<Karpova>: <On a different note, how to cite sources we got from other sources? A direct example: Imagine I quote the 'ACB' by taking the info from Winter's Capa book.

a) We couldn't omit Winter as a source and act as if we had the ACB before us and found it ourselves>

Quite right. If we are going to do this with proper scholarship we need to record accurate provenance on information. I have been lazy and so far I have used only scholarahip in this regard, so I re-edited my citation list in Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934. Now all details of the source provenance are easily accessible to the reader.

<Switch>

<Author's Name, Title of the Book/Magazine in Italics, Publisher, Year, Page (quoting/citing Another Author, Title of Another Book/Magazine in Italics, Publisher, Year, Page)>

Thank you. I have looked online at a few other academic conventions on this and other points, and they all conform to your schema with only cosmetic differences.

So- This is how I would like you to do your citations, the same way I have them in Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934:

<1"British Chess Magazine," October 1933, p. 423. In Edward Winter "Capablanca," Pergamon 1989, p.233

2"American Chess Bulletin," May-June 1934, p. 75. In Edward Winter, p.234

3Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," McFarland 1998, p. 364

4Skinner and Verhoeven, p. 490

5"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung", April 1934, p. 96

6"British Chess Magazine," April 1934, page 152. In Edward Winter, p.234

7Skinner and Verhoeven, pp. 490-503.

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

Further instructions/explanations:

1. I want us all to use <Karpova's> method of using the same footnote number in the text if it conforms to the exact same source and exact same page number in the citation list. This is the most important instruction to remember for draft writers, because this is the only instruction that can only be altered by the draft writer herself! I won't be able to edit this because I won't have your sources in front of me.

2. Don't worry too much about the other aspects of the format, because I'm doing the final edit on all drafts and I can just change anything else myself. The only thing I can't change is the order of the notes, so please do remember to follow <Karpova> method of not duplicating citation to the same source. Use only one number to correspond to an identical source with identical page number.

3. The format shown above is a custom built combination of various style manual suggestions. You'll note that we only need to repeat enough information so that the reader can easily discern the source provenance. If there is more than one book by the same author(s) in the citation list, these have to be distinguished from each other, of course.

4.Do not worry or even care at this point about typographical issues. None of us knows what the html code <crawfb5> is working with will support, and we also don't know yet how best to type in the numbers and "markers" (parentheses, quotation marks and so on) to make it easier for him to do the html conversions. He will tell us this information when he finishes converting the first draft to html.

<While I agree with you in principle that everything should be understandable for the reader, if there is such a controversy, we can't just cover it up. I mean, we have the 1908 conditions, and we know that the WC match lasted 10 games, but the conditions of the latter we don't have. And no one has, that's why this +2 controversy could rage for so long.

I don't see how we can resolve this issue and in doubt, I would sacrifice readability for correspondence to the facts anytime. So as long as we don't find a source telling us why the match was for ten games only, I don't see a solution.>

Everything must be understandable to the reader at all times. If it isn't, that means the draft isn't finished yet.

As for a solution to the "+2" controversy, quite right we can't cover that up. Nor can we state the controversy is solved if we can't supply evidence it is solved. But we don't need to solve this mystery to report on it. I still haven't given <Karpova's> latest draft a thorough analysis, but I think the current way this controversy is handled is quite clear and doesn't dodge any issues, nor does it make any unsupported truth claims. We can still think of possible ways to improve this presentation, but I think it's already been well handled.

<Karpova> We never have to sacrifice accuracy for readability or the other way around. There exists no necessary relationship between accuracy and readability, so we don't ever have to sacrifice "one for the other." They aren't even connected.

Readability is simply a style issue. Let's take two cases- an inaccurate set of facts and an accurate set of facts.

Both sets of facts can be used to construct a gripping, robust, energetic historical narrative. Both sets of facts can also be used to construct a dead, wooden, pedantic historical narrative. Readability is the result of good writing. Accurate content is the result of good research.

That's why we never have to sacrifice one for the other.

Our goal is to try to score "100" on accuracy and "100" on good writing style.

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

< Richard Reti noted that "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme – just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless.">

I don't understand what Reti means by "objectless." You got this from a German source right? What are other versions of the German word in the context of this passage? It needs to be disambiguated.

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

< Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title.">

I added this because we have this information on hand and it's directly on point. Match conditions not found if they were indeed published, but the "Deutsches Wochenschach" seems under the impression that +1 was the actual winning condition.

Both bits of information can be sourced with the same note to: <Warren Goldman "Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard" Caissa Editions 1994, pp. 400-401>. You'll need to rearrange the numbering yourself, as I noted in an earlier post today.

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

<the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny>

We need to know who was second for whom. Sounds like someone got two seconds. If that information is not available, or if you do have the information and reckon you don't have room to include it, you can't use it in the draft. As is, it's incomplete.

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

<After the third game, play was relocated to two Vienna saloons for games 4 and 5 with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Baron Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds.>

Same again. Luckily you only need to say one time who was second for whom.

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

<The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days. Lasker was held to draws in games 6, 7, 8 and 9 and had only one chance left to defend his title>

As written, this directly means that +1 was the match conditions. Are you going to go on record this is so?

<Although a draw would have sufficed>

Do you mean "sufficed" for a match victory? If so, you must say so. you can't just leave "sufficed" without an object completion.

Again, do you want to go on record that +1 was the match condition?

If you do, I'm certainly not going to stop you. I also think it most likely that +1 were the conditions.

But if you want to leave it as is, then you must state earlier, where the Goldman quote is, that you think +1 was the conditions. If you don't, then there's some contradiction in the draft.

Or, if you want to stop short of making two declarative truth claims that +1 were indeed the conditions, then you could preface it with something like "in all likelihood..." or something like that.

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

Finally, this is a tremendous draft in my opinion. Readability factor scores huge marks with me- I found the narrative gripping.

I trust you totally on accuracy and scholarship.

Also, please don't worry about the length of this draft. Some of our narratives will deal with more pertinent information, like this one- because it's so controversial. In this case, elaboration and presentation of that controversy cannot be left out. It's what most chess fans will want to hear about, and for good reason. It's a major, enduring mystery in chess history. It's very important.

If you really do want to shorten the existing length, maybe you can find a way to leave out or shorten some of the other information?

<I don't understand what Reti means by "objectless." You got this from a German source right?>

No, the original is in German but I have just the english translation (it's the Hardinge Simpole edition, translated by John Hart). I guess that Reti wants to say that Schlechter's play unfolds naturally and in a way unguided, like a tree grows, not consciously deciding where to put his branches.

<We need to know who was second for whom. Sounds like someone got two seconds. If that information is not available, or if you do have the information and reckon you don't have room to include it, you can't use it in the draft. As is, it's incomplete.>

No, there is no information on that. But why should we leave out additional information? Yes, we don't know who was second for whom, but we should keep in mind that these are not seconds like today's seconds, i. e. a team of analysts. So it was possibly not so important who was whose second (I would assume that they were rather taking care of non-chess related tasks).

But this is what I mean with readability (I probably used the wrong expression) - we have information that, a least for today's standards, doesn't fit 100% into the narrative. Yet, should we pass over the information who the seconds were? As the 'Wiener Schachzeitung' does not state that, I assume that people knew in general about the seconds' role (and as you saw, Faehndrich, a former second, became match director and was replaced as second by someone else). But we have got another hint at their role, that's their playing strength - Faehndrich was the strongest of them, yet look at his chess record http://www.edochess.ca/players/p578...

<Carl Schlechter> was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874, and became on the strongest chessplayers of the world in the late 1890s [(1)], sharing 1st place with <Henry Nelson Pillsbury> at <Munich (1900)>, following up with 1st places at <Vienna (1904)>, the huge Ostend (1906) tournament and shared 1st places at <Vienna (1908)> and <Prague (1908)>.

<Theodor Gerbec> wrote: "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method." [(2)] and <Richard Reti> said: "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme – just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless. No hidden places and traps were there, but only sound development. With him was no undue haste and no pinning himself down to one idea, but one harmonious evolution" [(3)] But in 1906, world champion <Emanuel Lasker>, while acknowledging Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, detected in his personality a lack of anything demoniacal which could induce him to seize someone else's possession. [(4)]

Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker for a title match. The world champion accepted the challenge and both published a statement on December 3, where the match was to last 30 games, the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909. [(5)] Further negotiations lead to the announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match was to be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public. [(6)] Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title." [(7)]

On January 7, 1910, the 10-games world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present. <Georg Marco> was the match director, the seconds were <Hugo Faehndrich>, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny. Usually, the games began at 5 p. m. and lasted until 8 p. m., after a break for 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 p. m. and then adjourned, if the game hadn't finished earlier. [(8)] The time control was 15 moves per hour [(9)] On January 8, Lasker took a rest day. [(8)] After the third game, play was relocated to two Vienna saloons for games 4 and 5 with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Baron Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds. The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws. [(10)] We assume that a +1 score was necessary to win the match.

[(2)] Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1928, page 370

[(3)] Richard Reti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pages 82-83

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

[(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, page 376

[(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909, page 315

[(7)] Warren Goldman, Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard, Caissa Editions, 1994, pages 400-401

[(8)] Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1910, pages 1-5

[(9)] Ost und West, March 1910, pages 171-176

[(10)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 58-78

[(11)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 78-95

[(12)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 92 and 93-94

I found a bit more on the family at http://web.archive.org/web/20070822... - I'd guess it was the father who was involved in the Schlechter match, but can that be verified with Wiener Schachzeitung?

<Usually, the games began at 5 p. m. and lasted until 8 p. m., after a break for 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 p. m. and then adjourned, if the game hadn't finished earlier. [(7)]>

This is brilliant:

<We assume that a +1 score was necessary to win the match.>

I'm so happy, not just because you solved the whole "problem" in so few words, but I also think it very, very likely that the conditions were indeed +1. You have certainly done enough primary research to earn the right to write bold chess history here.

Sorry I did misunderstand your previous post on accuracy vs. readability- you meant in terms of space pressure.

Quite right. In the case of your draft here, I think the extra space was necessary for accuracy, readability, and coverage.

Aha- if the English translator was satisfied with "objectless" then yes I agree let it stand.

Just one thing- might it be possible to add one more phrase about the <seconds> issue?

Maybe "...though it's not known who was second for whom."?

I'm going to leave that up to you. If you want to leave it as stands, I won't re-edit it.

At any rate I'll put your new draft in now.

it would certainly be best if we somehow had a source detailing the role of seconds back then. I will think about a possible solution.

Can't have a period followed by a lower case letter in the next word. I'm going to leave your "edit-back" and just add a comma there after "method."

In addition, I'm going to take out the colon after "said:"

In current English style, best practice is to just write

"Richard Reti said 'His games..."

A colon here is too strong a "stop sign" for the reader; it interferes unnecessarily with the flow of the sentence.

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

<to seize someone else's possession.>

Not grammatically correct in this context. It must be <possessions>.

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

<both published a statement on December 3, where the match was to last 30 games>

"where" is grammatically incorrect here. I'll put "in which."

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

<the 10-games world championship match>

Grammatically incorrect- "games" has to be singular here.

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

<The time control was 15 moves per hour [(9)]>

Missing period- I also missed this in my first edit. I'll put it in now.

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

<Schlechter wanted to add a 2nd win>

I put that back in the way you first wrote it.

<Usually, the games began at 5 pm and lasted until 8 pm. After a break of 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 pm and then adjourned if necessary.>

I also enlarged the Reti quote, so I hope it became clearer now (I would venture to say that Reti said <objektlos> (without object) in the original and that Mr. Hart was at a loss at how to translate it, going for the obvious <objectless>, but I don't know Reti's German wording).>

Yes I noticed this and I really appreciated it too.

<<both published a statement on December 3, where the match was to last 30 games>

"where" is grammatically incorrect here. I'll put "in which.">

<Karpova> please don't make any further "edit backs" without posting them first in the forum here? If you post them here first it makes both of our jobs easier.

If your "edit back" doesn't actually include a grammar or diction error, I'm almost always going to bow to the writer.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

<Karpova> I'm going to leave the text of your last edit up here in the forum for a bit, because it makes it easier for me to make changes if I can put two sets of text up on my screen at the same time.

Aha- Sorry to just make up words like that.

I meant please don't replace things from my edits with the way you originally had them without first telling me that's what you want in the forum here?

As I said, we can then discuss the issue here and then I don't have to re-edit diction and grammar errors.

Also then you don't have to worry about protecting your draft- as I said, on issues of style or content, I'm almost always going to bow to you or any other writer.

So I would like this procedure:

1. Writer posts a draft in the forum.

2. I edit the draft.

3. If the writer doesn't agree with some of my edits, she posts what she wants "edited back" into the draft, and we have a chance then to discuss it.

one " too many

<Stiaßny.Usually,>

space

The notes are wrong now, as I inserted Goldman as a footnote [(7)], see my latest draft.

<Schlechter had really wanted to add a 2nd second win>

<Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly.>

Btw, so far I did not find much about it, in english some article from 2009 which is not too helpful as it doesn't cover that time: http://business.outlookindia.com/ar...