<OCF>

Capablanca moved in 1904 to the USA, so perhaps <Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to finish his education, although he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree, and pursued a career in chess.3> ?

This <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.25> sounds fine.

What about this? <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.> The info when Paredes wrote to Lasker is not given, just that it was prior to San Sebastian. As San Sebastian gets a special treatment later, I don't think that new infos should be added to that sentence.

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

That's why he never got a chance to play for the WC after WWI.

These changes are okay:

<The Cuban didn't want to become champion that way.30>

and <If neither player reached that goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win.>

<Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to finish his education, although he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree, and pursued a career in chess.3>

This may work better as two sentences. Also I prefer "continue" to "finish".

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Do you want me to add these to the Mirror?

<The Cuban didn't want to become champion that way.30>

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

<If neither player reached that goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win.>

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

Yes.

<Boomie>

The two sentence version looks good, but why is <continue> better than <finish>?

Again from Winter, p. 10: Between 1898 and 1904, he went to school at the Instituto de Matanzas, preparing for his bachillerato. And in 1904 Capablanca went to the US <to complete his education>.

So while <continue> emphasizes the past so to speak (i. e. that he had gone to school before), <finish> emphasizes the future and the aim (being educated at university level) to be ready for professional life.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Ok be advised all three of these edits are now in the Mirror- remember always to edit from the text that's actually in the current Mirror Draft.

<The Cuban didn't want to become champion that way.30>

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

<If neither player reached that goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win.>

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

I forgot to mention something and thank you again for your marvelous "letter to the webmaster."

I did indeed email that to <Daniel> with proper accreditation. I told him I wrote it oh wait...

No I said you wrote it. It was "well received" as they say in the Shipping and Receiving trade.

<Daniel> kindly told me/us not to worry, that he wouldn't change anything on our new official WCC Webpages without telling us first what he wanted to do.

Good letter, that. I'm going to keep your letter in our profile for the same reason I never go anywhere without a hand grenade.

Like it.

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

<That's why he never got a chance to play for the WC after WWI.>

Then that should be stated there. Otherwise, the <Rubentein had lost...> sentence is an orphan.

<I don't think that the text should be cluttered up with the info that the <Commission for the encouragement of touring throughout Cuba> donated that money.>

Yuck. What a boring name. But I think <some> clarification is called for. Maybe "by a Cuban tourism group"? I like the rest of the mirror on that issue.

<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.>

I like "continue" there.

Boomtown's suggestion: <"Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to continue his education. He left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree and pursued a career in chess.3>

I suggest the following change:

How it is:

<Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. 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.27>

My suggestion:

Maybe

<Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to complete his education. However, he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree and pursued a career in chess.3>

Okay, the change in thought justifies the "however". Barely. I haven't come up with anything better.

<Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe. He was never again able to meet the financial requirements of a title match,27 although Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25>

What a tremendous editing team!

Let's put this one in:

<Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to complete his education. However, he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree and pursued a career in chess.3>

another question regarding <Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe. He was never again able to meet the financial requirements of a title match,27 although Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25>

I suggest another change:

<Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe.27 Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25>

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

<Karpova: The background is the challenge to Lasker, not to Capablanca. It is true that the financial situation didn't become better and Rubinstein couldn't fund a title match against Capablanca, whose first challenger he was. Do you think that it is clear from the above, that Rubinstein had a contract with Lasker, but no financial basis - Capablanca on the other hand had and Lasker decided to play a match against him then? And that then Capablanca assured Rubinstein, that he would be the first to get a shot at his title, if he won the match?>

<He was never again able to meet the financial requirements of a title match,27 although Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.>

Maybe..."Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title, but he was never again able to meet the financial requirements of a title match."

Who is the last 'he' (the one never again able to meet the financial requirements)?

In this case, the whole WC funding is restricted to the Rubinstein-Lasker WC match.

It went the following way:

1) Rubinstein challenges Lasker, the latter accepts

2) Title match arranged for autumn 1914

3) WWI cancels match

4) War-ravaged Europe: Rubinstein still having contract but financial misery affecting Lasker and him

5) Capablanca has the financial backing and challenges Lasker

6) Lasker agrees, and Rubinstein is left out

7) Capablanca promises to Rubinstein that the first title challenge, should Capablanca win the match, is reserved for Rubinstein

And in this part, I do not want to go further than that. As the later events concerning the inability of Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch and for a long time Alekhine to raise the funds for a Capablanca match go beyond that. The narrative shall stop with Capablanca being crowned WC. All of what comes later belongs into the 1927 Intro.

That's why I suggested

<Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He even suggested a triangular tournament to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe.27 Capablanca declared that he would accept a challenge from him, should he win the title.25>

It's not made entirely clear why Rubinstein's suggested triangular tournament didn't happen. Was it that Lasker (and/or Capablanca) thought it was silly, or was it just because he couldn't find the $$$?

In the latter case, this might work....

That leaves a hanging thread, though - the reader is left wondering why the Rubinstein-Capablanca match never happened. Yes, he'll find the answer in the 1927 intro, but I don't feel an explanatory footnote in this intro would be amiss.

I don't know why. Rubinstein made that suggestion in an interview with a newspaper, so there were probably not even negotiations. Comparable probably to <Capablanca suggested a world championship tournament 23 and hoped for a match in 1915.24> In Europe neither such a tournament nor a title match could have been financed, so I wouldn't want to narrow it down to the triangular tournament suggestion. But the suggestion shows that Akiva tried to stay in the game.

Perhaps something like that:

I don't think that extra information in the footnotes are a bad thing.

But I do not necessarily regard it as a problem, if the reader doesn't know:

1) It preserves the structure, going from one match to another, starting with the prior match and ending with the crowning of a new/old champion.