I've added your stunning find to the mirror collection edit. Looks like <Huebner> could prove to be a key source.

Please let us know if you run across anything at all that might sound like the genesis of this supposed quote from <Tarrasch>

<The only papers listed for that date are "New York Daily Tribune" and "New York Sun".

http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...

The original citation must be incorrect.>

<Phony> You misunderstood <Thahn>. She is citing the article, given below.

GUNSBERG WINS AGAIN.
NOW LEADING IN HIS MATCH WITH MR. STEINITZ
Brilliant Contest, in Which the English Player Announced a Mate in Five Moves - The Score Now Is: Gunsberg, Two; Steinitz, One - The Next Game Saturday.

Mr. Steinitz put in an appearance yesterday in good time at the Manhattan Chess Club. He explained that, having a slight cold, he did not care to venture out of the house yesterday on account of the severe weather which raged in Upper Montclair, N.J., the place of his residence. He seemed, however, to be in good form and in his usual tenaciously combative mood. In spite if the fact that in the first and third game, wherein he adopted the Q gambit, he could not make much headway, he nevertheless persisted in playing this opening to-day, which, to tell the truth, was generally expected by those who know him well. As on previous occasions, Gunsberg has shown that he is entirely independent of any particular line of play or studied analysis of the opening by again varying his line of defense as he accepted the proffered gambit pawn. In consequence of the line of play pursued by Steinitz, Gunsberg, with good judgment, effected advantageous exchange of queens, thereby forcing white to move his king, while black himself castled on the ninth move.

The position that resulted from the opening manoeuvres brought white’s king to QB2 on the tenth move. From that point, with every succeeding move, black developed his pieces in a telling way and brought increased and menacing pressure to bear upon the exposed adverse king.

On the fifteenth move, by a combination of his minor pieces and probably also by an error of judgment on the part of his opponent, black won a pawn. White did not obtain the relief which he expected. On the contrary black directed his forces against the exposed king with such effect that after twenty moves the coming catastrophe could be foretold.

On the twenty-fourth move black saw winning chances, which he grasped, and playing with great precision he obtained a position on the twenty-sixth move where, by a brilliant coup, he was enabled to announce a mate in five moves.

Needless to say there was great pleasure and rejoicing among the chess connoisseurs of the Manhattan Chess Club who had the privilege of witnessing this fine game. The prophets, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, will have to find a new occupation. They ventured to predict - and Mr. Steinitz’s reputation and great achievements certainly warranted the forecast - that the veteran, as in past matches, would have matters all his own way with the English player, but the result shows that Gunsberg was too lightly reckoned and that once more he is following up his former brilliant achievements by making such a bold stand against the undefeated hero of twenty-five years’ battle. Whatever the final result now may be the brave fight will reflect honor on the younger player.

The sixth game will be played on Saturday. Gunsberg will have the move and great anxiety prevails among the chess community whether now, with the score in his favor, he will play an Evans gambit.

<WCCEP> I have prepared a crosstable for Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948. It is stored temporarily on the tournament page 22nd New York State Chess Association Championship (1909), so you can just go down to the editing area to cut and paste into the mirror collection. (Be sure to include the "table[" and "]table" commands.)

There are two versions: one with "½" for draws, one with "=". Pick whichever you prefer.

This may not be the final format Daniel uses, but at least the data will be there and look nice in the mirror collection.

<I don't have Marshall's autobiography. I do know one reason Edward Lasker thought he might have a chance against Marshall in their match for the US championship (Game Collection: Marshall -- Ed. Lasker 1923 match) was Marshall's relative weakness in match play. Marshall also got completely smoked in his match with Capablanca and struggled in matches with lesser lights, so why anyone other than Marshall himself, the eternal optimist, thought he had a snowball's chance against Lasker beggars belief. Marshall was never US champion until he beat (a past-his-prime) Showalter in 1909. To allude to St. Louis 1904 is to open up the can of worms of that Judd/Pillsbury/Shipley imbroglio, which is relevant only to debates over US championships not world championships, which is why I think it is best dropped from the Lasker-Marshall intro.>

I know how much work you've done on this topic, and I think it best to leave this decision to you.

I think for some of the mirrors we've been working on, it's time to actually write the new edits. Why not re-write the entire intro and post it here?

I'll then put it in the mirror and mark it "FINISHED."

Later, when we have marked all the intros "FINISHED" we'll have to have one more category "ultra FINISHED" in case debates spring up between now and then that should fairly be dealt with.

The main thing we need for rewrites is sourced documentation, as you know.

We are going to be asking Daniel to drop a great number of "propagated legends" and other persistent misapprehensions about chess history from his existing intros.

The currently listed source for FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948) is useless. It doesn't even lead to the <about.com> article, and I argue that no <about.com> article is relevant in the first place:

<1http://chess.about.com/od/worldcham.... at about.com>

So we'll need a new source(s) as a reference for this intro.

It also strikes me that <Edward Winter> has an entire series devoted to the history of FIDE, which would make a useful source.

Wonderful. I've added both your cross tables to Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948 and also your <EDIT> caveat about this game: Reshevsky vs Keres, 1948

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumvi... is the source of the existing intro to FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948).

It must have been copypasted onto <about.com> eh?

This article appears to have been written by the chess.com member <aristeidis9>.

It turns out our mentor <Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich> had them stashed away in another collection for safekeeping.

Now they are in the Mirror collection: Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948.

Interestingly, in the source for Dr. Lasker's recollection of how the Tarrasch match in 1904 fell through

[1] p. 96, 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (or even better if anyone has access, Dr. Lasker's original from 'Lasker's Chess Magazine' 1906 on chessmasters of the past and presence)

<Aha ok here is an account of the "snub" related by <Leopold Hoffer>, who was not only present, but, according to him, actually a party to this incident.

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumvi...

It's quoted from <Hoffer's> book of the <Lasker-Tarrasch 1908 match>:

"In the meantime the date for the Dresden Congress of the German Chess Association approached, in which Lasker intended to take part. He changed his mind, and did not enter. But during its progress he wrote a letter to me, with the request to ask (privately) the winner of this tournament, presumably Dr. Tarrasch, whether he would be willing to play him a match. I handed his letter over to Dr. Tarrasch, but his reply was unsatisfactory, and I informed Lasker of my abortive mission. This episode has been ventilated in the chess press at the time, and need not be recapitulated here in detail. It will suffice to state that I did not communicate Dr. Tarrasch's reply verbatim. but in a form which I deemed less offensive to Lasker, so as not to prevent a renewal of the challenge. Dr. Tarrasch held afterwards that I had no right to give what I called a diplomatic answer, and <the consequence was a sharp polemic in the Chess Monthly,> which disturbed my friendly relations with Dr. Tarrasch for the time being ; but the matter was finally cleared up during the Hastings Tournament, in which Dr. Tarrasch competed.">

This was earlier related by Lasker himself in <London Chess Fortnightly>, Issue 2, September 1, 1892, pg. 15:

Ok the "snub" is becoming clearer and clearer.

We are missing this though- Hoffer reports that <the consequence was a sharp polemic in the Chess Monthly,>

Can we track down this polemic?

It seems key to me to find out if <Lasker> ever became aware of the precise content of <Tarrasch's> original refusal to <Hoffer>.

It's clear that <Lasker> felt the reply was rude due to a breach of privacy: < we must confess that we hardly expected a public reply to our private enquiry.>

However, it seems reasonable to me that <Tarrasch> would say that he <would reconsider the matter as soon as we [Lasker] had been awarded the first prize at an International Tournament.>

I wouldn't call this a "snub," and I'm inclined not to use the word "snub" in our edited intro to Lasker-Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908).

It would be extra excellent though to be able to read this diatribe Hoffer mentions in the <Chess Monthly>.

I got this quote here from <Batgirl's> article over at chess.com http://www.chess.com/groups/forumvi..., and we need the page number for the quote:

<"In the meantime the date for the Dresden Congress of the German Chess Association approached, in which Lasker intended to take part. He changed his mind, and did not enter. But during its progress he wrote a letter to me, with the request to ask (privately) the winner of this tournament, presumably Dr. Tarrasch, whether he would be willing to play him a match. I handed his letter over to Dr. Tarrasch, but his reply was unsatisfactory, and I informed Lasker of my abortive mission. This episode has been ventilated in the chess press at the time, and need not be recapitulated here in detail. It will suffice to state that I did not communicate Dr. Tarrasch's reply verbatim. but in a form which I deemed less offensive to Lasker, so as not to prevent a renewal of the challenge. Dr. Tarrasch held afterwards that I had no right to give what I called a diplomatic answer, and <the consequence was a sharp polemic in the Chess Monthly,> which disturbed my friendly relations with Dr. Tarrasch for the time being ; but the matter was finally cleared up during the Hastings Tournament, in which Dr. Tarrasch competed.">

I could ask <Batgirl> to look up the page number for us, but if one of us has this volume then I wouldn't need to pester her.

On the other hand, if I pestered her maybe she might start helping us directly with the project here, since she has a <cg.com> account.

In the case of the relations between Lasker and Tarrasch from the <Dresden Congress> up to <Lasker-Tarrasch 1908>, it seems to me that <Tarrasch> is "conventionally" portrayed as vain, rude, arrogant, and brittle, whilst <Lasker> is portrayed as calm and reasonable.

With regard to our current edit of the intro to their match, the key phrase/anecdotes/(legends?) that propagate this "received wisdom" are

1. Tarrasch "snubbed" Lasker's request for a match after the <Dresden Congress>