I thought it may add some flavour to the description. Apparently, the cable match was a pretty big deal back then and the chess public not too happy about it being adjourned because of the Gunsberg match. And Steinitz had reached that Evans Gambit position against Chigorin, and after his challenge to Gunsberg, the newspaper reports state that people were looking forward to seeing Gunsberg go for the Evans in his White games. If that's unclear, I'm not sure how to convey the information without going too much into detail.

If you want, the whole Evans thing can be cut out.

<(I think this information is no longer necessary given the detail added about Mason's objection and Steinitz's response).>

"Mason suggested Gunsberg should play him first as a condition for a match against Steinitz,14 but the champion rejected this proposal.11"

You make good points all.

On other news, I heard back from Daniel and he said He "cant' wait" to see the new intros, and that "I'm sure 650 words is fine."

So it's up to you- you are at 632 words as it is right now.

I think you should choose which parts you want to keep and which parts not.

If you like I can try to find a way to make the Evans- adjourned match clearer without adding extra words?

<Steinitz replied that the former (Mackenzie) had declined and the latter had a worse record than Chigorin.8>

From this source- http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

<a contest which is looked upon in English chess circles as a <<<foregone conclusion>>> in favor of Steinitz>

That calls for the strongest language possible-

<Initially the match received less interest than expected because Steinitz was considered a <<<prohibitive favorite,>>> and also because a popular ongoing cable match between Steinitz and Chigorin had to be interrupted.20>

<The arrangements for the Steinitz-Gunsberg title match were completed on December 6, 1890:18 best of 20 games <<<or 1st to 10 wins>>> for stakes of $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.15>

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

This is the source text and location of the addition, in case you need to add or rearrange a note later:

<With the tenth game the first half of the contest is concluded, for, as the readers of THE WORLD will remember, the stipulations of the match contain the clause that if none of the players have scored the necessary ten “wins” the match shall be terminated after twenty games played, and the winner of the majority shall be declared the victor.>

The World, New York, 1891.01.03

http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

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

No, the direct quote from Landsberger is (why Chigorin was selected) <According to Steinitz, Mackenzie had refused and Chigorin had a better record than Gunsberg.>

<Jess: If you like I can try to find a way to make the Evans- adjourned match clearer without adding extra words?>

Yes, I would be thankful if you tried it!

<Jess: By using such a strong adjective as "prohibitive" it makes it clearer to the reader why there was initially less interest than expected in the match.>

I'm okay with <prohibitive>.

Thank you for disambiguation on Mackenzie, that may be the last piece of the puzzle.

I agree on the 656 words not being too much- that's only 6 words more than we now have OFFICIAL TOP SECRET PERMISSION to use.

I'm so happy about this. The 650 word range is enough to include tons of the new information we are digging up, with the help of amazing people such as <thomastonk>, <dakgootje>, <Mr. Pope> and his website, and also with the help of comprehensive access to excellent journals, newspapers, and a giant collection of chess history books.

Back to your draft, I think the connection between the Evans gambit and the adjourned cable match is actually quite clear. You already spoke of the match earlier, and that it was interrupted. So we already know what you're referring to when you link Gunsberg's lighting strike with the Evans to a position occurring in the Steintiz-Chigorin cable match. It's obvious from the newspaper articles that the fans were not only keenly aware of this, they were also really excited about it.

This further ties in with the arc of your narrative, about how at first the fans weren't too excited because they thought Gunsberg would get pounded, and then gradually more and more things happened to increase public interest in the match.

In the end, you demonstrate that the match turned out to be among the most exciting of any of the WCC matches.

I think the only thing left to fix is to disambiguate the Mackenzie sentence. That can be done very easily without increasing word count.

In my opinion this is a clear, exciting, and extremely well written chess history article.

I think it may be my favorite of the ones you've written.

On to the next ones!

Daniel was very excited by the fact we have completed so many now, and said he can't wait to see them.

"Steinitz replied that the former had declined and the latter had a worse record than Chigorin.8"

It's just a minor point, for the sake of completeness.

New York 1927 is announced for March. It's made clear that the WC match Capablanca against Alekhine takes place afterwards as Nimzowitsch withdrew his challenge. He could only raise $4,000 instead of the demanded $10,000.

I have added your new sentence.

I should mention that I didn't see it being spelled out but some of the statements may perhaps indicate that there were no draw odds. But this is not clear and I left it out.

Remember, after game 17, Steinitz lead 5-4 (he then won game 18 and drew game 19):

On Game 18 - 'The Sun', New York, 1891.01.22: <What gave yesterday’s game a deeper interest was the bearing which its result would have upon the final issue of the match. Should Steinitz win it, it was considered that the match would be decided in his favor, for it would require that Gunsberg should win both the remaining games to even draw the match. Should the eighteenth game be drawn there would remain a chance for Gunsberg to draw, if not actually win the match, while if he should win this game his chances to make the match a draw would be little short of a certainty and his hopes of winning it would be raised considerably.>

Game 19:
'New-York Daily Tribune', 1891.01.23: <The result of Wednesday’s play still left it possible for Gunsberg to draw the match, but in order to do this he had got to win consecutively the only two games which might still be played before the maximum limit of twenty was reached. Yesterday’s game being drawn, the score was brought to this state: Steinitz 6, Gunsberg 4, drawn 9, which rendered it impossible any longer for Gunsberg to divide championship honors with the veteran player,> <but considered it wise to compound for a draw rather than risk the possibility of a mistake which might have cost him the game and given Gunsberg still a chance to draw the match.>

'The Sun, New York', 1891.01.23: <Steinitz was greeted on Wednesday night after he had won the eighteenth game in his match with Gunsberg, as possessor of “half the championship,”> <Yesterday, by drawing the nineteenth game in the contest, he became once more his old self, the chess champion of the world,>

http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

What's interesting to me in a wider historical context is when did "draw odds" for the world championship actually become a convention?

And after it did become a convention, why weren't draw odds explicitly written into the contracts?

The irritating thing is that these contracts seem not to have been published eh?

And the case that interests me most is the original draft of the "London rules." (by "original" I mean the ones the masters signed at London 1922)

No mention of draw odds there.

Also, according to the original "London rules" there was no "right of rematch" for the loser either.

The first "right of rematch" for the loser clause in a contract that I know of was for <Alekhine-Euwe 1935>.

I agree with you!

<Jess: What's interesting to me in a wider historical context is when did "draw odds" for the world championship actually become a convention?>

The earliest case I know of is <Rubinstein-Lasker 1914> - <(4) If the match ends drawn, the title is retained by the present holder.> (see p. 292 of the 2nd edition of 'Uncrowned King')*. Although it is also strongly suggested for the unpublished contract for <Schlechter-Lasker 1910>, as there seems to have been awareness that Dr. Lasker would retain his title if he won the last game**.

Perhaps Dr. Lasker was the first one to start regulating everything as he also went so far to claim the copyright for the games, in the end.

*Do we really have the best information on the conditions for the match cancelled because of WWI?

<The match between Chigorin and Gunsberg took place in Havana in early 1890 and ended drawn.10 This result was enough to entitle Gunsberg to a world championship match against Steinitz.>

“entitled” is too strong. That means as a matter of course, or right.

<Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit for the 4th time in game 18. Despite his previous good score with it, he now lost.>

Would "qualify" be better?

<OhioChessFan: “now lost” is wrong. I don’t think the point can be easily clarified without adding more than a few words, and I think the whole sentence should be reworked.>

<<OhioChessFan: “now lost” is wrong. I don’t think the point can be easily clarified without adding more than a few words, and I think the whole sentence should be reworked.>

Perhaps "Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit for the 4th time in game 18. After scoring +2 =1 with it previously, he lost this time." ?>

<but this time he lost.> is better, and does the job admirably.

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

<<OhioChessFan: “entitled” is too strong. That means as a matter of course, or right.> Would "qualify" be better?>

I have a question about this.

Here is the passage from your draft:

<The match between Chigorin and Gunsberg took place in Havana in early 1890 and ended drawn.10 This result was enough to entitle Gunsberg to a world championship match against Steinitz.11>

Note <11> is this:

<11 Landsberger, p. 239>

The story of Gunsberg's challenge actually runs from pp. 238-239, and it involves his correspondence with the <Manhattan Chess Club>, who acted as intermediaries in the preliminary negotiations.

So it was Gunsberg himself who believed (rightly, I'm sure) that he had earned the moral right to play Steinitz due to his drawn match against Chigorin in Havana.

Steinitz seemed amenable to Gunsberg's challenge, the details of which were communicated to the champion by the Manhattan Chess Club.

Steinitz merely told the MCC that he wanted more money, so the MCC passed this message to Gunsberg, Gunsberg raised more money, and the MCC told Steinitz there was more money, Steinitz seemed satisfied, and so a preliminary agreement was then reached.

So I suggest two things.

1. Expand note <11> to read pp. 238-239

2. Then maybe change your sentence to read something like:

<The match between Chigorin and Gunsberg took place in Havana in early 1890 and ended drawn.10 This result was enough to convince Gunsberg to challenge Steinitz to a title match. The Manhattan Chess Club served as intermediaries for this preliminary negotiation, and Steinitz "settled" in principle to play for a stake of $1,500.11>

I will put them in then.

<Botvinnik vs Smyslov Return Match 1957

Moscow

At the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament, a ten player double round robin, Vasily Smyslov again emerged victorious +6 -1 =11, 1.5 points ahead of Keres.

This earned Smyslov the right to challenge Mikhail Botvinnik for a second time. The title match was held at Moscow, March 1957. >

"again" needs some context. While the next sentence sort of clarifies that the "again" has some reference to playing Botvinnik, I think there must be a more explicit explanation of what Smyslov won for the second time. The sentence is already a bit long, so adding anything almost demands it be broken up, eg,

Following his victory in the 1954 Candidates Tournament, Vasily Smyslov won the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament, a ten player double round robin. Smyslov won with a score of +6 -1 =11, 1.5 points ahead of Keres.

<This earned Smyslov the right to challenge Mikhail Botvinnik for a second time. The title match was held at Moscow, March 1957. >

I don't quite like this sentence. "This earned Smyslov" is a pretty weak/awkward construction.

<In this match, and again in 1958, Botvinnik played without the use of a second. >

I don't like the 1958 reference. Not a big deal, but why get ahead of the game when pursuing a historical matter?

<During the 1954 match, Botvinnik felt that Smyslov was too ready for prepared variations that he (Botvinnik) had never played before. Believing that his second was leaking information, and unwilling to trust anyone else, Botvinnik played the next two matches alone.1>

<<During the 1954 match, Botvinnik felt that Smyslov was too ready for prepared variations that he (Botvinnik) had never played before. Believing that his second was leaking information, and unwilling to trust anyone else, Botvinnik played the next two matches alone.1>

Need to go ahead and name the second, even if the other info is in the footnote.>

The footnote is a dead link, and even when it was alive it was useless because it was <Cree>.

This anecdote is in fact unproven, but I will indeed be investigating it.

I should tell you that by coincidence I spent almost all day today marshalling resources for the intros from 1948 until 1972. I have excellent holdings on this "Russian phase" of the story, so I think it quite likely that I- or future writers- will be redoing all of the intros from this time span from scratch.

The only reason I haven't wiped all of them already is because the original intros are useful to see what fables and mistakes are still being replicated- this is useful because they provide starting points for further actual research.

That said, you are certainly not wasting *my* time by editing the original intros, because of a few reasons.

1. I learn more and more from any edit you make on anything.

2. I like editing "for its own sake." I find it fun. Challenging and gut wrenching, but fun. If I didn't I wouldn't even be here. It's not really a "going to Disneyland" kind of fun. More like a "pouring tabasco sauce up your arse" kind of fun. But that's the best kind of fun. It is for me anyway.

3. When I log your edits on original intros- and I do log them- this also provides me with directions for further research.

All that said, you might find it a better use of your time to concentrate on the so-called 'finished drafts' we have up in the mirrors.

But I didn't get where I am today by telling you the best use of your time. I respect you too much for that.

So, it's all up to you, and always will be.

We absolutely need you on this project, there is no question about that.

If you stay with us for the long haul, the project will be inestimably better than it would otherwise be. It already is in fact.

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1957

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890

<The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws. (11) We assume that a +1 score was necessary to win the match.>

The point is that there was a long controversy whether or not Schlechter may have needed <+2> to win the match, but there is no evidence for it. Just to explain why the <+1> score is being emphasized. But I agree with you that it would make the meaning clearer by writing <sufficient> instead of <necessary>.