<The match to be one of eight games up, drawn games not to count, but if, after 24 games, neither player has scored eight games, then the player having the greater number of points to be declared the winner.>>

"The winner will be the first to win 8 out of 24 games. If nobody wins 8 games, the winner will be the one with the most points after 24 games."

Is this factually correct?

I think it sounds fine, but that the 24 games info the first time is unnecessary, so perhaps

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Ok I just put a space before each NOTE that occurs in the middle of a sentence.

Also, you probably noticed that <Daniel> is insisting on the DATE CONVENTION that you actually use in this draft, which is convenient.

Having seen how the dates look in the first promoted draft, I think <Daniel> is right anyways.

"The winner will be the first to win 8 games. If nobody wins 8 games, the winner will be the one with the most points after 24 games.">

<Even prior to his first European tournament, León Paredes suggested to Lasker that he play a match with Capablanca, 6 who declined.7>

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

<Lasker published the proposed conditions, 11 which Capablanca said were unacceptable in a private letter to the champion.12>

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

<Lasker replied to Capablanca's first letter, complaining that the Cuban wanted to impose his own rules on him and called for Walter Penn Shipley to act as arbiter.15>

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

<Both Amos Burn 16 and the "British Chess Magazine" 17 sided with Capablanca, since the proposed conditions were obviously in favor of Lasker.>

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

<Lasker would receive $11,000 and Capablanca $9,000 of the $20,000 purse. An extra prize of $5,000 with $3,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser would be awarded after five games.33>

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

All of these edits have a basis in attempting to correct (slight, but significant) grammatical/diction/idiom inaccuracies.

All are open to discussion for further improvement, but none of the original constructions edited here should be let stand as they were.

<Even prior to his first European tournament, León Paredes suggested to Lasker that he play a match with Capablanca, 6 who declined.7>>

Notice that the new, improved version is:

The new improved version is precisely what I entered.

<Daniel> added several thousand blue links, which is to my taste, since I'm a "clicker."

He and <crawfb5> even figured out how to give us "italics" for the book and journal titles, which originally we were told was impossible.

No longer! The code kings have come through.

You might also be pleased that <Daniel> stood ground on making the dates read "December 7th, 1941" instead of "7 Dec 1941" - he went on about that at some length. There are rumors he had to be visibly restrained...

I have to say that you folks were right about that now that I'm seeing it up on the big screen.

Evans Gambit

Hang on...

Queen's Gambit Declined

Queen's Gambit Declined (D06)

<Ohio> Yes you are correct sir.

Luckily <el Capitano> will likely see it your way.

It's been well over a week since I said I'd be sending the draft off to <crawfb5> for encoding.

What's most important to our purpose, though, is that we got the first one promoted, and now <Daniel> and <crawfb5>, over the course of the last week, have worked out a smooth way to write the code to get what we wanted. Well most of what we wanted.

But as usual you are correct- I should change that header to "Promoted Draft."

Nice improvement on "Lasker's butt," which some say was pretty good before the surgery.

I added your suggestion, thanks!

<"But Lasker declined.">

I will summarize now though:

1. We write the drafts

2. We edit the drafts

3. We prepare a finished draft for promotion.

4. When there are no further edit suggestions, the writer will then call it "done." Which <Karpova> did, in public in our forum.

5. I send the draft to <crawfb5>.

6. He converts the draft into HTML code.

7. He sends that code to Daniel.

8. This next part I didn't realize would happen either- I just assumed Daniel would install the code onto the event page. But instead Daniel and <crawfb5> had to do a lot of "back and forth" to figure out how to write new code to accommodate our special requests and so forth. Luckily, that only had to be done once- they have a good code now and that part of the process will now be smooth and easy for future promotions. It certainly won't take a whole week like this time.

9. The draft is promoted onto the page.

10. If there's something glaringly wrong at that point (such as "Queen's gambit"), we can still get it changed. I just sent Daniel an email asking him to fix that mistake you found.

Is this it?

<<Jess>

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

But now it is finished.>

That should have a comma after "initially" and after "expected". One or the other would probably be good enough to pass.

<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.>

No problem- for the next one I'll make absolutely certain I know that you saw the "OK it's finished" post *before* I send the next draft off for encoding.

However, the style editing period is now finished.

I'm not going to stop the presses for further style edits on <Steinitz-Gunsberg>, because after a certain time- and we had plenty of time- we have to abandon works of art. They are never finished, only abandoned.

That said, when it comes to actual mistakes- like "Queens gambit"- that's another matter and yes we "hold the presses" for that.

Which I did. <Daniel> will get my email and then he'll fix it.

But the style editing is finished.

We also need to respect the draft writer on this issue- when she or he says the draft is "finished," it's the writer's opinion that carries the most weight.

Particularly since we all of us put that draft through the microscope.

Time to train our microscopes on the next draft to be checked for promotion- this one here:

< Yes and yes!

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.

Just a day or too, I beg patience.>

These are the two drafts I was referring to in that post:

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Game Collection: WCC: Euwe-Alekhine Rematch 1937

I wanted to wait until <Karpova's> draft got promoted until we put our full attention on them.

As you can see, if you scroll up a bit, <Tim> already started in on one of them.

But perhaps now of more importance is the next draft selected for promotion, which is this one:

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Believe, me, I want as high a standard as possible as much as you do.

I have been petitioning <Daniel>- in public and in private- to edit the WCC drafts for the last 2 1/2 years now.

Last summer I finally convinced him that it was time to do it. So now we have the chance.

I'm on your side on this. But we can't spend forever editing one draft- we have 14 left to edit for promotion, and another 40 to write.

When I first mentioned, some months ago, that it might take a year to complete the project <Daniel> almost had a heart attack.

So I assuaged him by "changing the plan"- instead of waiting till we were finished them all, we could "promote" them one at a time as we finish each one.

He was happy to make that compromise, which even more happily has bought us the time to do a much better job than we would have been able to do on less time.

At any rate, it is time to move on to the next draft(s).

There are three listed in this thread, so please, have at them.

I spend almost every second of my free time working on the research and composition of new drafts, so I really need you and <Tim>. I count on you.

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

<Ohio> on a related note, since I have been researching and slowly constructing these three drafts for some time now-

1. Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954

2. Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1957

3. Game Collection: WCC: Smyslov-Botvinnik Rematch 1958

I decided to re-write this here- I have just started the preliminary construction: Vasily Smyslov

I'm going to be in Vancouver two weeks from now, and I was hoping I could count on you to help me edit the bio page?

Remember I spent last year's vacation writing this one- Johann Jacob Loewenthal

And I certainly remember how much work you put into editing that with me.

Anyways, I do understand your concerns. But now that we have a first draft promoted, please try to enjoy the moment- whatever misgivings you have about the way this one got to the "real page," at least now it's really happening.

I have to get back to two points raised by <Boomie>.

The first is <After Lasker had published a commentary on the conditions in the press, 13 Capablanca sent him another private letter asking "But why should he not play me on the same terms that he has granted to all other aspirants for his title?"14>

Capablanca issued that statement through F D Rosebault. It may indeed sound a bit strange to quote a private letter to Dr. Lasker, wherein he speaks of him using 2nd person. But this strange situation is caused by the fact that he sent the message to Dr. Lasker through Rosebault, who probably should let Dr. Lasker know in private what Capablanca was replying to his comments.

Do you think that it looks strange the way it currently is, so should it be changed? And if so, how? A possibilty is to say "issued a statement to Dr. Lasker" (instead of "sent him another private letter"). Or maybe even introduce Rosebault - and then either simply give his name or introduce him as his representative (this would need a new source!) - see my post of today.

The 2nd one is again <The winner will be the first to win 8 games.If nobody wins 8 games, the winner will be the one with the most points after 24 games.> (btw, space between <games.If>).

I quoted the original <The match to be one of eight games up, drawn games not to count, but if, after 24 games, neither player has scored eight games, then the player having the greater number of points to be declared the winner.> and this raises the following question:

Why do they start with the cumbersome part about <eight games up> and <draws not counting>? I think they do, because they differentiate between <wins> and <games> (or points). The former being a win otb. The latter is more general and could be a win by forfeit, for example (what I'm thinking about is the differentiation between 1-0 and + - on scoresheets, for example). Even if there may be other possibilities, we should at least assume that they phrased it this way for a reason (and not just to elongate it).