http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR2J...

I put the new text in and changed the notes as you instructed- thanks for the instructions because the notes confuse me.

Please look at both the text and the notes to make sure I didn't screw it up?

This is what we have now:

<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.<20> With Gunsberg pulling ahead, interest in the match increased.<21> 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.<22>>

After this, I think we need to change the next sentence a bit now?

Here is the next sentence:

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

I think we should change that sentence to read,

<Steinitz reached his goal of winning with the Queen's gambit in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 and retained the lead for the rest of the match.>

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

I had to change the note numbers for the source list as well right?

So now this section of the NOTES looks like this:

<19> "New-York Daily Tribune" 19 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

<20> "The Sun" New York, 19 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

<21> "New-York Daily Tribune" 21 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

<22> "The Sun" New York, 21 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18...

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

Thanks so much for re-checking those <Landsberger> notes-

In fact, since note <11> is doing "double duty" we need to list is as

<pp.238-39>

That's not the Chicago way!

Actually our notes system is an unholy mixture of a bunch of stuff I like, <Karpova> and <Switch> like, and <crawfb5> likes.

I like it the way the notes are right now for <Steinitz vs. Allen Ginsberg>.

Possibly I should put a note up in the Profile, but all of the captains are already present and accounted for in the trenches.

<Big Crawdaddy> is waiting for the draft, when we figure it's ready to go.

I think it's best the way it is now, because we already know he pulled ahead at this point in the sentence.

By saying "after" we would kind of be saying he pulled ahead twice.

How about "As Gunsberg had pulled ahead"?

or

"The competitive match led to more interest."

or

<Just before 5 o’clock Steinitz accidentally touched Gunsberg’s foot beneath the table. In his abstraction, instead of uttering the customary form of apology, he exclaimed, “J’doube,” which is the prescribed formula when a player touches a piece for the purpose of adjusting it simply, and without the intention of playing it. >

but the related article in The World, 1/20 says "His telegram had been delayed. Under a strict interpretation of the rules Mr. Gunsberg could claim the game, but he is not likely to do so."

I don't think "is not likely to do so" is sufficient to source "did not".

<Jess>

I agree with you and would actually change a bit more of this paragraph. As it is now:

"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> 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.<20> With Gunsberg pulling ahead, interest in the match increased.<21> 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.<22> He reached his goal in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 and retained the lead for the rest of the match."

As it should be:

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> 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.<20> With Gunsberg pulling ahead, interest in the match increased.<21> 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.<22> Steinitz reached his goal of winning with the Queen's gambit in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 and retained the lead for the rest of the match."

I could not detect a mistake in the changed footnoting.

<OCF>

Regarding footnote 26, I think that the headline of the article - <Gunsberg Will Not Claim the Game.> - is a suffient enough source. Although in the text it remains more ambiguous. If this is considered to be a problem anyway, then source <26> could simply be put behind the sentence before, about Steinitz' telegram. As Gunsberg did not win a game on forfeit, we do not really need a source that he didn't claim a win on forfeit.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

<Steinitz reached his goal of winning with the Queen's gambit in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 and retained the lead for the rest of the match. >

I added it.

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

<OhioChessFan: <The match was halted during the Christmas holidays. > Not sure that's worth the space.>

I was also thinking the "Christmas break" info looked a little orphaned in the text, which is why I took it out a long time ago- (and of course screwed up the notes in the process), so I agree with <Ohio> on this one.

The narrative is a gripping story of the games throughout the match- then it says the match was halted for Christmas. Then it dives right back into the gripping story.

The Christmas info might sound less like an interruption if you blended it with the following sentence, maybe like this:

< "After a brief Christmas break,<23> Gunsberg struck in <game 12>">

Put together like this the information seems more in context.

I see the break was indeed very short, only four days rest between games 7 and 8.

So it might sound deceptive to say

<After a brief Christmas break,<23> Gunsberg struck in <game 12> <insert game link>- Gunsberg vs Steinitz, 1891 with the Evans Gambit.>

Game 12 was the fifth game after the break, but the sentence I just wrote there kind of implies Gunsberg won right after the break.

Well in my opinion I think unless this Christmas break information can better be linked to the main idea of "telling the story of the actual game of the match in sequence," it should be left out.

Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886

Thanks so much for your time, care, effort, and assiduousness on the Note check ups.

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

<TimOhioChessFanBoomie>

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Based on material you have both posted, I decided to change "top contenders" to "following contenders" in this sentence:

<They planned a quadruple round robin of the following contenders-Max Euwe, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments.<2,3>>

heh

I can't help it I know it offends some people but I can't resist mangling every single name I ever hear.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

I also changed this by adding "During the first leg," here:

I blame sobriety. It would never occur to me if I was "on the bong" and if it did, I would forget about it before it was made manifest.