<college> it is then.

Here is an audiovisual aid:

< and negotiations began between Moscow and Mr. du Mont, editor of the "British Chess Magazine." On 22 March 1946 Alekhine received a telegram from the British Chess Federation, informing him that match conditions had been agreed to..>

It's absolutely not a small point. It's a point that hasn't been stated clearly before in one source (to my knowledge), so it's of the utmost importance that we get this right. Look how much we didn't know before you started insisting on knowing the full story. We have to do more than just shift data from one place to another, we have to work hard to figure out what actually happened, and why, and then present that to the reader.

We need the full logic of events here for the rest of the story to make sense. I appreciate your nothing less than heroic effort in this cause.

Let's try a few of your suggestions out.

For starters, it's <Julius du Mont>, a fact Botvinnik may never actually have known, or else had forgotten when he wrote his autobiography. Luckily the "word counter" only counts words, not letters, so we don't add any words by replacing "Mr." with "Julius."

Also Jinx- I like your idea of including the "British Chess Magazine." I had a draft with that in earlier, and then thought to myself then I have to shorten "British Chess Federation" to "BCF" and maybe people won't know what that is, or think we made a typo trying to write "BCM."

What about the Full Monty?

I think there's a way to bridge the "information gap" between du Mont and Derbyshire, BCM and BCF, without guessing, because we don't know for sure how that torch was passed, or when, for that matter.

We could just stick to the facts we know.

"At this point the BCF had taken over the negotiations,"

or

"By this time the BCF was handling the negotiations."

Please think on this while I try to work out a new paragraph.

"Before war broke out in 1939, Mikhail Botvinnik had been negotiating a title match with Alexander Alekhine to be played in Moscow. In 1946 Botvinnik renewed his challenge. After Alekhine was accused of Nazi collaboration, the Soviets were reluctant to hold the match in Moscow or to negotiate directly with Alekhine. Botvinnik suggested the match move to London, and negotiations began between Moscow and Julius du Mont, editor of the "British Chess Magazine." On 22 March 1946 Alekhine received a telegram from the British Chess Federation, who were now handling the negotiations. <The telegram stated> that match conditions had been agreed to. Alekhine died the next day."

And think of <They informed him> as an option- though I think the repetition of "telegram" is more precise. No word count difference.

"who were now handling the negotiations."

The note would explain that we can't find the explanation for why negotiating duties passed from <du Mont> to <Derbyshire>.

On other news, I have indeed found more information. Our paragraph in its present form has some factual errors.

The intro is accurate up to here (at least according to Botvinnik):

<Before war broke out in 1939, Mikhail Botvinnik had been negotiating a title match with Alexander Alekhine to be played in Moscow. In 1946 Botvinnik renewed his challenge. After Alekhine was accused of Nazi collaboration, the Soviets were reluctant to hold the match in Moscow or to negotiate directly with Alekhine. Botvinnik suggested the match move to London, and negotiations began between Moscow and Julius du Mont, editor of the "British Chess Magazine.">

The next part has to be rewritten, and not just for better explaining the logic of the story. The previous version had factual errors.

heh

Seriously though there appears to be something wrong with <Botvinnik's> account of the last stage of negotiations in 1946.

There's a contradiction in the chronology from Mikhail himself that I have to investigate.

There was also a gross factual error in the previous version of our intro. Alekhine did *not* die "the next day" after receiving a telegram from "Mr. Derbyshire."

<He earned the right to challenge Boris Spassky in a title run without comparison>

I'm not sure what "without comparison" means, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen the phrase before.

<Now the stage was set, and the only thing standing between Fischer and Spassky was Fischer himself.>

This is pretty fluffy. Even allowing for fluff, it would be more correct to say the only thing standing between Fischer and the WCC was Fischer himself. And I'd be at a loss to source such an opinion. I'm guessing a lot of Spassky supporters sort of liked their man's chances.

<British chess promoter James Slater donated a dazzling $125,000 to be added to the prize fund.>

Dazzling? What, it was shiny gold coins?

<and one famously persuasive telephone call from Henry Kissinger.>

It was famous and Kissinger tried to be persuasive, but it wasn't famously persuasive.

<On July 11th, the "Match of the Century" had begun. >

began

<This turned out to be a huge psychological mistake by Spassky. >

Game Collection: WCC: Fischer- Spassky 1972

<"Without comparison"> is unusual as an adjective phrase in English. I've never seen it before as it appears in the intro.

It sounds like a clumsy version of a well known French adjective phrase which means something similar=

"Sans pareil" (without parallel).

I looked at your other finds- the factual error on <Kissinger's> call leaps out at you, doesn't it?

I also looked at your finds on unsourced opinions, which pepper the text.

This article is rubbish. It would literally have been better simply to copy and paste portions of the Wikipedia entry for this event.

I'm wiping it.