Apologies- I hadn't noticed that you announced that already in the conditions section.

Game Collection: WCC: OVERALL INTRODUCTION

"When Steinitz defeated Anderssen in 1866, Steinitz was widely regarded as the world's best, and would be for decades to come."

Doubled Steinitz's is almost as ugly as doubled pawns. Generally it is better to place the subject of a clause first followed by the qualifiers and explanations. I can't resist suggesting dropping the "and would be" clause since this info will be obvious from what follows in the intro. There is a frightening tendency toward run on sentences throughout the project. Though this is not one of them, it does demonstrate how elegant the language can be when stripped of excess weight.

<CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP.
LONDON, July 25

Herr Lasker has accepted the challenge of M. Janowski to play for the chess championship of the world and £400 a side.

In the great international chess tourney which was recently concluded in London Herr Lasker easily won the first prize, and M. Janowski tied with Messrs. Pillsbury and Maroczy for second place. After the conclusion of the tourney M. Janowski challenged Herr Lasker to play for the championship of the world, and the challenge has now been accepted.>

Source: Page 5 of 'The Brisbane Courier' of July 26, 1899.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 Another great find! Brilliant in fact.

I added it to the top of the mirror, but why not write the information and the source into your draft?

I think you might be the only person in over a 100 years to be aware of this information, and I think it's very important information you could share in your draft.

Thanks, but it was known before. It can be added once more information is available on why the the match didn't take place.

"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 not covered by the respective source ("15 Landsberger, p. 238"), except for the stakes.

I would suggest (but see below for a better rearrangement of the sources):

The conditions were agreed upon on December 6, 1890. The winner is the player to win 10 games (draws not counting). Exceptions are a draw declared in case of 9 wins each, or most wins after 20 games.15

15 "International Chess Magazine", November 1890, pp. 325-328. In Edward Winter, World Chess Championship Rules, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Apart from that, I do not understand

<11 Landsberger, pp. 238-239 >

<14 Landsberger, pp. 238-239 >

I would suggest:

----

11 Landsberger, pp. 238-239

12 Landsberger, pp. 237-238

13 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/...

14 "International Chess Magazine", November 1890, pp. 325-328. In Edward Winter, World Chess Championship Rules, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

15 Landsberger, p. 238

I would rearrange the Winter feature articles at the bottom the following way:

1. How Capablanca Became World Champion

2. Lasker on the 1921 World Championship Match

<During the mid-1880s, he established himself among the strongest chessplayers in the world.>

I am appealing more to the sound of the sentence than the grammar. I am not sure which (or both) are formally correct, but I strongly prefer "as one of" to "among".

<The Manhattan Chess Club served as intermediaries>

Game Collection: WCC: OVERALL INTRODUCTION

I just noticed an awkward duplication in the intro.

"Morphy annihilated the opposition, including the German attacking genius Adolf Anderssen, who was widely regarded as the strongest player of the day."

"Steinitz was widely regarded as the world's best after defeating Anderssen in 1866."

I haven't hit upon the best way to replace the "widely regarded" phrases yet. I'd like to replace both because they are vague. But at least one should be replaced.

Some attempts:

""Steinitz assumed the mantle of the world's best..."

Seems needlessly poetic.

"...Adolf Anderssen, who was considered the strongest player of the day."

Considered by who one wonders.

Maybe a bold statement works best.

"...Adolf Anderssen, who was the strongest player at that time."

This should be applied to

[2] Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910

[3] Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

[8] [9] [12] Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929

[5] Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934

Game Collection: WCC: OVERALL INTRODUCTION

"The winner of the match becomes heir to the title of World Chess Champion, the highest title there is. The title, although intangible, is treated for all purposes like a physical object which may be possessed by only one person at a time. The reigning champion can only relinquish the title by losing a subsequent match to a competitor, or by retiring, or by death."

There is a bit of excess verbiage here.

"The winner of the match holds the title of World Chess Champion. The title is treated like a physical object which may be possessed by only one person at a time. The reigning champion relinquishes the title by losing a World Chess Championship match, by retiring, or by death."

I'm going to rewrite the intro for Game Collection: WCC: OVERALL INTRODUCTION from a blank sheet, from the bottom up from primary sources.

So all of the expert edits you suggest- all correct- are a waste of your time, because all of the text you're editing is going to be deleted.

If you look up in the profile, you'll see a list of game collections marked "finished."

Nice catch on the "NWSZ" errors.

I have changed them all to WSZ.

I will make the other, more complicated changes you suggested for Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890 on the weekend when I have two days off for the first time in over a month. Very soon I will have lots of time again to work on our project here.

Good news! All of my Lasker's Chess Magazines finally arrived at my Mom's house in Canada. She said they weigh 40 pounds.

<Dr. Fiala> sent me a very nice email apologizing for the late order. He said he "forgot about it."

lol

Anyways also several important new books I need for our project here are arriving soon.

Rearranged as you wished:

1. How Capablanca Became World Champion

2. Lasker on the 1921 World Championship Match

<After the London International Tourney, Janowski challenged Lasker to a match for £400 a-side. The champion accepted the challenge, but the match will have to be postponed till next year, as Janowski has a previous engagement for another match with Showalter, at New York, to be played in the coming autumn. It is also said that he has undertaken to play a match with Pillsbury.>

From page 373 of the September 1899 'British Chess Magazine'

<The projected match between Mr. Lasker, the world's champion, and M. Janowsky has fallen through, owing to a dispute between them as to the number of games which were to be played. Mr. Lasker refused to agree to more than eight games up; M. Janowsky insisted on ten. In every duel we believe the challenged party has the choice of weapons, and if this holds good in chess duels, Mr. Lasker is certainly in the right, and M. Janowski, if he were in earnest in bringing about the contest, ought to have conceded the point to his opponent.>

<David Janowski> was born in Wołkowysk, Poland (today Vawkavysk, Belarus), but later relocated to France. From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments. [1] Among his successes are a win in <Janowski vs. Marshall, Match 1 (1899)> and a shared first place with <Geza Maroczy> at the <Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905)>. He became known for his strong combinational skills.[2] The games of his heyday were described as showing the "lion's claw" and he was well-known for his low percentage of draws. [3]

After <London (1899)>, Janowski challenged world champion <Emanuel Lasker> to a match for £400 a-side. Lasker accepted the challenge, [4] but the negotiations broke down when Janowski insisted on 10 games up and Lasker refused more than 8 games up.[5]

Financed by his wealthy patron <Leo Nardus>, in May 1909 Janowski played an exhibition match against Lasker in Paris, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.[6] They played a second exhibition match [7] in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).[8] It's possible that Lasker's contract with <Carl Schlechter> and his departure for America did not allow for negotiations for a world championship match with Janowski in 1909.

Despite the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910, after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn <Lasker – Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)> in January and February. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker. He considered the world champion's play to be weak, but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."[2] During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."[9]

The match for the world championship was held from November 8 to December 8 in the Kerkau-Palast in Berlin. Leo Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs for the winner, declared to be the first to score 8 victories. The match began with Lasker winning a miniature, after Janowski blundered a piece on move 19. After an uneventful draw in game 2, Janowski defended tenaciously and salvaged half a point after 101 moves in game 3. The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in game 5. Janowski defended stubbornly again in game 6 to split the point. But Lasker went on to win five consecutive games with Janowski refusing a 3-fold repetition in game 8. Lasker defended his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3).

The match received limited attention from the public as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge. The games were also criticized as being of low quality with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.[10]

[1] Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487...

[2] "Wiener Schachzeitung", July-August 1910, p. 252

[3] "Wiener Schachzeitung", February 1927, p. 29

[4] "British Chess Magazine", September 1899, p. 373

[5] "British Chess Magazine", December 1899, p. 509

[6] "Wiener Schachzeitung", August 1909, pp. 234-236

[7] Edward Winter, "Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

[8] "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1909, pp. 410-413

[9] "Ost und West", December 1910, p. 825

<Steinitz considered his world championship tenure to have started with his win over Adolf Anderssen (1818-1879).2 However, none of these matches had been officially for the title of world champion and Paul Morphy (1837-1884) was still alive.>

I think this sentence needs to be completely reworked for a number of reasons:

1. I still don't like sentences that start with "however".

2. The sentence needs another word in it, something like "officially contested" or "officially conducted" or "officially staged".

3. There is a lack of nexus between the unofficial matches and the fact Morphy was alive. "and" doesn't strike me as sufficient to bridge that dramatic change of thought.

4. I strongly dislike the years of birth/death listed.

As a first effort, how about:

<A year later, when Mikhail Chigorin got his <shot at the title> >

"shot at the title" is a bit too colloquial for my tastes.

<Steinitz took an early lead, but Gunsberg equalized and pulled ahead after game 5.>

I don't like the vagueness of "early lead". How about "an early lead with a win in game 2"? And the words "equalized and" are superflous. If he took the lead after game 5, of course he equalized first.

<Gunsberg struck in <game 12> <Gunsberg vs Steinitz, 1891> with the Evans Gambit>

Anything would be better than "struck in game 12". I'd even settle for the simple "won".

<Despite his previous good score with it, but this time he lost.>

<Modern masters have placed more emphasis on endgame play. >

We'd need a source for the statement Steinitz's view wasn't widely held. (For that matter, having a source for the existing statement that none of the earlier matches were officially for the championship wouldn't hurt either.)

<Karpova: It's possible that Lasker's contract with <Carl Schlechter> and his departure for America did not allow for negotiations for a world championship match with Janowski in 1909.>

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890

I found your instructions quite confusing, but I think I changed it to how you want. I also edited for a few grammatical errors. Please take a very close look to make sure I made the right changes you asked for.