accident, the match was postponed <indefinitely [(5)].>>

...and sometimes (my preference) it comes after it:

<Several commentators considered Tarrasch to have played below his ability and the result not to be representative of his true strength, yet Lasker's victory was regarded to be deserved as he had demonstrated his <superiority. [(13)] [(14)]>>