Yeah, I'm surprised about Harding too. I had started to post my last kibitz on the cg.c page and decided not to. No pun intended per Pope and papal, just a coincidence.

<Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and joked that Mason was likely drunk when he made it.>

I think that <joked> is not fitting as it is too much of an evaluation. For sure, <cum grano Whiskey> as Steinitz said, sounds like a joke but to me, <joke> insinuates that he didn't mean it that way. I think it is quite likely that Steinitz did think so. I would suggest something like <insinuated> instead.

<The winner would be first to 10 games (draws not counting), or most wins after 20 games.>

Is this correct? Wouldn't <the first to win 10 games> be better?

<Gunsberg received $150 travelling expenses from the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10.<16 ???> <16a> British amateurs supporting Gunsberg contributed 75 pounds to the winner's prize.<16a 17>>

Source for all of this information is Landsberger p. 240 (footnote <17>)

<He reached his goal in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 <25 ???> and retained the lead for the rest of the match.>

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

Thanks for your patience and additional information, I really appreciate it.

I have added your original draft right underneath my revised draft in the current mirror.

----

With respect to <note 25>, I restored your original sentence with the information (Christmas delay) referred to by the note. Sorry about that!

-----

With respect to <note 16>, this appears to be a mistake from your original draft, which reads-

"Gunsberg was agreed to receive $150 travelling expenses by the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. The match was to last 20 games.<16>"

NOTES

<16> "The Sun", New York, 4 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18..."

============

The information from "The Sun" on this date does not say anything about the sourced sentence in your original draft.

So I will have to change the note numbers, which I'm doing now.

I am currently at the end of the THIRD PARAGRAPH, and I have changed note <17> to note <16> in my draft (the revised draft at the top of the mirror).

Here is the THIRD PARAGRAPH now with the note number changed.

Landsberger p. 240 is now (footnote <16>.

"The conditions were agreed upon on December 6, 1890. The winner would be first to 10 games (draws not counting), or most wins after 20 games. A draw would be declared in the case of 9 wins each.<14> The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.<15> Gunsberg received $150 travelling expenses from the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. British amateurs supporting Gunsberg contributed 75 pounds to the winner's prize.<16>"

NOTES

<16> Landsberger, p. 240

=============

So now I have confirmed that all of the material in the first three paragraphs of the Main Mirror Edit (at the top) is correctly sourced and confirmed.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

Ok I have finished changing the note numbers and checking that each note in the text is verified by the sourced information.

I believe that now all of the sources give the correct information and all of the sources are linked to the correct part of the writing in your intro.

So I think it's correct now- but please go through the CURRENT MIRROR at the top yourself?

Just check that the placement and number of each note, and the information it leads to, is indeed correct.

One more time.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

I added your suggestion for a more accurate word here-

<Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and <<<insinuated>>> that Mason was likely drunk when he made it.<12>>

I also made a few other corrections for style and clarity.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

With respect to which consistent standard for NOTE format we will adopt, you may notice that the notes for this draft are actually a mix between the <Chicago Style> and others.

One of the reasons for this is that I have forgotten what our HTML man will need in terms of what the Cg.com code can do with Italics and other such things. I will be in touch with him shortly.

But apart from that-

I prefer to use <p.> instead of just listing a number.

So <p.55> instead of just <55>.

I was thinking about <Ibid> as well.

I recognize that normally we could put a lot of <Ibids> into this NOTE section, but in fact I don't like them.

I like the repetition of the name better.

It seems clearer, more concrete, and easier for the reader to see exactly where the information came from.

When you see <Ibid> your brain breaks off because it has to tell your eyes to "move up one or more lines" in the text.

By repeating the name instead of using <Ibid>, we save valuable "brain space."

Anyways now is the time to voice any last opinions about this, because the format we use for this draft is the format we'll use for all of them.

After taking into advisement all views, I will then make a choice with our HTML man and Daniel.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

Oh and this here:

<7 "Bradford Observer Budget" 28 July 1888. In Edward Winter, "Chess Note 5136." (submitted by Joost van Winsen, Silvolde, the Netherlands)>

<Karpova> has included the name of the contributor of the <Chess Note> information.

I think we should follow <Karpova> and include the contributor information, when available, for all Edward Winter <Chess Notes> we cite.

My main reason for this is if, horrifyingly, Edward Winter's website ceases to exist, at least the sourcing information we got from it won't be "orphaned."

When we are forced to use a web site as a source (and a few websites are indeed superb sources) I think we should type out as much of the source information as we can along with the link.

"hinted" doesn't seem strong enough. Perhaps "suggested". Or even better, why not just use Steinitz' actual quote. Or is it not available?

In context, it's not too strong- maybe not strong enough even.

What Steinitz actually said is a complicated pun on an idiom that would need to be explained at some length in order to use it.

No space available, and also unnecessary to explain.

<Karpova's> paraphrase is spot on with "insinuation."

What Steinitz said was precisely a cutting "insinuation."

He phrased it as a joke, but it was clearly meant in the most unfriendly terms possible.

What I'd really like, if you have time/inclination, is for others to check the notes that lead to online sources in the NOTES section that you can actually look at- just to confirm that those sources actually contain the information mentioned in the draft text. There are many such sources that could be checked by anyone.

There cannot be a mistake on the sourcing.

This is the longest draft (730 words)- Daniel has read this draft, and he did not complain to me that it was "too long."

But I had previously asked him if (650 words) was acceptable as an average length, and he signed off on that.

So I'm kind of crossing my fingers on this draft, which I think is justifiably longer than the others for an important reason:

Not many know the actual details and saga of this match well, and there is an extraordinary wealth of primary information on it- which <Karpova> has diligently dug up and fashioned into an epic tale.

So I don't think we should "add any new content" at this point.

Nor do I think we need to.

Finding ways to shorten the text might be good, but if we get it shorter I don't think we should fill up the saved space with more content or explanation. The story is fleshed out enough such that anyone could follow it easily- I think so anyway.

I don't want this draft to come back from <Daniel> with a request to "shorten it."

I'd like it to just "pass through" into a promotion.

That's a little unclear. 75 pounds a game or a match?

<They played in a small room between 13:30 to 17:00 and 19:00 to 22:30, while the spectators followed the games on a wallboard in a larger room downstairs>

I think you can dele everything from "between" to "22:30" without losing anything essential.

<Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2, but Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.>

I don't like the game 2/5/4 timeline.

<Interest in the match increased.>

I know you're concerned about the number of words already, but this phrase is an orphan. If there's not room to give <some> clarification of <why> interest increased, then that should be dele.

<Steinitz hadn't fully recovered, yet he still won game 6. During this game, Gunsberg exceeded the time limit but Steinitz refused to claim a win.<21> After game 5, Steinitz declared he would play the Queen's Gambit until he won.>

This would seem to be a good use of time, if any can offer it.>

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

How about the "likely" dele? That would strengthen it even more.

<<In 1888, he said that before considering a challenge for Wilhelm Steinitz 's title, >

Tracking down the pun... heh I should have known.

I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to check notes 1-10.

<Ohio, Tim>

As you continue, I'm going to wait for <Karpova> to consider your new editing suggestions before I weigh in on any of them.

I'd prefer "to win 10 games" and dele <(draws not counting)>.

Fantastic- do you also have a copy of the Landsberger biography?

That is OUTSTANDING thank you.

I will replace the current NOTE <17> with this source here:

<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,>