And in good time too.

We need you, as always.

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

You wrote

<<Time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce. > Why did the tense revert to past? I accept the referee as a part of the narrative, but the 15 moves was surely a part of the conditions.>

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

1. Please be sure that you are editing the most recent draft, which you can always find in the mirror here- Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

The current sentence is <"The time limit was 15 moves per hour and the referee was Alberto Ponce.">

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

2. <Why did the tense revert to past?>

The simple past is the only correct tense to report a fixed condition from a past event, such as fixed conditions for a chess match that happened in the past.

"The time limit is 15 moves per hour" is wrong.
"The time limit would be 15 move per hour" is wrong.
"The time limit was 15 moves per hour" is correct.

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

3. I know it is a pain in the ass, but I beseech all members of the <Soviet Sports Committee>- which is <you>, <Tim>, <Karpova> and <me>- to review all of the posts that have been made since we last posted in the forum before we make a new post. I know it can be tedious, but this is the only way to avoid duplication of work, and also avoid correcting things that have already been corrected, and so forth.

The followng post is particularly important, and many apologies to you and the other members of the <Soviet Sports Committee> if you have indeed read this post already:

<Let's look at the Conditions section in our promoted draft Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890):

<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)>

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

4. As per your suggestion to make it much clearer what the timetable will be on submitting future drafts to <Daniel> for promotion, just look at the top of our WCC profile. The latest scheduling information will always be there so we can all see it easily.

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

Finally, (and perhaps most importantly), if you think we should change the name of our committee, please suggest an alternative to the <Soviet Sports Committee>.

I spend every second of my free time reading Russian chess history at the moment, so I have it on the brain.

But our Committee, or "Gang of Four" if you will, is the most crucial element to our entire project.

Only we four have worked steadily on our project from the beginning until now. Each one of us has made him/herself invaluable to this project, and I wish to keep it that way.

I agree with you on this:

<<"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.">

Maybe, only maybe, there should be a consistency of tenses here, so that both clauses use "would be". I don't like "nobody". With 2 people, I think we should be talking "neither". In a different way, I don't like "the one". I'd suggest "the player". And with 2 people, I think "more" would be slightly better grammatically than "the most" and it doesn't interrupt the narrative.>

What do you think of this current version here?

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<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.>

Should we change "with the most points after 24 games" to "with more points after 24 games"?

Good heavens...

Although not necessary as such, starting the second sentence with "if neither player" sounds more natural to me. "Player" in the second part in the sentence might then be converted to "one". But.. well, it's a minor detail.

I do agree with changing "nobody" and removing "get". Not sure about "more" or "the most"; more seems more accurate, but the most flows a bit better.

Let's stack them up.

Existing sentence in the current draft:

<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.>

<Ohio> version:

<"The winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting. If neither reached this goal, the player with more points after 24 games would win.">

In my opinion, <Ohio's> sentence is better than the existing one. <dak> I'm not sure on "more" vs. "most," but since I can live with either, I'll abstain on that one issue.

I vote we use <Ohio's> version, unless there is some subtlety involved that screws up the "content"- a point that <Karpova> would best be able to assess.

<"The winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting. If neither player reached this goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win.">

I'm going to "third" your "seconding" of the <Dakar Auto Rally> suggestion.

I think this is the best version yet:

<"The winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting. If neither player reached this goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win.">

As I mentioned before, I can live with either "more" or " the most."

That said, and after reading the new sentence aloud, I'm leaning to "more" at the moment because it means the same thing and it flows better in the sentence than does "the most."

&

<I'm leaning to "more" at the moment because it means the same thing and it flows better in the sentence than does "the most.">

"this," sir, not "that."

Off topic but still referring back to the "top contenders" brouhaha from this mirror- Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

This information actually spans the event- 1947 to 1949- but I still think it's somewhat on point, and certainly of interest.

Andrew Soltis:

"A pre-ELO form of rankings, proposed by the Moscow master and mathematician A. Khachaturov, concluded that during the period of 1947-1949 the pecking order of Soviet players was: (No. 1) Botvinnik, (2)Smyslov, (3)Bronstein, (4)Boleslavsky, (5)Kotov, (6)Keres, (7)Flohr, (8)Lilienthal,(9)Bondarevsky, (10)Averbakh, (11)Tolush, and (12) Semyon Furman."

Let's take this version:

An editing group, or a single editor, can vastly improve any given draft.

Both of the bios I wrote and every WCC Draft I wrote that you have examined have profited greatly from your editing.

And <Tim> is also a crackerjack editor.

I think we need the year he moved to the USA to give some context to the 1910 year of forgoing the education.

< During St Petersburg (1914), won by Lasker ahead of his former challenger,>

I don't like the first clause. "ahead of his former challenger" takes three words to reference "Capablanca"? The hard part is the sentence references Capablanca twice, and a repetition of the name won't flow. The "won by" construction is also a little weak. Perhaps then

Oh, and let's have a show trial. Or better, a show and tell trial:

<"Capablanca drew up a new set of rules for the world championship during St Petersburg (1914), where he finished second to Lasker by a half point.">

"Even prior to" doesn't flow. I'll think about it. As the sentence stands, I think that "had suggested" would be the correct usage.

<He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion.27 Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25 But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in Europe.>

Rubinstein had lost his financial support.......and?

<The Cuban didn't want to become champion this way.>

I think "that way" is bit better.

<If neither player reached this goal,>

I think "that" goal is slightly better, punchline or not.

< 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.>

"In ______, before Capablanca had even played his first European tournament, Leon Paredes suggested to Lasker that he play a match with the Cuban, but Lasker declined."

< 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.>