This looks best to me

I will honor your decision with an audiovisual aid:

http://www.kingpinchess.net/2010/02...

I should put a cross table in the intro to this one eh?

<Alekhine held Capablanca, but not Euwe, to the $10,000 purse requirement guaranteed by the London rules of 1922>

I'll have another look at "vice president."

If my eyes bleed too, I'll offer support.

"president Obama."

*cough*

I used that example to give you the "double whammy" on the eyes bleeding factor.

On a more serious note, let's hear what <Karpova> has to say on this matter, as it is her collection.

I think it could well be capitalized because like the title "Doctor" it becomes capitalized when appended to an actual person? It has to be an official title though. I'm still wondering if vice President of a chess club is considered as important as Vice president of the Excited States.

We're not capitalizing "world chess champion" and that is certainly a title.

Anyways I'm not going to make a fuss if you and <Karpova> want to capitalize "Vice President" here.

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

With respect to <Alekhine held Capablanca, but not Euwe, to the $10,000 purse requirement guaranteed by the London rules of 1922>, by all means I look forward to a re-working.

Feel free to add extra words or whatever you think you need to eliminate the awkwardness.

Suggested correction:

<During the <Alekhine-Bogoljubov World Championship Match> Alekhine accepted a title challenge from Max Euwe .<1> Jose Raul Capablanca regarded this agreement to be "unjustifiable," insisting that Alekhine first "play the promised return-match with himself."<2> But Alekhine held Capablanca to the $10,000 purse requirement guaranteed by the London rules of 1922. The champion felt justified to play Euwe for a lower purse (the amount should be specified in the narrative) because Euwe never signed the London rules. >

I'm afraid no other contemporaneous opinions will be added, because prejudicial one way or the other.

To be as objective as possible, the opinions of the principals only will be considered.

It's a great construction though, I'm putting it in now, thank you.

As for (the amount should be specified in the narrative) , it is indeed specified in great detail in the following "conditions" section.

Yes there are plenty of quotes of Alekhine and Capa complaining about each other. But I'm not adding any more in on this topic than what's already there.

I just want the facts recorded, and if anyone wants to read the whole sorry story they can look in the notes and buy <Edward Winter's> fine book on Capablanca.

Or, we who have this book- I know that I, Karpova, and twinlark have it- we can put in "extra color comments" in the kibbutz section after the new intro becomes an official page.

It's actually a really sad story, because in the years when they first met, the two had nothing but admiration and affection for each other.

Excellent. I added those to Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886, along with the feature article on "Steinitz Quotes"- http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/....

Also, I should have C.N. 3325 here in one of my Edward Winter books- it is referred to in C.N. 3750.

C.N. 3324:

<It is indeed true that Steinitz and Zukertort’s contract (29 December 1885) stipulated:

‘The Score at Nine Games. Should the score stand at nine (9) games won to each of the players, then the match shall be declared drawn.’

Source: The Chess Monthly, January 1886, pages 136-137.

However, on page 118 of the May 1886 International Chess Magazine Steinitz reported that this provision had been amended before the final series of games began in New Orleans on 26 February 1886:

‘Two of the conditions of the match [one of them omitted here, being a minor matter concerning playing hours] were altered by mutual consent of the players, who had agreed, in the first place, to reduce the score, which rendered the match a draw, to eight all, instead of nine all, as previously stipulated. There can be no doubt that both the principals acted bona fide and chiefly in the interest of their backers in agreeing to such a modification of the original terms of the match, for their main reason in adopting the alteration was to exclude all element of chance as much as possible and to avoid risking the issues at stake on the result of two games. But, on consideration and in order not to establish a questionable precedent, we feel bound to say that the opinions of some critics, who, without in the least impugning the motives of the two principals, have expressed doubts on the legality of such proceeding, now appear to us reasonable. For it is justly contended that the two players had no right to alter any of the main conditions of the match without consulting their backers, who had deposited their stakes after the chief terms had apparently been finally settled…’>

From C.N. 3325

There is a longer article by Steinitz in his column in <Ashore and Afloat>. This column recently became available as a hardbound reprint, which I got from Karel Mokry.

"But why should he not play me on the same terms that he has granted to all other aspirants for his title?.".14