<Yes, the sentence <We assume that a +1 score was sufficient to win the match.> should be put after <[...] and if necessary the referee would decide the title." (7)>>

This has been done.

<Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship and while Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.>

4 clauses is a bit much for one sentence. Maybe "Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle (deserves a footnote as verification), he had to leave France."

<Despite of the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

<<Despite of the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910>

Dele "of".>

done.

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

<<Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship and while Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.>

4 clauses is a bit much for one sentence. Maybe "Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle (deserves a footnote as verification), he had to leave France.">

Agree, we'll wait on <Karpova> for this one.

<The match was grueling and dynamic, with five decisive games,>

Would decisive games indicate dynamic? Yes. Grueling? Not really. But the fact the shortest draw was 44 moves and the games averaged over 50 moves each would indicate grueling.

< and some unexpected surprises in the openings. >

Game Collection: WCC: Anand-Topalov FIDE Championship 2010

Thank you, and logged again.

These will be useful points when we start editing this one. It might prove difficult to find sources that aren't <chessbase> to get the facts straight.

<1 "Shakhmatny v. SSSR” No.3 March 1956, pp.87-89. Retrieved from Batgirl article at http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e...>

What an extraordinary coincidence. I had just come to Cg.com this second to show you another game I played.

At any rate, thank you very much for such a detailed and informative correction. I have fixed it now.

Vasily Smyslov: <The game was adjourned, and the following morning Goldberg, Botvinnik's second, sent me an offer of a draw.>*

Source: Page 173 of Vasily Smyslov, 'Endgame Virtuoso', Everyman Chess, 1997 (reprinted 2003).

<Colonel G. F. Betts opened the match on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club.>

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1957

<Vasily Smyslov: <The game was adjourned, and the following morning Goldberg, Botvinnik's second, sent me an offer of a draw.>*

Source: Page 173 of Vasily Smyslov, 'Endgame Virtuoso', Everyman Chess, 1997 (reprinted 2003).>

Outstanding find, thank you!

Now we have two eye witness accounts corroborating the fact that <Botvinnik> had a second at this match, contrary to what <Graeme Cree> says on his utterly unreliable "chess history" web pages.

In fact, <Botvinnik> had two (2) seconds. It's astounding just how wrong Graeme Cree can be. He perpetuates false legends at every opportunity. Graeme Cree is a DISGRACE to chess history writing. He should delete all of his websites and quietly retire.

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

From eye witness <Harry Golombek>, on the 1957 WCC Match:

<<<<Seconds>>>

Averbakh and Grigory Abramovich Goldberg (for Botvinnik)

Bondarevsky and Makogonov (which Makogonov?) (for Smyslov)

One second was allowed to help analyze adjourned games. In this case, it was Averbakh and Makogonov who had the rights to these particular duties.>

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890

<<Colonel G. F. Betts opened the match on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club.>

This needs some clarification. He introduced it, he made the ceremonial first move, he announced the match was starting on the 9th, or it was a pregame ceremony and the match started on the 10th, etc.>

I have to agree with the learned member for <Ohio> on this- if the further information can be found, I think we should use it.

<Colonel G. F. Betts opened the match on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club.19>

More on that:

New-York Daily Tribune, 1890.12.10: <The proceedings were opened by Colonel G. F. Betts, who first of all welcomed the competing masters to the club. After a few further appropriate remarks he introduced the players to the members of the club present in these words: “I have the pleasure, gentlemen, to introduce to you Mr. Gunsberg and Mr. Steinitz, and may the best man win.”> (source 19)

The World, New York, 1890.12.10: < There were not many strong players in New York who did not put in an appearance to support Col. Betts, the Vice-President of the prosperous chess club, in inaugurating the great contest between Steinitz and Gunsberg. Proceedings commenced with the formal signing of the agreement and articles of play by the players and by Dr. Murtz [sic] on behalf of the Manhattan Chess Club. The Vice-President then addressed a few kindly words of encouragement to both players, dwelling on the great merit and well-known prowess of Mr. Steinitz, whom they had known for years past as an American citizen. The Colonels polite allusion to Mr. Gunsberg as an always welcome visitor from a distant shore, was approvingly received by his hearers.>

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

I think what you wrote is perfect:

<Colonel G. F. Betts opened the proceedings of the match and introduced the players on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club.19>

In an article of such a short length, I don't think this part is necessary- (on that very day, the first game was played).

Sorry, this was a bit disambiguous: I didn't mean to include <(on that very day, the first game was played)> in the draft, but just to answer <OCF>'s suggestion <or it was a pregame ceremony and the match started on the 10th, etc.> to indicate that it was indeed prior to the game played the same day.

Your suggestion looks fine, but an important difference between

a) <Colonel G. F. Betts opened the proceedings of the match and introduced the players on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club.19>

and

b) <Colonel G. F. Betts, Vice President of the Manhattan Chess Club, opened the proceedings of the match and introduced the players on December 9, 1890.>

in my opinion is that in (a) the venue of the match is mentioned, which is not the case in (b) where Betts is further characterized.

But I think that it's more important for the reader to know where the match was played while Betts can be looked up elsewhere if necessary. Although the Manhattan Chess Club is already mentioned in connection with the travel expenses, it should be explicitly mentioned to have been the playing venue. So in case of (b), it should be inserted somewhere else. But the word count is possibly already borderline.

Good morning.

What about

<The match began on 9 Dec 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club. Club director Colonel G.F. Betts opened the proceedings and introduced the players.>

Don't worry about the format for writing the dates- it hasn't been decided yet.

I currently favor the method "Skinner and Verhoeven" use in their Alekhine book, because it saves space, as least visually. Ironically, I don't think it actually reduces the word count. But it looks cleaner and easier to read, at least to my eyes.

In their method, if an event began on December 1, 1911 and ended on January 23, 1912, you would write it like this: <2 Dec 1911 - 23 Jan 1912>

So what about

I didn't get where I am today by not thanking valuable colleagues.

Regardless of which sentence <Karpova> decides on, capital letters will not be used on the final html versions, except to begin sentences or proper nouns, as decided before.