<Chessica: 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.>

<It was stated that Gunsberg intends to formally claim the game by default, but that he would withdraw this claim in the event of a satisfactory explanation of the delay.

Later in the afternoon Steinitz called at the Manhattan Chess Club, and after saying that he had sent his message at 10:15 A. M. Gunsberg withdrew his claim.>

Source: New York Sun, 1891.01.20. In Jacques N. Pope http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

I changed that note to the new source you discovered, which is this here:

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

Yes, <26> is meant - I had scrolled down to the earlier draft.

I will have access to full set in February, when I am on vacation in Canada.

They are all sitting at my Mom's house at the moment.

The 'Wiener Schachzeitung' - as we usually mention not only the source, but also where we got it from (e. g. newspapers dug up by Pope), we should also do that in the case of the 'Wiener Schachzeitung'. I suggest to add

"ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek"

after each 'Wiener Schachzeitung' source. Maybe with <Provided by> in front, e. g.

2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", July-August 1910, p. 252. Provided by "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek"

Example from Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910

7 "Bradford Observer Budget" 28 July 1888. In Edward Winter, "Chess Note 5136." (submitted by Joost van Winsen, Silvolde, the Netherlands) "http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

Fixed, thanks-

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

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

I agree with your idea for improving the <WS> references.

We should also supply the individual web link for every single one of them.

As we prepare further drafts for promotion, we'd need you to supply this extra documentation for the millions of <WS> links you have given to our project.

I think that should be done as the "last thing" in a given promotion- because as we put up a new draft for promotion, during the inspection we might be moving the notes around and changing some of the sources even.

So it would be work in the future, since we don't have any <WS> sources for Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

On a related topic, I'm not going to put in any more <Full Edwards> documentation until I have a conversation with both <crawfb5> and Daniel.

Minor point, but I have always preferred <in> to <provided by>.

It's certainly a good idea to also link to the page (or first page) of the WSZ issue.

Regarding <Provided in> and <Provided by>, the abbreviation <ANNO> means <AustriaN Newspapers Online>, so <Provided in "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek"> would fit.

I see.

I trust you will be able to think of a way to present all of the information in the NOTES section that lets the reader know exactly what is what.

On other news, I will email your fine draft to our "html" man tomorrow, but not the notes quite yet.

Game Collection: WCC: Euwe-Alekhine Rematch 1937

I have a question about the spelling of money in English?

In your original post with the source for the following sentence, the spelling of <gulden> doesn't look right to me- at least I don't think it is correct in English:

"By April 1935 the Semmering offer broke down, possibly due to problems guaranteeing the required purse because the "Dutch gulden" was outperforming the "Austrian schilling."<3,4>

<4> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Dec 1936), p.353

The exact quote is <holländischer Gulden> and <österreichischer Schilling>, so I only translated <holländisch> and <österreichisch>.

I'm not an expert on currency and usually leave it the way the WSZ writes it - as the WSZ is pretty "Austria-centric", such expressions (but also names of persons) are commonly in German.

Should be taken with "a grain of salt"

Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891

As you know, <Karpova> and me have recently argued that in our <WCC Editing Project> we should include <all> available print sourced data in our NOTES section, in order to preserve our data provenance should web links expire. That means if we cite a web link, we also make sure to list the print data provenance supplied by that website. If the website does not list any print data provenance, then it shouldn't be used as a source in the first place.

We need to present exactly where we got our data from in a way that does not disappear suddenly if a web link expires.

I wish to present a lamentable example of what could happen if we don't do that:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/bronst...

This <chessbase article> does not supply proper print data on the sources it cites. Names, issue numbers, and page numbers are virtually absent, because <chessbase> figured it would be sufficient to rely on <weblinks> to serve as citations.

They figured wrong.

This "article" is now utterly useless as a reliable historical document because every single citation web link is now dead, except for one that leads to the <Amazon page> for "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t.... This "article" now cannot provide the elementary data provenance necessary to make it a reliable source about anything at all, let alone its purported topic.

Finally, as if that weren't enough here is some sloppily presented writing, typical of the article as a whole, that forces us to "guess" which book is under discussion:

<"To shed some light on the 23rd game Lev dug out a little-known work by Botvinnik which contains the world champion's notes on the game. The book by Botvinnik was published after his death by his nephew Igor Botvinnik. You can replay the game and the analysis on our Javascript board given below.">

I actually have this <Bronstein> book, and it took me a minute or two to identify which book they allude to.

This kind of woeful sloppiness is all too common in "chessbase" articles and articles from most other chess history websites on the internet.

Let's make our website a place where such shoddy fare is not presented as even remotely acceptable by any standard.

I have something much more worthy of an <Ohioization>, not to mention a <Timoization>.

I want to fix up a bit more on two drafts I regard to be "finished" enough to throw to the experts in here.