|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-04-13
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Thanks for posting the updated Winter article!
I have read it and I will be using some of that valuable information in the edit. |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | Karpova: According to p. 245 of Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz, Chess Champion", McFarland, 1995 The Manhattan Chess Club proposed a title match between Tarrasch and Steinitz (after the Gunsberg match), which Steinitz considered feasible. Tarrasch declined as he had to look after his patients and could devote himself to chess not more than once a year. Just for future reference - this may be useful for one of the drafts. I'm not sure which one though, if it should be included at all. Perhaps Steinitz-Chigorin 2 as it was on the way leading up to it? Or Tarrasch-Lasker? On a sidenote: I quote Landsberger <1995> as it is the corrected 2nd print, yet originally from <1993> - which date is to be preferred? |
|
Oct-05-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> When you begin to make your notes section, then please put it there in this format: 4 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz- Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p.245 I will put it everywhere. |
|
Oct-05-13
| | WCC Editing Project:
I put it in these two:
Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Chigorin 1892 Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908 |
|
Oct-05-13
 | | OhioChessFan: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Steinitz 1896 <Wilhelm Steinitz achieved second place, and this admirable finish > "admirable"? Meh.
<Steinitz lost the very first game> No need for "very". |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 After Dresden (1926), Nimzowitsch challenged Capablanca to a world championship match. From page 189 of the June 1926 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' |
|
Oct-05-13
| | OhioChessFan: A comment from Spassky per the psychological issues: http://www.kingpinchess.net/2007/11... <After the first two games you were leading by two points. Bobby did not turn up for the 2nd game after quarrelling with the organisers.> After the 2nd game I could have returned to Moscow. There was only one way I could have won this match: before the 3rd game, when Bobby raised a scandal with the organisers, I should have resigned this game. <But that sounds quite absurd!> Why? I was about to do so, but I was the Chess King and I could not go back upon my word. I had promised to play this game. As a result, I destroyed my fighting spirit and the match which promised to be a great chess feast turned into a litigation. Some days before the start of the 3rd game I spoke for half an hour on the telephone with Pavlov, president of the Soviet Sports Committee. He demanded that I should declare an ultimatum which, I was sure, Fischer, Euwe and the organisers would have never accepted; so, the match would be broken off. The whole telephone conversation was just a never-ending exchange of two phrases: ‘Boris Vassilievich, you must declare an ultimatum!’; to which I responded, ‘Sergei Pavlovich, I shall play the match!’ After this conversation I spent three hours in bed shivering with nervousness. Actually I saved Fischer when I agreed to play the 3rd game. So, the match was practically finished after this game. In the second half of the match I simply did not have the energy. A chess player in such a match is like a car which has too little fuel left. And if you have to go 500 kilometres with practically no fuel, where will the car take you? Unfortunately, most of the chess public is not aware of it. |
|
Oct-05-13
| | OhioChessFan: Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935 <Alekhine began by surging to a 5-2 lead. Some fans believed Euwe "would crack completely," but he clawed back with a sparkling win in <game 8>-Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 .<10>> (Score is now 5-3.)
< Alekhine remained sanguine> Alekhine remained confident with a 2 point lead? Who’d have guessed? |
|
Oct-05-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <OhioResearchFan>
This is really on point, thanks so much:
http://www.kingpinchess.net/2007/11... It's a particularly significant find because it seems to be the original interview, first published on <Kingpin>. "First published in Kingpin 29 (Autumn 1998)"
I had read the same words in other sources, but thanks to you, now we can cite the original document. I'm adding it to the mirror now- Game Collection: WCC: Fischer- Spassky 1972 If you can find any more reliable online resources like this for other games collections, it would be fabulous. |
|
Oct-05-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <OhioContradictionFan> Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935 <Alekhine remained confident with a 2 point lead? Who’d have guessed?> Heh...
Maybe you can help me with this? The idea is that despite Euwe clawing back with a win, it didn't shake Alekhine's belief that he would inevitably triumph. If you can figure out an improved way to get this point across, I'd be grateful. |
|
Oct-05-13
| | OhioChessFan: <The idea is that despite Euwe clawing back with a win, it didn't shake Alekhine's belief that he would inevitably triumph.> I would guess any WC would have the same self confidence in that circumstance. "So he won a game, now I'm only up 2 points." |
|
Oct-05-13
| | OhioChessFan: Per the Spassky interview, I think much of the psychological trauma claimed is typical excuse making, per the inevitable claims of headaches, inclement weather, bad food, etc. But it is still interesting and accurate to quote the combatant, regardless if you are buying what he's selling. |
|
Oct-05-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
You'd think so yes.
Can you give me a suggestion how better to present this sequence? <Alekhine began by surging to a 5-2 lead. Some fans believed Euwe "would crack completely," but he clawed back with a sparkling win in <game 8>-Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 .<10> Alekhine remained sanguine, later recounting that "from the 10th to the 14th games, I was falsely persuaded into a belief that the match was virtually over."> |
|
Oct-06-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Per the Spassky interview, I think much of the psychological trauma claimed is typical excuse making, per the inevitable claims of headaches, inclement weather, bad food, etc. But <<<it is still interesting and accurate to quote the combatant,>>> regardless if you are buying what he's selling.> +500
Yes we want to be all about "the horse's mouth" here, and even better, from the original source. Which you found.
I'm almost certain portions of that interview are reprinted in Frank "Brady Bunch's" most recent Fischer biography. I'll check later. |
|
Oct-06-13
| | WCC Editing Project:
<inclement weather>
To help celebrate your find, here is Paul McCartney singing a song which includes the lyrics: "The Willow turns his back
On inclement weather..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EZ7...
Seriously though, I hadn't realized "Kingpin" was a serious chess journal (it is). I had been assuming (wrongly) that it was a comedy magazine devoted solely to "bringing down" Mondo. |
|
| Oct-06-13 | | Karpova: <Jess> With regards to Kingpin, very wrong you were indeed! |
|
| Oct-06-13 | | Karpova: Draft for Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890 <Isidor Arthur Gunsberg> was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1854. During the mid-1880s, he established himself among the strongest chessplayers in the world.1 In matches, he beat <Henry Edward Bird> in 1886 2 and <Joseph Henry Blackburne> in 1887.3 His tournament successes include winning <Hamburg (1885)>, a shared 1st place with <Amos Burn> at London 1887 4, a win at Bradford 1888 5 and shared 1st place with Bird in London 1889.6 In 1888, he said that before a match against <Wilhelm Steinitz>, his own play should get " a little more mature." 7 Already a year later, when <Mikhail Chigorin> got his <shot at the title> <<(insert match link)>, Steinitz was asked why he hadn't chosen <George Henry Mackenzie> or Gunsberg.8 Steinitz replied that the former had declined and the latter a worse record than Chigorin.8 In support of Gunsberg, the 'Chess Monthly' declared that Chigorin should have played Gunsberg, instead of Steinitz.9 The Havana Chess Club declared to host a match between Gunsberg and the Russian, even if the latter lost to Steinitz.9 The match between Chigorin and Gunsberg took place in Havana in early 1890 and ended drawn.10 This result was enough to entitle him to a world championship match against Steinitz.11 <James Mason> objected to the choice, but his charges were impertinent,12 and the result at New York 1889 spoke against him.13 He suggested that Gunsberg playing him first should be the condition for a match against Steinitz.14 This proposal was rejected by Steinitz .11 The conditions for the title match between Steinitz and Gunsberg were negotiated. The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.15 Gunsberg was agreed to receive $150 travelling expenses by the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. The match was to last 20 games.16 British amateurs enabled Gunsberg to contribute 75 pounds to the winner's prize.17 The arrangements for the world championship match were completed on December 6.18 The match began on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club. The match was opened by Colonel G. F. Betts.19 The referee was <Isaac Leopold Rice>, the umpires were Holladay for Steinitz and <August Vorrath> for Gunsberg, while Fred Mintz was in control of the whole arrangement.20 Play was conducted between 13:30 to 17:00 and 19:00 to 22:30.20 The playing venue was a small room, while the spectators followed the games on a diagram board on the wall of the large room downstairs.20 Initially, the match received less interest than the expected as Steinitz was considered the clear favorite and his cable match against Chigorin had to be halted.20 Steinitz took an early lead. However, Gunsberg demonstrated that the match was no one-sided affair. He equalized the score and even pulled ahead after game 5. Although the match had to be suspended after game 4, as Steinitz suffered from a cold.21 Interest in the match increased.22 Steinitz hadn't fully recovered,23 yet he won game 6. During this game, Gunsberg had exceeded the time limit but Steinitz refused to claim a win.23 After game 5, Steinitz had declared to play the Queen's Gambit until he won.24 He reached his goal in game 7 and retained the lead for the rest of the match. The match was halted during the Christmas holidays. 25 Gunsberg struck in game 12 with the Evans Gambit. Prior to the match, Steinitz had challenged Gunsberg to a theoretical duel in this opening.26 The contested position had arisen in the adjourned Steinitz – Chigorin cable match and the public had been looking forward to Gunsberg taking up the challenge.27 Steinitz did not show up for game 18. The telegram he had sent to excuse himself, had been delayed. Gunsberg could have claimed the game but did not.28 Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit the 4th time in game 18. Despite his previous good score with it, he now lost. Steinitz drew game 19, thereby winning the match and retaining his title (+6 -4 =9). |
|
| Oct-06-13 | | Karpova: 1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p417... 2 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m838... 3 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m864... 4 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 5 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 6 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 7 "Bradford Observer Budget", 28 July 1888. In Edward Winter, "Chess Note 5136." Retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (submitted by Joost van Winsen, Silvolde, the Netherlands) 8 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 209 9 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 210 10 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m927... 11 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 239 12 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), pp. 237-238 13 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 14 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), pp. 238-239 15 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 238 16 "The Sun", New York, 4 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 17 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 240 18 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 247 19 "New-York Daily Tribune", 10 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 20 "The Sun", New York, 10 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 21 "New-York Daily Tribune", 19 December1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 22 "New-York Daily Tribune", 21 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 23 "The Sun", New York, 21 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 24 "The Sun", New York, 19 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 25 "The Sun", New York, 28 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 26 "New-York Daily Tribune", 6 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 27 "The World", New York, 6 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 28 "The World", New York, 20 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... |
|
Oct-06-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890 This is stunning research. The full story of this match has never been told all in one place like this, and now you have told it! Congratulations, an important contribution to chess history writing. I have given your draft a preliminary edit, but don't worry if you see a change you don't like, because there's plenty of time to talk about it. No changes to content have been made- changes so far are only for grammar, diction, and consistency of style. I suggest you don't move or change any of the note numbers in the intro until we are finished editing your draft? I rearranged a few sentences so I think a note or two might be temporarily out of numerical sequence, but each number still corresponds to the right reference. We have to keep it that way so be sure not to change anything to do with the noting until we are finished editing. I made the mistake of changing the note sequence in a few of my drafts before they were fully edited, and more than once I had to recheck every single one of them to get them back in the right order. On one it took me hours to untangle them, but that's because two of my references were WRONG to begin with. Heh so it was actually a lucky accident.
Anyways I should have been in bed a few hours ago but I was too excited by your draft to go to sleep. I'll be back tomorrow after work. |
|
Oct-06-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
I have a question about this sequence-
<James Mason objected to the choice, but his charges were impertinent,12 and the result at New York 1889 spoke against him.13 He suggested Gunsberg should play him first as a condition for a match against Steinitz.14 The champion rejected this proposal.11> What were the results at <New York 1889>? Also I suggest quoting part of the actual words of the source who labeled Mason's complaint to be "impertinent." As the sentence reads now, it means that *you* labeled his "charges" to be "impertinent." I think you have a source who actually used that word right? Aha I just checked the source, Landsberger pp. 247-48. 1. <Mason> complained in print that <Steinitz> chose <Gunsberg> because he was a Jew (member of the chosen people) and because he knew Gunsberg was weaker than Steinitz. 2. <Steinitz> responded that <Mason> was probably drunk when he said this - that his "...manifesto should be taken 'cum grano whiskey.'" This is a joke on the saying you should take someone's words "with a grain of salt-" that is, you should be skeptical of those words. "With a grain of whiskey" is the joke, meaning that Mason was probably drunk at the time he voiced his objection, and the further implication is that Mason was drunk a lot of the time, so you should always be skeptical of his words. 3. <Steinitz> wonders why the the "Baltimore Sunday News" should "endorse... such an impudent production." Instead of changing "impudent" to "impertinent," why not use Steinitz's original words here- "James Mason objected to the choice, but Steinitz labeled his objection "impudent."12 Finally, I strongly suggest you include the actual grounds for objection- that Mason accused Steinitz of favoring Jews, and of liking his opponents "the weaker the better." And I suggest you include Steinitz's accusation against Mason of being an habitual drunk whose complaints shouldn't be taken seriously. That's really the main story of this passage, and should be included in the intro. We need to know why Mason objected, and why Steinitz disregarded and criticized not only Mason's objection, but also Mason himself. |
|
Oct-06-13
| | WCC Editing Project: Maybe like this-
"James Mason objected to the choice on the grounds that Steinitz favored challengers who were both fellow Jews and weaker players than himself. Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and joked that Mason was likely drunk when he made it."12 |
|
| Oct-07-13 | | Karpova: <Jess> I agree with you, it sounds good! As Jean-Luc Picard would say <Make it so!>. I didn't want to go more into detail there as the draft got a bit too long. |
|
| Oct-07-13 | | Karpova: Regarding New York 1889, do you think that the link to http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... is not enough? Perhaps something like
"<James Mason> objected to the choice on the grounds that Steinitz favored challengers who were both fellow Jews and weaker players than himself. Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and joked that Mason was likely drunk when he made it.12 At New York 1889, Gunsberg had performed considerably better than Mason.13" |
|
Oct-07-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Your sentence is perfect, I just put it in.
"<James Mason> objected to the choice on the grounds that Steinitz favored challengers who were both fellow Jews and weaker players than himself. Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and joked that Mason was likely drunk when he made it.12 At New York 1889, Gunsberg had performed considerably better than Mason.13" Also, I found more room by shortening existing sentences without cutting any content- and I did in fact cut two pieces of content, but I kept them stored underneath the Notes Section of your Draft in the mirror. These are the two sentences I "moved" rather than just cut (remember your full draft remains intact on your own computer, so we'll never actually "lose" anything): <Mason suggested Gunsberg should play him first as a condition for a match against Steinitz,14 but the champion rejected this proposal.11> (I think this information is no longer necessary given the detail added about Mason's objection and Steinitz's response). <The match was halted during the Christmas holidays. 25> ####################################
I don't think these are crucial, and with the new cuts the word count is down to 632. I think we should carve all our drafts to be not one word more than 650- I have a kind of bad feeling about going over that length. The longest original intro is 570 words, so maybe "650" isn't too much more than that. I will also cut my own drafts down that are currently longer than 650 words. The description of the game, with the Evans gambit question- I'm wondering if the mention of the adjourned Chigorin cable match is necessary? It kind of needs a bit more explanation there. Or you could cut it and maybe put back one of the sentences I already cut and put at the bottom of the draft. At any rate you have time to think about this. |
|
Oct-07-13
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova, crawfb5 and potential future draft writers> I should explain more fully. I've been putting off telling Daniel directly about our "650" word practice, partly because I'm afraid to hear his answer. I'm going to bite the bullet and ask him directly.
I think it might be ok because as I mentioned a long time ago, in one email exchange he thought I wanted to make the intros "more than 60k" which is maybe 10,000 words. LOL!
I reassured him that was not the case, but we didn't discuss "intro length" any further. At any rate we all have our original draft copies, so maybe we can decide on what to do better after I talk to Daniel. I'm going to email him now in fact. Ok keep fingers crossed everyone. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
