That catch on note 17 was epic.

This is why you get the big money. Although <Tim> says he gets more than you.

That's in RL right?

I think lack of sleep qualifies as a reason for "danger pay."

When my brother worked down the mill, he used to get extra "danger pay" when he had to go in and clean the hoppers.

That's because folks routinely got electrocuted in them, including my brother.

These "safety lamps" sometimes malfunction when you're hosing down a hopper.

I get paid in Albanian kojaks.

From http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file...

Dates: February 24 - March 26

I was going to be late running back to work from lunch so I bailed on the post, realizing I had put it here instead of in the <Biographer's Bistro> where it belongs.

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

For the sake of completeness, source <16> was the information for <The match was to last 20 games.>. This had become obsolete after using Winter's feature article as a source.

<OCF>

<I don't like the combination of "insinuated" and "likely". Seems redundant.>

I agree with the <likely> being deleted. So <Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and insinuated that Mason was drunk when he made it.<12>> it is.

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

75 pounds was Gunsberg's contribution to the prize fund. The stakes were $1,500 and Gunsberg failed to raise his $750, but British amateurs contributed 75 pounds to the prize fund. Perhaps rephrasing: <British amateurs contributed 75 pounds to the prize fund as Gunsberg's share.<16>>

Timeline:

<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.<19>>

Maybe <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.>

<Interest in the match increased.<20>>

This was after game 6, the 3rd decisive game in a row, so perhaps <Interest in the match increased after game 6,<20> the third consecutive decisive game.>

<Note 17 verifies it was Betts who introduced the players, but doesn't identify him as Club VP.>

"The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Interest in the match increased.<20> 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."

Eliminating the reference to Steinitz' cold and arranging in match order:

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

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

For the sake of completeness, source <16> was the information for <The match was to last 20 games>>

Thank you for the clarification- that helps me to know what happened.

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

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

75 pounds was Gunsberg's contribution to the prize fund. The stakes were $1,500 and Gunsberg failed to raise his $750, but British amateurs contributed 75 pounds to the prize fund. Perhaps rephrasing: <British amateurs contributed 75 pounds to the prize fund as Gunsberg's share.<16>>>

I put this sentence in:

"British amateurs contributed 75 pounds towards Gunsberg's share of the prize fund.<16>"

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

<<Note 17 verifies it was Betts who introduced the players, but doesn't identify him as Club VP.>

That's because in the original he was not identified as the Club VP.>

Thank you for the clarification- this will help me avoid future errors.

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

Timeline:

<<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.<19>>

Maybe <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.>

<Interest in the match increased.<20>>

This was after game 6, the 3rd decisive game in a row, so perhaps <Interest in the match increased after game 6,<20> the third consecutive decisive game.>>

<Karpova> I'm going to hold off on your suggestion until you have time to evaluate <Boomie's> suggestion.

I disagree with the <learned member from Bellingham> (Boomie) on this point.

I think the fact that <Steinitz> was sick enough to miss a game, and managed to win two games later although still sick, adds greatly to the drama of the story. If this intro were a movie you'd want to leave it in.

I strongly suggest we find a way to leave it in. Imagine the strain on his face and the sweat..

We have the facts- the facts are in and of themselves dramatic and I like the story here.

Did you actually secure a copy of the <Kurt Landsberger>? I'm guessing you did if you found the "grain of vat of whiskey" crack eh?

If you do have the book in front of you, and you have the time/inclination, might you carefully check each of the notes from <Landsberger's> book?

I have checked them all twice, but I also checked the internet references twice and <Ohio> found something I missed.

The more of us checking these references the better, since I changed them after <Karpova's> initial draft, and I didn't do a very good job of keeping things in order.

<Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5, and interest in the match increased for game 6.<20>>

This is my new suggestion. I think that a cold which halts the match and influences Steinitz' play is worth mentioning, especially if we have a good source. Additionally, a reader may wonder why game 4 was played on the 15th and game 5 on the 18th, and then has the necessary information.

Regarding the increased interest for game 6, there is not really an explanation given in the source, but the match had become more livelier (it started with 2 draws and one decisive game, and was now followed up with two decisive games), and Gunsberg had pulled ahead - in the Intro there is also the observation before <Initially the match received less interest than expected because Steinitz was considered a prohibitive favorite [...]> , so considering this, I think that it does make senseto keep it that way. First, it looked like a one-sided affair, but then the underdog pulls ahead.

Excellent.

Ok here is the text right now:

<The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Interest in the match increased.<20> 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.<22>>

<Karpova>, here is your latest suggestion:

<Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5, and interest in the match increased for game 6.<20>>

I propose keeping all of the information and just putting it in chronological order.

Maybe-

Your suggestion looks fine, except for the increased interest - as this was noted for game 6, it needs to be behind game 5, so

Yez'm. And I'm finding it a real labor of love on Kurt's part.

<carefully check each of the notes>

I love it:

<"The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> In game 5 Steinitz lost with the white pieces in a Queen's gambit, after which he vowed to keep playing this opening until he won with it.<22> With Gunsberg having pulled ahead, interest in the match increased.<20> Still not fully recovered from his cold, Steinitz managed to win game 6. During this game, Gunsberg exceeded the time limit but Steinitz refused to claim a win.<21>">

I suggest only one change:

<"With Gunsberg pulling ahead,">

instead of

<"With Gunsberg having pulled ahead,">

It's cleaner and still grammatically correct.

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

<Honorable Member for the Skagit Valley and other locations not quite Blown up by Mt.St. Helens>

Thank you sir!

I agree with your suggestion <With Gunsberg pulling ahead,>

The source numbers have to be changed then,

with <22> becoming <20>,

<20> becoming <21>