Ok this draft of Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929 is "finished," so any editing commentary is welcome.

Deposed world chess champion Jose Raul Capablanca challenged Alexander Alekhine to a rematch on 10 Feb. 1928 with 2 recommended changes to the "London Rules" that had governed their first title match. Capablanca wanted to alter the playing times and number of games, but Alekhine refused any changes.1 It soon become apparent that the challenger's obligation to raise a $10,000 purse would actually become the main obstacle to a rematch. In 1928 American organizers offered Bradley Beach, N.J. as a venue, but there exists no evidence that they ever raised the required purse.2 Directly after his victory at Bad Kissingen (1928), Efim Bogoljubov challenged Alekhine, who accepted "in principle,"3 so long as the financial guarantees were in place.4 The subsequent news that Alekhine had relaxed the $10,000 requirement for this match likely came as an unpleasant surprise to Capablanca, who had as yet failed to raise this amount. On Sept. 8 1929, just two days after the Alekhine-Bogoljubov match had begun, Capablanca received news that $5,000 he had raised from the Cuban government had been "annulled."5 Earlier in the year Alekhine had told reporters that "The match with Bogoljubow interests me far more than the battle with Capablanca... Bogoljubow is a much more serious opponent."6

On the eve of the match the Neue Wiener Schachzeitung published the conditions: Alekhine would get $6,000 dollars win or lose, with any surplus going to Bogoljubov. A winner would be declared if he scored 15 1/2 points with 6 wins in a maximum of 30 games to be played in various cities: Wiesbaden, Heidelberg, Berlin, The Hague, and Amsterdam.7 Emanuel Lasker would serve as arbiter.8 Bogoljubov's record leading up to the match indicated he was a legitimate challenger, at least based on results. He was a 2-time Soviet Champion, triumphing over players such as Grigory Levenfish, Peter Arsenievich Romanovsky, and Fedor Parfenovich Bohatirchuk. He was also a 2-time FIDE champion based on match victories over Max Euwe .9 Most significantly, he had just finished ahead of Capablanca, Euwe, Akiba Rubinstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Richard Reti at Bad Kissingen 1928.

In post match interviews, Alekhine took the opportunity to address Emanuel Lasker's comment that chess would eventually succumb to "draw death."13 When the Allgemeine Zeitung asked him what was the most significant aspect of the match, he replied that the notion of "draw death in chess is senseless... that is the fault not of chess but the players concerned." With regard to a comparison between Capablanca and Bogoljubov, he reckoned that his most recent foe was "more dangerous, although it is much more difficult to win against Capablanca."14 According to Alekhine biographer Yuri Shabarov, the champion gave a more scathing judgment to a Düsseldorf newspaper, announcing that "Now nobody has a chance to win a match with Alekhine," and that he had "...no respect for Capablanca. I would not advise him to play a rematch, because after this new bout, his halo has completely darkened."15

1 "L'Echiquier" April 1928, pp.883-885
In Edward Winter, "Capablanca," pp. 207-299.

2 W.H.W.,"Daily Mail" 16 November 1928 p. 17. In Edward Winter Chessnote 8193, retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

3 "American Chess Bulletin" Dec. 1928, pp. 174-175.
In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 213

4 "American Chess Bulletin" March 1929, p. 41.
In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215

5 "The New York Times" 8 Sept. 1929, sect.2 p.3. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 216

6 "Deutsche Schachblatter" 1 Feb. 1929, pp. 35-37.
In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215

7 "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253

8 "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Oct. 1929, pp. 311-313

9 The FIDE champion was not considered to be world champion. See Edward Winter, "FIDE Championship (1928)." Retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

10 Edward Winter, "Seven Alekhine Articles." Retrieved at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

11 "The Russell Collection" Item 1494." In Edward Winter "Capablanca" p. 217

12 "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Nov. 1929, p. 338

13 Emanuel Lasker, "Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca" (1926 ed.), pp. 32-33. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 5437. Retrieved at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

14. "Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt" 30 Nov. 1929. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7567. Retrieved at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<It soon become apparent that the challenger's obligation to raise a $10,000 purse would actually become the main obstacle to a rematch.>

The 1st become -> <became> and the 2nd become -> <be> (?)

<On the eve of the match the Neue Wiener Schachzeitung published the conditions:>

As it is apparent from the footnote that it's the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung', you could omit that info in the text to save space. E. g. <the following conditions were published:>

<When the Allgemeine Zeitung asked >

Again omitting the source as it is given in the footnote, e. g. <When asked what was the most significant...> Btw, why does the 'Allgemeine Zeitung' ask him but the source is 'Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt'?

<Jose Raul Capablanca> was regarded as a chess prodigy 1, yet his father wanted him to maintain the "even tenor of the average boy's way" 2 at early age. Later, he was in the USA to finish his education, but left university in 1910 to concentrate more fully on chess.3 His first international success was his clear win (+8 -1 =14) over the former world championship challenger in <Capablanca – Marshall (1909)>. He was considered a worthy aspirant for the title of world champion 1, and the title holder <Emanuel Lasker> said "Capablanca has shown himself to be a great player".4

Already at the end of 1908, Capablanca's admirers suggested a title challenge.5 Even prior to his first European tournament, Leon Paredes suggested a match to Lasker 6 who declined.7 Capablanca himself remained cautious.5 The hype surrounding Capablanca made Lasker admit that the subject got "on his nerves".8 Capablanca made his international debut at <San Sebastian (1911)>. He won 1st prize unexpectedly even for himself.9 About 7 months after this success, he challenged Lasker for a title match.10

Lasker published the proposed conditions 11, which Capablanca considered unacceptable in a private letter to the champion.12 After Lasker had published a commentary on the conditions in the press 13, Capablanca sent him another private letter asking "But why should he not play me on the same terms that he has granted to all other aspirants for his title?".14 Lasker replied to Capablanca's first letter, that the Cuban wanted to impose his own rules on him and called for <Walter Penn Shipley> to act as arbiter.15 Amos Burn 16 and the "British Chess Magazine" 17 sided with Capablanca as the proposed conditions were obviously in favor of Lasker. The world champion accused Capablanca of having "aimed a deliberate blow against my professional honor." 18 and when Shipley did not side with him, Lasker broke off the negotiations.19 Most people considered Capablanca's treatment unjust.20 The Cuban would later assess Lasker's chances in a title match in 1911 to "have been excellent".21

<Akiba Rubinstein> challenged Lasker for the title in August 1912 and after negotiations, the match was scheduled for the fall of 1914.22 The outbreak of World War I led to the cancellation of the match. Capablanca suggested a world championship tournament 23 and hoped for a match in 1915.24 During <St. Petersburg (1914)>, won by Lasker ahead of his former challenger, Capablanca drew up a new set of rules for the world championship.25

After the war, Lasker, Rubinstein and Capablanca were considered the strongest players according to the latter.25 Capablanca published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.26 Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion.27 Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25 But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in Europe.27

2 J R Capablanca, "Munsey's Magazine", October 1916, pp. 94-96. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 2

3 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp.10-12

4 E Lasker, "The Evening Post". In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 17

5 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 55

6 L Paredes (President of the Havana Chess Club) "Cronica de Ajedrez", May 1911, p. 12. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 33

7 E Lasker, "New York Evening Post", 15 March 1911. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 33

8 "American Chess Bulletin", April 1910, p. 88. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 32

9 Olga Capablanca, "Chessworld", May-June 1964, pp. 20-37. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), p. 32

10 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 56

11 E Lasker, "The Evening Post", 22 November 1911. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 56-57

12 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 57-59

13 E Lasker, "The Evening Post". In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 59-61

14 Published in "American Chess Bulletin", February 1912, p. 31. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 61-62

15 E Lasker, "The Evening Post", 20 January 1912. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 62

16 A Burn, "Liverpool Courier", 19 January 1912, p. 3. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 63

17 "British Chess Magazine", February 1912, pp. 51-52. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 63

18 E Lasker in a letter to Shipley, 20 February 1912. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 64

19 E Lasker, "The Evening Post", 15 May 1912. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 64-65

20 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 66

21 J R Capablanca, "The Windsor Magazine", December 1922, pp. 86-89. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 4-8

22 John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein – Volume 1: Uncrowned King", 2nd edition, Milford, CT USA, 2006, pp. 290-295

23 "American Chess Bulletin", July 1912, p. 147. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 65-66

24 "Glasgow Weekly Herald", 10 October 1914. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 83

25 "The Observer", 24 August 1919, p. 9. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 97-98

26 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 105

27 John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein – Volume 1: Uncrowned King", 2nd edition, Milford, CT USA, 2006, pp. 370

28 "American Chess Bulletin", March 1920, pp. 45-46. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 108-109

29 "American Chess Bulletin", July-August 1920, p. 126. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 109

30 "British Chess Magazine", October 1922, pp. 376-380. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, pp. 112-115

31 "American Chess Bulletin", September-October 1920, p. 141. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 110

32 Edward Winter, " How Capablanca Became World Champion", 2004, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

33 "The World's Championship Chess Match Played at Havana between Jose Raul Capablanca and Dr. Emanuel Lasker 1921", New York, USA, 1921, p. 39. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 111

For further reading:

Edward Winter, "Lasker on the 1921 World Championship Match", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

There's no room, but it should be noted that the 'Wiener Schachzeitung', March-April 1912, p. 80, even parodies Dr. Lasker's 1911 conditions. So it weren't only the Brits (and Jose) who objected to them.

1) <His first international success was his clear win (+8 -1 =14) over the former world championship challenger in <Capablanca – Marshall (1909)>.>

We will be providing a hyperlink to the player page for the first mention of a player's name, so a slight rewording to mention <Frank Marshall> might be in order. You don't absolutely need to put things in <>; it's just something we often do in drafts (especially emails) to indicate a hyperlink eventually goes there. I'll make sure things that need to be linked are linked whether they are marked as such in the draft or not.

2) <Already at the end of 1908, Capablanca's admirers suggested a title challenge>

I think replacing "Already at the end of 1908" with "By the end of 1908" reads a little more smoothly, but YMMV.

3) <After his win in game 14 with the score now (+4 -0 =10) in the Cuban's favor, Lasker gave up and Capablanca was declared the new world champion>

It's a little confusing who the "his" references at the start. The sentence structure seems to me to imply the "his" is Lasker, although from the match score it has to be Capablanca. Maybe something along the lines of <After Lasker lost for the fourth time in Game 14 without having won a single game, he conceded the match, making Capablanca world champion>.

Thanks!

1) I chose the phrasing so that a link to the match, not to Marshall himself, would be inserted.

2) I agree with you, what about <By the end of 1908 already,...>?

3) You are correct but I would like to keep the exact score. Perhaps <After Capablanca won game 14, the score (+4 -0 =10) was clearly in his favor. Lasker conceded the match and Capablanca was declared the new world champion.>? Or maybe this could be put even smoother.*

I thought about extending the coverage of the games a bit. This would replace <Lasker needed only eleven games to achieve that goal, without losing a single game (+8 -0 =3).> of the current draft.

Suggestion:

<The match began with Lasker winning a miniature, after Janowski blundered a piece on move 19. After an uneventful draw in game 2, Janowski defended tenaciously and salvaged half a point after 101 moves in game 3. The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in game 5. Janowski defended stubbornly again in game 6 to split points. But Lasker went on to win five consecutive games with Janowski refusing a 3-fold repetition in game 8. Lasker defended his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3).>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<I thought about extending the coverage of the games a bit. This would replace <Lasker needed only eleven games to achieve that goal, without losing a single game (+8 -0 =3).> of the current draft.

Suggestion:

<The match began with Lasker winning a miniature, after Janowski blundered a piece on move 19. After an uneventful draw in game 2, Janowski defended tenaciously and salvaged half a point after 101 moves in game 3. The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in game 5. Janowski defended stubbornly again in game 6 <to split points.> But Lasker went on to win five consecutive games with Janowski refusing a 3-fold repetition in game 8. Lasker defended his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3).>

(new word count: 520)>

I think this suggestion is superb- I added it as a "draft suggestion" and just tell me and I'll add it directly into the draft.

One correction: <to split points.> You mean to "draw" right?

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

This draft reflects an impressive close reading of Edward Winter's "Capablanca" and I think you've got the facts and tone just right.

Your article is both a gripping narrative and an objective treatment of the actual events that is fair to everyone involved, including <Capablanca>, <Lasker>, and <Rubinstein>.

I can detect no bias or favoritism in your article.

I think it's excellent.

I'm just wondering if Daniel will have a heart attack the first time he sees an edit with 33 citation notes.

We can talk about this further, but I'm glad at the moment that we have not in fact submitted our first official draft to Daniel for "promotion" to an actual page.

We may have to think of a way to collapse the citation list on some of our drafts.

Before we change anything though, I think it would be a good idea for me to contact Daniel on this issue and at least mention it to him, to see what he does think. Maybe he won't mind 15 or 30 citation notes.

In my opinion, we want to keep on listing primary source material found inside a book, instead of just citing the book. We want the reader to be able to see the data provenance without having to go out and buy the book.

At any rate, much more important than such matters is that we are finishing drafts and making headway.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

I'm editing directly in the mirror- I've put the <> signs around what I changed or suggested as a change.

So far I haven't actually changed anything except punctuation.

For example, I changed this here and marked the change: "have been excellent<.>"21

"Periods" and "commas" come before a "quotation mark" or a "note," in all cases.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Summary of proposed changes.

I put your text first, recommended change underneath in each case:

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

He was considered a worthy aspirant for the title of world champion<,>1 and the title holder Emanuel Lasker said "Capablanca has shown himself to be a great player<.>"4

<He was considered a worthy aspirant for the title of world champion, 1 and reigning champion Emanuel Lasker said "Capablanca has shown himself to be a great player."4>

Suggest avoiding repetition of "title" by referring to Lasker as <reigning champion>

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

He won 1st prize unexpectedly even for himself.9

<He unexpectedly won 1st prize, a result even he hadn't anticipated.9>

"even for himself" grammatically incorrect.

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

About 7 months after this success, he challenged Lasker for a title match.10

<About 7 months after this success, he challenged Lasker to a title match.10>

Grammatical error. You can't challenge someone <for> a match, only <to> a match.

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

Amos Burn 16 and the "British Chess Magazine" 17 sided with Capablanca as the proposed conditions were obviously in favor of Lasker.

<Both Amos Burn 16 and the "British Chess Magazine" 17 sided with Capablanca as the proposed conditions were obviously in favor of Lasker.>

Suggest adding "Both," it disambiguates the notion that Amos Burn was working for the "British Chess Magazine." That's what I assumed when I first read this sentence.

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

Lasker, Rubinstein and Capablanca were considered the strongest players according to the latter.25

<Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25>

Style edit- Active tense preferred to passive tense; and recommend avoiding "former" and "latter" unless absolutely necessary.

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

He managed to convince Lasker of a match, who insisted on being regarded as the challenger though.31

<He managed to convince Lasker to play a match, although the champion insisted on being regarded as the challenger.31>

Grammatical errors. You can't convince someone "of a match."

Thank you very much!

I agree with all of your edit suggestions (also <split the point> in Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 ).

<Jess: We may have to think of a way to collapse the citation list on some of our drafts.

Before we change anything though, I think it would be a good idea for me to contact Daniel on this issue and at least mention it to him, to see what he does think. Maybe he won't mind 15 or 30 citation notes.

In my opinion, we want to keep on listing primary source material found inside a book, instead of just citing the book. We want the reader to be able to see the data provenance without having to go out and buy the book.>

<Jess: I think this suggestion is superb- I added it as a "draft suggestion" and just tell me and I'll add it directly into the draft.>

All family business is now taken care of.

I did notice this whilst doing the business though:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

"Jose Raul Capablanca was regarded as a chess prodigy,1 yet his father wanted him to maintain the "even tenor of the average boy's way"2 <in his youth> at early age."

The information I wanted to convey is that, although he was a chess prodigy, his parents rather dragged him away from chess a) as a little child and b) during his adolescence in the USA (finishing education).

That's, i. e. a), what I tried with <at early age>. If you think that <In his youth> covers that well, then it's fine with me. If <youth> isn't too unspecific.

<"Jose Raul Capablanca was regarded as a chess prodigy,1 yet his father wanted him to maintain the "even tenor of the average boy's way"2 during early life.">

<during his youth> would be best I think?

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

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<"Jose Raul Capablanca was regarded as a chess prodigy,1 yet his father wanted him to maintain the "even tenor of the average boy's way"2 during early life.">

I think you need "his" here.

<during early life>

<during his early life>

<during his youth>

I put all four in the edit. We could use <Ohio> here, this is one of his specialties.

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