On this specific point, I'm going to have to agree with <Karpova>.

All that matters here is two things:

1. Gunsberg really didn't claim the game.

2. A source that unambiguously tells you that Gunsberg didn't claim the game.

We know that both 1 and 2 are in play because the article was written the after the game was played. Therefore, we know from the article that Gunsberg didn't claim the game.

You are right, it would be better if the information was put in as part of the report.

But in my opinion the source will do as is.

I'm looking for your opinion on a NOTE format question.

If you look at the NOTE section here-

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

You can see that the first time I reference this source, I include the web address link, but not in subsequent references to the exact same web page:

<<1> FIDE (Fédération internationale des échecs or World Chess Federation), founded in 1924, first administered a world chess championship in 1948. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum" (2003-2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<2> Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum.">

But I'm thinking that even if it might seem redundant, that we should include the identical web address link in every subsequent note, not just the first time.

I think that we should design our format to make it as convenient as possible for readers to find our sources.

That's why I mentioned previously that I don't like the <Ibid>- I prefer that the source name (even if shortened) be repeated every time, as <Karpova> has done with the name "Rod Edwards" in this NOTE section:

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

<Jess>

I agree with you, so let's make it <After a brief Christmas break,<23> Gunsberg struck in <game 12> <insert game link>- Gunsberg vs Steinitz, 1891 with the Evans Gambit.>

Furthermore, from the first sentence of the paragraph <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2, but Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.>, we sgould delete the pulled ahead information and make it <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2.> as we later say that Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.

<13 Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Harding Simpole 1949), p.3>

Since (I hope) we will have a full second page for the NOTES section, I whole-heartedly endorse your idea that we include every single primary source listed on every single one of <Rod Edwards'> web pages. It won't look too bad or confusing if we have a whole page for just the NOTES section. Quite the contrary- it will enrich the reader's ability to know better, at a glance, the ultimate provenance of many of the facts we present.

We want our work to at least list documentation that we don't have in front of us, but that we take on trust- such as that from <Rod Edwards>, <Edward Winter> and just a few other websites, if any.

I can't even recommend <chesscafe.com> as a reliable site for our NOTES linking purposes. I truly love chesscafe- I go there every day, but I have run into many dead and mangled URL listings in their Archives. These are often fixed but then who knows when they will "break" again. I know some are fixed because sometimes I see "reposted" chesscafe.com links on the player pages meant to replace older, dead links. There is one such on <Vladimir Petrov's> page for example:Vladimir Petrov.

Researching more for our three <Smyslov> events, over the last two days I visited every page of Vasily Smyslov.

Some lowlights:

1. Almost half of the current 49 pages is an argument between <Daniel Pi> and <Plato> about how the other guy doesn't know gud english.

2. There are many, many dead links- all of which I clicked on.

I don't want to work this hard just to have important parts of it disappear with a vanishing website or even just a temporarily broken link.

Ideally, all of our links to websites should be supplementary, not primary sourcing. Websites are very convenient, but there is almost no expectation of longevity. Luckily, such supplementary sourcing to proper websites, such as those of <Rod Edwards> and <Edward Winter>, links to primary sources which are at least printed on their web pages.

Primary sources which we should include in our notes.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

<It's Hardinge Simpole>

Fixed, thank you.

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

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

Done.

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

<Furthermore, from the first sentence of the paragraph <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2, but Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.>, we sgould delete the pulled ahead information and make it <Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2.> as we later say that Gunsberg pulled ahead after game 5.>

But the edochess primary info needs not to be incorporated into the drafts yet, does it? E. g. source 1 of Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891 lists the following:

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

I just finished tidying up the first note now to see what it would look like. Doesn't look so bad after the tidying.

Part of me likes the idea very much, but part of me thinks it will be a very long notes page.

But you know what, there won't be that many <Rod Edwards> notes overall in the entire WCC series eh? But they are important because they provide actual proof about facts we all "know" today about events that took place well over 100 years ago.

What do you think?

I want to save all of this information in our intros- remember none of the citations are actually in the drafts, they are on a separate page.

Which I haven't even asked Daniel about yet.

With respect to "timing" about everything to do with Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891 now, this is up to you.

You tell me when you're happy with it and only then will I send it to our TOP SECRET "html man" to see what it looks like with some "good code" for clothes.

It's fine with me, if space permits including all of Edwards' sources and if you don't mind the extra work for every Edwards link.

A possibility is to cite the obituary of Steinitz in the Wiener Schachzeitung instead of Edwards, to have less work (source 1).

Wiener Schachzeitung, August-September 1900, pp. 157-161.

This is the source for the whole obituary, but if you want it more specific, on pp. 159-160 are his match and tournament successes.

Here you can click through the article to see what it looks like: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

I'm a bit confused. Are we saying that this line:

"During the mid-1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world.<1>"

is cited in all these publications?

<1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p417...

Books:
Di Felice, "Chess Results 1901-1920" p.306
Feenstra Kuiper, "100 Jahre Schachturniere" p.261
Feenstra Kuiper, "100 Jahre Schachzweikämpfe" p.81
Forster, "Amos Burn" pp.156, 960
Gaige, "Chess Personalia" p.155
Golombek, "Golombek's Encyclopedia" p.134
Hilbert, "Napier" p.126
Hooper and Whyld, "Oxford Companion (1st ed.)" p.137 Hooper and Whyld, "Oxford Companion (2nd ed.)" p.162 Reichhelm and Shipley, "Chess in Philadelphia" p.16 Sergeant, "Century of British Chess" pp.174, 179
Thulin, "Name index to CTC" p.97
Wade, "Soviet Chess" p.21

Periodicals:
"ILN" vol. 70, 5 May 1877, p.431
"ILN" vol. 71, 29 Dec. 1877, p.631>

One would likely be sufficient.

What <Rod Edwards> has done is make his NOTES section a history in and of itself.

It records not only the history of a game or match, but also the history of the recording of that history.

Fabulously thorough.

I see your point though. If <Rod Edwards> had only listed one, or even three or four primary sources, we probably wouldn't still be discussing this issue.

I don't see any harm in including all of the citations myself.

<Karpova: <Jess> It's fine with me, if space permits including all of Edwards' sources and if you don't mind the extra work for every Edwards link.

In my opinion, the Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890/91 intro is finished.>

I am thrilled.

Thank you for your patient diligence, and for composing such a fabulous introduction to Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891.

Very fine chess history writing.

<On Game Collection: Game Collection: WCC : Steinitz-Zukertort 1886 A possibility is to cite the obituary of Steinitz in the Wiener Schachzeitung instead of Edwards, to have less work (source 1).

Wiener Schachzeitung, August-September 1900, pp. 157-161.

This is the source for the whole obituary, but if you want it more specific, on pp. 159-160 are his match and tournament successes.

Here you can click through the article to see what it looks like: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

I think it also gets the point across that <Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) dominated the chess world for most of the second half of the 1800s.> (btw, maybe delete the <(1836-1900)> as this was not well-liked?)>

The point is to make our information as "bullet proof" as possible.

If we simply list a <Rod Edwards> or <Edward Winter> web page as a source, then if either site expires, our "notes" for those sources would immediately be rendered useless.

Since <Edwards> and <Winter> are two of the only people in internet chess history who can even be arsed to cite and list primary sources, I can certainly be arsed to include those listings in our notes.

Then, as I posted above, I only have to worry about one website expiring (our website)- not 2,3, or more websites expiring.

The point is that this will do nobody harm. I don't mind doing the extra work. Thanks to "copypasta" it is a light data entry job.

MONTY PYTHON:

<<"During the mid-1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world.<1>"> It may indeed look like that. But what is actually cited is Gunsberg's match and tournament record according to Rod Edwards. And in order to compile this information, he used all those sources. If this is not clear enough, the section with Edwards' sources could be introduced with a short sentence to the effect <These are the sources cited by Rod Edwards> or something similar.>

I love <chessmetrics>, but it has too many mistakes compared to better sources, if we can find them.

And we can.

Also, around two years ago <chessmetrics> "expired."

It went down.

It didn't go up again until our <The Focus> kindly provided me the webmaster's email.

The webmaster (a mensch, incidentally) emailed me back and said "sorry I hadn't noticed" and put the site back online.

He had entrusted the maintenance of the site to someone and thus he was not even aware it had gone down.