<Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal. He returned to New York City as a young man 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.

[new paragraph] Marshall began his first round of negotiations with Lasker for a world championship match in 1903. >

<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 possessions. (4)>

I would still like quotation marks <somewhere> to identify this as Lasker’s words. “demonical” would be a bit more the common spelling.

< The world champion accepted the challenge and both published a statement on December 3,>

<From the end of the 19th century onwards>

By the thinnest of hairs, I prefer <onward>

<The match received little attention as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games which therefore couldn't be printed.>

<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 reigning champion 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, León 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) >

The last line should say "international tournament debut" so as not to contradict the "international success" which is referencing a match, not tournament.

< Most people considered Capablanca's treatment unjust.>

<The Neue Wiener Schachzeitung commented that the games were played in "Wild West style," and that Alekhine had beaten Bogoljubov by adapting himself to his specialty, "the field of tactics.">

Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929

<<The Neue Wiener Schachzeitung commented that the games were played in "Wild West style," and that Alekhine had beaten Bogoljubov by adapting himself to his specialty, "the field of tactics.">

This is a bit sloppy. The "himself" and "his" after both names being referenced is a bit unclear. Maybe ".....and that Alekhine had won by adapting himself to Bogoljubov's specialty, "the field of tactics".>

Outstanding, thank you and your choice enacted.

That sentence had been giving me hives on several versions I'd tried, none of them seeming quite right.

Again, this is why they pay you the big volunteer money.

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

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<<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 reigning champion 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, León 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) >

The last line should say "international tournament debut" so as not to contradict the "international success" which is referencing a match, not tournament.>

Enacted, because there can't be an international debut after you already had an international success.

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

<< Most people considered Capablanca's treatment unjust.>

This is a bit sloppy. Couldn't that possibly, and incorrectly, be understood as "Capablanca's treatment of Lasker"? I think it worth the extra words to clarify, eg, "Most people considered Lasker's treatment of Capablanca as unjust.">

I think "Most people considered Lasker's treatment of Capablanca as unjust" is certainly clearer. But having just re-read the paragraph, I also think <Karpova's> original is clear enough, and a more concise ending to the point. If it were my draft I'd leave it as is.

It's up to <Karpova> on this one.

<<From the end of the 19th century onwards>

By the thinnest of hairs, I prefer <onward>>

They are both grammatically correct right? So it's up to <Karpova>.

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

<<The match received little attention as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games which therefore couldn't be printed.>

Another semantical thin hair, but the games <could> be printed but Lasker chose not to allow the press to do so. And I think some sort of qualifier is in order regarding the "little". Surely people were aware of it, games posted in the newspapers or not. Surely the chess world took note. Maybe ".......received little (or limited) attention from the public, as Lasker had secured.....". Or even changing "little" to "limited" softens that a bit.>

I don't think "couldn't" needs to be replaced.

As for "little" there is something I'd like to know from <Karpova>-

<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.8>

Is the first sentence also sourced to note <8>? If it is, then no problem.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

<<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 possessions. (4)>

I would still like quotation marks <somewhere> to identify this as Lasker’s words. “demonical” would be a bit more the common spelling.>

I think "demoniacal" is much better than "demonical" because the first is more in tune with contemporaneous idiom, certainly in English.

<Karpova> what about putting the word "demoniacal" in quotation marks? Two reasons for doing this- it makes it clear the paraphrase is sourced to what Lasker actually said, and also it makes the word "demoniacal" leap right out at you, increasing the drama and punch of the paraphrase.

If it were my draft I would keep the original spelling and put quotations around "demoniacal."

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

<< The world champion accepted the challenge and both published a statement on December 3,>

That “both” seems misplaced. I’d prefer “they both” or “they jointly” or simply "they" to clarify that the sentence isn’t saying “The WC both published a statement and also ___________ (some other thing the WC did). Just reading it now, I got to the end of the sentence awaiting what else the world champion did and had to reread it to understand what the “both” was referencing.>

I'd also prefer "they" or maybe "both masters" here.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907

<<Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal. He returned to New York City as a young man 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.

[new paragraph] Marshall began his first round of negotiations with Lasker for a world championship match in 1903. >

I don’t care for the timeline of that section. The quote is in reference to his return to NYC at 15, then jumps to a tournament success at 26, then back to WC negotiations initiated at 25. The 1904 reference seems to be a teaser as to Marshall's suitability to challenge, but the negotiations had started a year before that tournament.>

I logged this in the draft.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Here is the revised 1st paragraph:

<"Before war broke out in 1939, Mikhail Botvinnik had been negotiating a title match with Alexander Alekhine to be played in Moscow. In early 1946 Botvinnik renewed his challenge. Due to scandal caused by accusations against Alekhine for being a Nazi collaborator, the Soviet government was reluctant to hold the match in Moscow or to negotiate directly with Alekhine. Botvinnik suggested the match be played in London, and negotiations were carried out between Moscow and the British Chess Federation. On 22 March 1946 the BCF informed Alekhine that match conditions had been agreed to. Alekhine received the telegram, but died a day later.">

It's a 100 words and that's too many for my liking.

If you could "Ohioize" it down without losing any necessary information, I'd really appreciate it.

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

That's a good suggestion, put <demoniacal> in quotation marks. You can have a look at the original once you get 'Lasker's Chess Magazine', <Jess>.

<The world champion accepted the challenge and both published a statement on December 3,>

Agreed, replace <both> with <they both>.

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<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.8>

Yes, all of this is sourced to note 8. Maybe rephrase the first sentence a bit: <The match received limited attention from the public as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games which therefore couldn't be printed without charge.>

On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Most people considered Capablanca's treatment unjust.20>

Change it to <Most people considered Lasker's treatment of Capablanca as unjust.20>

and

<Later, he was in the USA to finish his education, but left university in 1910 to concentrate more fully on chess.3>

to <Later, he spent time in the USA to finish his education, but left university in 1910 to concentrate more fully on chess.3>

I put all your requests in- some notes on this one here:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Most people considered Lasker's treatment of Capablanca as unjust>

I put in "to be" unjust for grammar reasons.

I put "in his youth" in, but we can change it any time you want.

<After Mikhail Botvinnik regained his title,>

This needs the year referenced.

<Tal convincingly beat every notable grandmaster with his trademark aggression.1>

I don't think this is true. Petrosian had a positive score overall, and Tal had only one win against Petrosian at the time of the WC match.

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Tal 1960

<<After Mikhail Botvinnik regained his title,>

This needs the year referenced.

<Tal convincingly beat every notable grandmaster with his trademark aggression.1>

I don't think this is true. Petrosian had a positive score overall, and Tal had only one win against Petrosian at the time of the WC match.

If it just means he won games convincingly against every notable GM, that's almost superflous. Who wouldn't you say that about?>

I agree strongly with both your points, and they are the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I just wiped the entire intro.

Not only was it shoddily written, half of it wasn't written at all- just a long quote "sourced" to a dead web link. That's just lazy. Reminds me of "writing" university papers due the next day and finding the longest possible quotes to fill up the word count.

The only other "source" was wikipedia.

I'd be surprised if this intro took longer than half an hour to "write."

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<<Later, he spent time in the USA to finish his education, but left university in 1910 to concentrate more fully on chess.>

In the US, you definitely "leave college" and do not "leave university".>

Interesting. In Canada it's the precise opposite.

Here, a "college" isn't even a university- it's a "pre-university" institution that is not allowed to grant an actual degree. Only a "certificate."

The only other way we use "college" is to denote a sub-group at some universities, such as the University of Toronto or Queen's University.

They are both organized into "colleges" because they are based on the English model.

QUESTION: In Capablanca's day, would he have called it "university" or "college"?

< The January 1926 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' reports on page 29, that Dr. Lasker held a lecture in the Hamburg Chess Club and also addressed the world championship. The Russians were disposed to arrange a match between Capablanca and Bogoljubov, yet the plan suffered a setback as Capablanca declared that he wanted to play in 1927. Then, Capablanca is cited who said in Berlin that no one had offered him money for a match and neither Bogoljubov nor Dr. Lasker had challenged him. He is ready to defend his title against every player, whomever it may be and "I have no doubts about the outcome of such a match" (<und ich bin nicht im Zweifel über den Ausgang eines solchen Kampfes>).>

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Ok opening paragraph looks like this now:

<On 22 March 1946 the British Chess Federation informed Alekhine that match conditions had been agreed to. Alekhine received the telegram, but died a day late>

Du Mont was the first contact, then negotiating duties were taken over by <Mr. Derbyshire>, president of the BCF. Botvinnik doesn't say why the point man changed- maybe the English wanted their official organization in charge?

What about

<In the US, you definitely "leave college" and do not "leave university".>