I'd personally use although or even though - and move it to the first part of the sentence.

Although Capa moved to the USA to finish his education, he subsequently left Columbia University in 1910 to concentrate on chess.

<Although Capa moved to the USA to finish his education, he subsequently left Columbia University in 1910 to concentrate on chess.>

Maybe "instead" instead of "subsequently"? "Subsequent" suggests a time frame of "after", so the usage there implies he <did> finish his education. Or maybe add "before graduating" after "in 1910"?

<Although Capa moved to the USA to finish his education, he instead left Columbia University in 1910 before graduating to focus on chess.>

Meh. "instead" is pretty intrusive.......thinking......

Capablanca went to the USA to finish his education at the Woodycliff School. He should prepare for Columbia college and was estimated to stay in the USA for about 6 to 7 years before returning to Cuba. At least at the Woodycliff School, he was advised to not play chess. Apparently, Capablanca also attended Groff School and only then went to Columbia University.

Capablanca didn't obtain a degree as Winter says on page 12, so <graduating> is here meant in a wider sense, i. e. not just as acquiring a PhD, but any degree like diploma or something comparable. Capablanca himself is quoted as saying "after two years ... I left the University and dedicated most of my time to chess" (as can be seen here, this statement describes merely a chronology - first University, then chess - not a causation - leaving University to play chess).

So we can say that Capablanca came to the USA to finish his education in the widest sense, i. e. two schools then University - in order to finally obtain a degree. He left University before acquiring any degree. Afterwards, he dedicated himself to chess.

<OhioChessFan: Did he leave college to become a professional chess player?>

We do not know, and that's the point I'm trying to make. That's why I don't think that <to concentrate> can be used, even though it may sound better. It implies that he left the CU to play chess, but we don't know about that causal connection. Not that I think it is likely, but we cannot exclude the possibility that Capablanca didn't pass all his tests, for example - if he didn't and had to drop out, it would also have been natural for him to pursue a career as a chessplayer. So the fact that he dedicated himself to chess afterwards doesn't help us to determine the motif.

The <and pursued a career in chess.> sounds indeed fine.

Ok so in the future we will create a <one week> period during which we can publicly examine a given draft selected for the next promotion.

When a new draft is selected for promotion, I will always post this information at the top of our Profile, listing the "due date," the day on which I will submit the draft to <Daniel>.

I will also post this information in our forum, and I will also post this information in the fora of our <Soviet Sports Committee>: <Karpova>, <OhioChessFan>, and <Boomie>.

In the case of Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921, which is our current draft selected for the next promotion, we will have a longer time for public examination because I am going to Canada.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours.>

What about this: <Capablanca moved to the USA to finish his education, although he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree, and pursued a career in chess.>

<Boomie>

And how could it be improved? <There were five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours.> ?

Times are changing:

<The winner will be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reaches this goal, the winner will be the one with the most points after 24 games. Five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours. Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce.>

Good questions.

I didn't notice the "will be" problem but now I think that should be past tense.

<There were five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours.>

That works or you could say "They played five days a week..."

You've hit on a significant issue here regarding tense in the Conditions section.

In fact, normally the correct tense for this part of the first sentence is "would be"-

<The winner will be <<<would be>>> the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reaches this goal, the winner will be the one with the most points after 24 games. Five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours. Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce.>

Let's look at the Conditions section in our promoted draft:

<The conditions were agreed upon on December 6, 1890. The winner would be first to 10 games (draws not counting), or most wins after 20 games. A draw would be declared in the case of 9 wins each.[14] The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.[15] Gunsberg received $150 traveling expenses from the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. British amateurs contributed 75 pounds towards Gunsberg's share of the prize fund.[16]>

This the "tense template" that we now must follow for all of our "Conditions sections."

Luckily, this "tense template" is grammatically correct, and features, in my opinion, precisely the correct mix of tenses necessary to convey the conditions for the match.

At any rate, that's the template and it's now a fact.

So I'm going to examine every one of the "Conditions sections" in every one of my drafts to make sure it conforms to the template.

So folks let's just make the tenses in the "Conditions section" for Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921 match the tenses template in the "Conditions section" here: Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)

Time to do some matching.

And just to make this absolutely clear- altering the existing tense template in our promoted match is not on the table.

We are not going to edit or change the conditions section in Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890).

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

<Karpova> I really like this sentence you made:

<Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce.>

These two items aren't associated so probably belong in separate sentences.

"The time limit was 15 moves per hour."

"The referee was Alberto Ponce."

I agree with your suggestions, so let's make the following changes:

"Capablanca moved to the USA to finish his education, although he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree, and pursued a career in chess."

"The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games."

<Boomie: These two items aren't associated so probably belong in separate sentences.>

They are not connected (points 3 and 4 off the regulations), but I thought it may be easier to have such short information in one sentence, for smoother, less staccato-type reading:

"Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce."

"The time limit was 15 moves per hour. The referee was Alberto Ponce."

<Boomie: Also were there extended time limits?>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<"Capablanca moved to the USA to finish his education, although he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree, and pursued a career in chess."

"The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games.">

Both are now entered in the draft.

It's a tradeoff, but I think that the two very short sentences is worse than linking two unrelated pieces of information in one longer sentence. I would add a comma though.

But the entire paragraph should be altered to conform to your "template" paragraph from Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890).

Here's what the following segment from Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921 looks like now:

<If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games. Five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours. Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce. 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>

I propose:

<If nobody reached this goal, the winner would be the player with the most points after 24 games. There would be five play days a week, with one session of play lasting 4 hours. The time limit was 15 moves per hour, and the referee was Alberto Ponce. 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.>

This version has no grammatical errors.

That said, I have a strong feeling that <Ohio> and/or <Tim> could retain the correct grammar that matches the "template" grammar, and still improve my suggested paragraph quite a bit.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

This part of the conditions section is in the mirror now:

<"The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games.">

"the winner was to be the one" is not grammatically incorrect, but it's poor style.

But if we use "would be" again, then it would (heh) look like this:

<"The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner would be the one with the most points after 24 games.">

I think that the repetition of "would be" in such a short space is also poor style.

I think <Ohio/Tim> might be able to improve this.

(Gentlemen, I'm all too aware you are not "the same person")

<Karpova> if you can come up with something better please share as well.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Ok here is the entire conditions section as it now sits in the mirror:

<The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games. Five play days a week with one session of play lasting 4 hours. Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce. 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.>

Suggestions for improvement not only welcome, but needed.

This is what I came up with, but I don't think it's good enough:

Should we tell her, Ohio?

No! Don't spill the beans, Boomie.

How could anyone not know? I mean who else could have written those song lyrics and talked up such a blue streak?

It looks fine, but there is one inconsistency spotted by <Boomie>. It's this <An extra prize of $5,000, with $3,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser, would be awarded after five games.> After five games had been played, the extra prize was given by the "Commission for the encouragement of touring throughout Cuba" - so this was not an initial condition. So I suggest something like:

<The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner would be the player with the most points after 24 games. There would be five play days a week, with one session of play lasting 4 hours. The time limit was 15 moves per hour, and the referee was Alberto Ponce. Lasker would receive $11,000 and Capablanca $9,000 of the $20,000 purse. After five games had been played, an extra prize of $5,000, with $3,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser was donated.>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Ok I put your newest version in for now, with one change I just added:

<The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the player with the most points after 24 games would win. There would be five play days a week, with one session of play lasting 4 hours. The time limit was 15 moves per hour, and the referee was Alberto Ponce. Lasker would receive $11,000 and Capablanca $9,000 of the $20,000 purse. After five games had been played, an extra prize of $5,000, with $3,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser was donated.>

I rewrote this sentence to read <If nobody reached this goal, the player with the most points after 24 games would win.>, with the idea of eliminating the close repetition of "The winner".

Yes, that's always an issue. I am not completely satisfied with the Capa education sentence in that regard, but I tend to prefer a flowing narrative when making a close call.

<<"The winner would be the first to get 8 points, draws not counting. If nobody reached this goal, the winner was to be the one with the most points after 24 games.">