<But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe,27 and Capablanca became Lasker's main rival.>

You may feel some relief that this is not about the content...heh.

Given our "full team" with valuable <Switch> extension is here in force, I'll hold my tongue unless asked by <Karpova>.

When <Karpova> decides what, exactly, she wants in the Mirror, she will post it in here and that's what we'll put in the Mirror.

Terrific editing by the way.

It's good practice for us, because though the due date for this Mirror is Feb.24th (because of my trip to Canada), in future our due dates will always be only one (1) week from the time we identify the next promotion until I send it to <Daniel>.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, I will always put the latest information at the top of our Profile.

Here's what it says now:

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

**CURRENT DRAFT UNDER INSPECTION FOR PROMOTION: Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921 **DUE DATE- THE DAY I WILL SUBMIT THIS DRAFT TO <Daniel>: February 24th.

<Promotion of Drafts to Official WCC Pages>

In the future we will create a <one week> period during which we can publicly examine a given draft selected for the next 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 WCC 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 on vacation to Canada.

I would have no problem with changing it to

<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 and Capablanca had become Lasker's main rival. However, the Cuban declared that he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein, should he win the title.25>

the <main> could perhaps also be substituted by <only> but this could be too strong. But what about <chief>? <Chief rival> sounds stronger than <main>, but less committal than <only>.

<Boomie: The use of "became" indicates to me that Ruby ran out of funds and then Capa became... Anyway that's how it sounds to my ear.>

I do not really understand what sounds wrong to you or in which way.

For sure, it was not so clear-cut as Capablanca was considered a WC candidate prior to WWI already - with his basis of support in the Americas. But his negotiations with Lasker fell through and then the Rubinstein-Lasker match was arranged. After the war, Akiva would have had to start completely anew. But there was no one who could have funded such a match (the match in 1914 would have taken place in Russia/Poland and Germany...).

Perhaps something on how these matches were arranged: It is not that you run around with a suitcase full of money - you have to find sponsors, e. g. patrons, chess enthusiasts, chess federations and especially cities/Chess Clubs which can finance holding the games - they were in a way sold to them. This should make it more clear, why post-war Europe was not the place to host a Chess WC match.

Around the time of WWI, there was the triumvirate Lasker-Rubinstein-Capablanca, with the latter two as probably the only possible challengers. Capablanca himself also considered them to be the strongest.

After the war comes the transition - where should Rubinstein look for funding? Capablanca on the other hand was at his peak - he would later say that this was around the time of the Kostic match (1919). He had the financial backing and finally convinced Lasker to play a match.

So at best, the formulation should be as neutral as possible to capture the "fluidity" of that process. For sure, Lasker and Rubinstein had a contract and Akiva had good reasons to point to it, but WWI had disarranged everything. But you can't blame Capablanca for mounting his campaign.

Yet, let's keep in mind the following thought experiment: Imagine that Akiva would have gotten the funds for a title match shortly after the war, before Jose even had the chance to start his campaign - what would Emanuel have done? Would he have passed up the opportunity to gain money... oops, sorry, I mean to play chess?

I do not really understand what sounds wrong to you or in which way.>

I wasn't very clear about that. The way the sentence reads now to me implies that Capa became the main rival after Ruby lost support. We really don't know which came first. An argument could be made that Capa was already stronger by St. Petersburg 1914.

<An argument could be made that Capa was already stronger by St. Petersburg 1914.>

This is not a question of actual chess strength, as these speculations lead to nothing and we should not let them influence us when writing these Intros. We have to keep in mind that around the time of the Marshall match, the strongest contenders for the title were considered to be Tarrasch and Maroczy. Janowski got a shot at the title in 1910, Bogoljubov got two. I will stop here as these are just illustrations why the question of who was when the actually strongest challenger/player should not bother us - we cannot find out anyway, so at best we can only site contemporary, respectable sources (e. g. already cited in Intros were Lasker's or Capablanca's assessments).

Furthermore, St. Petersburg 1914 (April to May) is irrelevant as Rubinstein and Lasker had a contract and arranged a match for autumn 1914. Whether Capablanca was stronger by then or not does not matter.

<Boomie: The way the sentence reads now to me implies that Capa became the main rival after Ruby lost support.>

We need to find a different way to express it and that's why I suggested <chief> instead of main. The point is to not make a claim about first this, then that. But rather that we have the champ - Lasker - and his two contenders - Rubinstein and Capablanca. And now, after the war, although he still had a contract, Rubinstein dropped out of the race as he was from Europe. It's not about the exact point of time when Capablanca pulled ahead - it's not even about this metaphor. It's just this: Both have the reputation, both a worthy challengers, but only one can finance it.

I think that the weak spot is <and Capablanca had become Lasker's main rival.>. This gives rise to the wrong interpretation you pointed out, doesn't it?

I think that possible improvements could involve the expression <main> (e. g. <chief> instead) and <become>. Maybe instead of <become>, more fitting would be an excluding expression (to make up a term), e. g. something like <was left>, to indicate that from different challengers, only one remained. So that the focus is rather in the other contender dropping out, than Capablanca becoming or emerging.

What about <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 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein, should he win the title.25>

<Switch>

I think it's pretty clear even in my version, though, that Capablanca is the author of <My Chess Career> - clearer, anyway, than this sentence...

<However, the Cuban declared that he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein, should he win the title.25>

I agree with you that this makes it a bit clearer and flows better.

Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

This is a fine sentence indeed:

In this case, please put the sentence into the mirror.

<OCF>

This is not the point. He had met the financial obligations, or else it wouldn't have needed a World War to stop the match. But the war changed everything, so a totally new situation arose and probably no one knew how to solve it.

It turned out that he was being ignored, although he still had a contract with Lasker from prior to WWI. Instead, the negotiations with Capablanca began as if Rubinstein had never existed. Capablanca may have felt this way also and so promised Rubinstein the first challenge as some kind of consolation. I think that Capablanca can hardly be blamed for seizing his chance, though. Yet, I think it's understandable also that Rubinstein was not happy to see his chances for a match vanish into thin air.

I think the part is currently as follows: <After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25 He published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge. 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 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.25>

For me, as uneducated reader, this raises several questions - as well as eyebrows.

- First is stylistic; the sentences starting with yet, he, but and however seem very artificial. You've probably switched, tossed and turned with them - but to my reading ear they just don't work, and seem like they could be condensed in fewer sentences.

- First sentence: Not Lasker, Rubinstein and himself? Detail; no further remarks.

- Rest: What? Why did the public need to be convinced? Was Rubinsteins contract all of a sudden declared invalid? Why did he "even" suggest a triangular tournament - is this suggestion more extreme than a previous suggestion of his? Would he need financial support for this tournament? Or was the order as follows: 1. War ends; Rubi has contract. 2. Everyone is poor; Rubi's financial backers back down. 3. Rubi has de juro claim to challenge by his previous contract; however Capa has de facto claim to challenge given that he might be stronger. 4. Capa tries to cement himself as obvious choice c.q. rightful challenger by writing MCC. 5. For Rubi the momentum is slipping, he tries to get back into the picture by suggesting a triangular tournament. 6. Capa has none of this and gets rid of his rival challenger by offering him a challenge in case Capa beats Lasker.

If something like that would be the case, I'd seriously advocate using the chronological order. Makes the text <much> easier to understand. Then you might get something generally along the lines of:

After the war, Capablanca considered Lasker, Rubinstein and himself to be the strongest players.25 Although Rubinstein still had a contract to play Lasker, he had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe.27 In this unclear situation, Capablanca tried to solidify [among the public] his own right to challenge Lasker by writing "My Chess Career". Rubinstein didn't want to be left out, and proposed a triangular tournament to determine the champion. This was not accepted by Capablanca, who instead offered to play Rubinstein should he win the title.

<IMPORTANT NOTE:> As mentioned I'm just a duffer on chess history - so I might have the chronology wrong. But, as duffer, this is clearer for the hows and whys.

Thanks for your suggestion! Sometimes, questions remain which cannot be solved if sources are lacking. As these Intros shall be reliably sourced, in such cases it is better to remain vague, than to introduce hypotheses as facts, just because they make sense.

That's how a current version of that paragraph would look like:

<After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25 Capablanca published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.26 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 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.25>

Regarding the points you raised:

<- First sentence: Not Lasker, Rubinstein and himself? Detail; no further remarks.>

This was a style suggestion - see WCC Editing Project chessforum and it's fine with me. What kind of further details or remarks should be expected? This comes from an interview the Cuban gave and it appears to be a good introduction to the paragraph, summarizing the circle of title contenders after the war.

It goes like this:

World War I interrupts the plans for the Rubinstein-Lasker world championship match. After the war, a match between Lasker and Capablanca becomes a hot topic. At the beginning of 1920, they start negotiations between them (draft agreement for title match signed on January 23, 1920). Furthermore, at the beginning of 1920, Capablanca publishes 'My Chess Career' as part of his campaign. On March 20, Rubinstein gave a talk prior to an exhibition in The Hague. As he had previously been basically ignored completely, he tried to remind the public that he still had a contract with Lasker. As was typical for Akiva, he didn't deny Lasker's and Capablanca's right to a title match. <He believed that an official body should step in and administer things instead of having public emotion decide the issue. As a compromise he suggested the idea of deciding the title by a triangular match between Lasker, Capablanca and himself [...].> (source 27).

The interview with Capablanca, source 25, was given in 1919. This is evident from the footnote also.

I propose a new suggestion:

<After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25 Capablanca began negotiations with Lasker in January 1920,28 and published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.26 Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He suggested a triangular tournament as a compromise to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe,27 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.25>

Please note, that the footnote numbers would then have to be changed, as <28> is being introduced earlier.

In this case it would look like this:

26 "American Chess Bulletin", March 1920, pp. 45-46. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 108-109 (formerly <28>)

27 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 105 (formerly <26>)

28 John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein – Volume 1: Uncrowned King", 2nd edition, Milford, CT USA, 2006, pp. 370 (formerly <27>)

If the war changed everything, how can he have possibly thought he had a contract when he didn't have the money? If the war changed everything to where he didn't have the money, how can Capa have possibly thought he could subsequently have the money to challenge?

<It turned out that he was being ignored, although he still had a contract with Lasker from prior to WWI. Instead, the negotiations with Capablanca began as if Rubinstein had never existed. Capablanca may have felt this way also and so promised Rubinstein the first challenge as some kind of consolation. >

If the war changed everything, how can he have possibly thought he had a contract when he didn't have the money? If the war changed everything to where he didn't have the money, how can Capa have possibly thought he could subsequently have the money to challenge?

<It turned out that he was being ignored, although he still had a contract with Lasker from prior to WWI. Instead, the negotiations with Capablanca began as if Rubinstein had never existed. Capablanca may have felt this way also and so promised Rubinstein the first challenge as some kind of consolation. >

Do you want me to do this in the Mirror now?

<I propose a new suggestion:

<After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25 Capablanca began negotiations with Lasker in January 1920,28 and published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.26 Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He suggested a triangular tournament as a compromise to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe,27 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.25>

Please note, that the footnote numbers would then have to be changed, as <28> is being introduced earlier.

In this case it would look like this:

26 "American Chess Bulletin", March 1920, pp. 45-46. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 108-109 (formerly <28>)

27 Edward Winter, "Capablanca", McFarland, 1989, p. 105 (formerly <26>)

28 John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein – Volume 1: Uncrowned King", 2nd edition, Milford, CT USA, 2006, pp. 370 (formerly <27>)

So <26> is then also source of the first sentence of the last paragraph (On January 23, 1920 Lasker and Capablanca agreed to a title match for 1921.28 -> 26).>

It's late here and I have to teach tomorrow morning, so I will put it in after work, when I am alert enough to follow the "note instructions."

I once screwed up my own notes so badly revising one of my own mirrors that I had to actually look up every single source again. Which was a blessing in disguise because I found a mistake.

For the intros, we have to report the facts to the best of our knowledge. Speculation or evaluations from our side have to be avoided.

<OhioChessFan: Regardless, that would be an explanation, but if it's not included, the sentence doesn't make sense.>

This is not being affirmed in the Intro.