I second the longness note. My first swing splits it into three sentences.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Excellent, thank you.

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

<"At the July 1946 Winterthur, Switzerland congress, FIDE proposed the vacant title be contested in June 1947 in the Netherlands.">

Done.

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

<"The Soviets were now members of FIDE.<7> All parties agreed to most of the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946. However now the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.">

Can you come up with a two sentence version? If that's physically possible I'd appreciate it very much. Also, is there a way to do it without using the word "however"?

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

<<FIDE proposed the vacant title be contested in June 1947 in the Netherlands.<1> They planned > I am okay with FIDE being a plural, as in "They planned" but I would suggest we should make that (or the singular as in "It planned" if that is preferred) a consistent policy throughout this entire process.>

Yes I agree. I think we should always consider FIDE to be singular. I regard it to be a bit anachronistic to use it as a plural- as <Alexander Rueb> did in an article I was reading in the "British Chess Journal Anthology" just today, as a matter of fact.

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

<<They planned a quadruple round robin of the following contenders-Max Euwe, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments.<2,3> The tournament was delayed, partly because the USSR was not yet a FIDE member.> Is "The tournament" clearly referring to the proposed round robin?>

I think so, but if you can come up with a reformulation I'd be pleased to look at it.

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

<<The Soviets were now members,<7> and under official FIDE aegis all parties agreed to most of the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946, except now the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.>

That's a long sentence. "except now" is a little jarring. Two points I'm mentioning now for future examination.>

See <Tim's> three sentence version. I'd like a two sentence version if possible.

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

<<Although Miguel Najdorf won at Prague 1946, he wasn't invited to join the championship due to the new agreement.>

That's redundant if we've already affirmed no extra player would be added. And it's lacking if we don't mention who won Groningen.>

It might be redundant but it's staying in because it's does supply further historical information, and a contentious historical detail at that. Some feel <Najdorf> got a raw deal.

<Botvinnik> won Groeningen 1947, and since he was already seeded into the championship tournament, this result would have been moot in any case. If you think we should add this information, please give me a reformulation?

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

<<In addition, no extra player would be added>

I don't think you can have "except _________" and then add another exception.>

I think we can, but if you can find a better way to arrange the information I'd welcome it.

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

<< Botvinnik never relinquished his lead, clinching the title by round 22 to become the sixth world chess champion. >

I think we must mention the winning margin.>

That's fine with me. Can you find a way to add that in and still keep the existing information? Might have to make two sentences out of it eh?

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

<I find the 6 days of rest anecdote incomprehensible. Why would <that> be a problem? Is there some outbreak of bad chess in the first round of most tournaments when they play for the first time in many days?>

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

<"Keres indeed lost Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948, allowing Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg.">

Some general points:

<Soviet consul Ivanovich Chikirisov>

Is this his full name? I'm just wondering as <Ivanovich> looks like his patronym to me, i. e. that his father's name was Ivan, and not like a forename.

I see that Botvinnik's book is your source for his seconds. As all players were allowed two seconds, do you think it would be worthwile to insert them or is the information most likely not to be found?

<The Soviets were now members,<7> and under official FIDE aegis all parties agreed to most of the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946, except now the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6> In addition, no extra player would be added. Although Miguel Najdorf won at Prague 1946, he wasn't invited to join the championship due to the new agreement.<8,9>>

A suggestion just to show how it might be changed: "The Soviets were now members,<7> and under official FIDE aegis all parties agreed to most of the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946.<6> Two important exceptions were made as now the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948,<6> and no extra player would be added. This affected the winner of Prague 1946, Miguel Najdorf,<8,9> while the winner of Groningen 1946, Botvinnik, was already seeded."

Reconsidering again. You write "and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments.<2,3>" so it was not both but either or - how would they have decided if, for example Szabo had won Groningen? Then you'd have Najdorf and Szabo, so who would have been the preferred candidate?

<At the July 1946 Winterthur, Switzerland congress, FIDE proposed>

Is "At the July 1946 Winterthur Congress, Switzerland, FIDE proposed" more natural?

<the following contenders-Max Euwe>

"the following contenders - Max Euwe" I would prefer space between - and name.

<He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.<4>>

Did the Dutch newspaper speak of Russians or Soviets?

<The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow, but the Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright.<6>>

I had a look at 'Achieving the Aim' and maybe it would be more clear if it was added that the Soviets refused because they wanted the event to be held in Moscow only (then <6> would be "6 Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim, pp.107-108").

This could also influence the wording of "Nothing concrete was decided until the next FIDE congress in The Hague on 30 July-2 Aug 1947. The Soviets were now members,<7> and under official FIDE aegis all parties agreed to most of the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946, except now the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6>" as then you may even drag the splitting between The Hague and Moscow away from "exceptions", closer to a "compromise" between the Soviets and FIDE et al..

About Prague and Groningen: So if both winners had been not one of the original candidates, a match would have taken place to choose one. So perhaps:

Original: "They planned a quadruple round robin of the following contenders-Max Euwe, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments.<2,3>"

Proposal: "They planned a quadruple round robin of the following contenders - Max Euwe, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.<2,3>"

(another idea is to explain why the candidates were chosen, e. g. "...of the best players from the USA and USSR - Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, former world champion Max Euwe and the winner...").

And then changing my Najdorf suggestion from the post above to

Answering my first question <Soviet consul Ivanovich Chikirisov>

<The first 10 rounds were held in the Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.>

"The first 10 rounds were held in <The> Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow."

Excellent. I'm going to make the easier corrections first.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

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

<Karpova>

<The first 10 rounds were held in the Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.>

<"The first 10 rounds were held in <The> Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow."

and <the> possibly capped in <"when we get to the Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day."<18>> again.>

I corrected <The first 10 rounds were held in <The> Hague> and <when we get to the Hague>, but here follows a detailed explanation for the second case, which is a direct transcription from either Botvinnik's or translator Jim Marfia's spelling. Either that or I made a mistake in transcription, which I'll be able to investigate when I'm back in Korea and have access to the source book again.

I'm not going to use (sic) in any of these drafts unless there's a gross error in the original text- something much more serious than a missing capital letter, typographical error, or variant spelling.

In case we're thinking of a consistent standard, I'm going to go on a case by case basis with the following preferences noted. In the case of a typographical or typesetting error, I'm just going to correct it without using (sic). If it's a case such as "(t)(T)he Hague," I'm just going to correct it. If it's a case of variant spelling or use of a dubious title, I'm not going to correct it. So if a directly quoted source says "Alyekhin" I won't correct it. If it says "Dr. Alekhine" I'm still not going to use (sic). I would just leave it as is, or possibly just delete the dubious "Dr." with ellipses. Like this: "...then Dr. Alekhine won the Bled 1931 tournament" would be left as is, or changed to "then... Alekhine won the Bled 1939 tournament."

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

<Tim>, <Ohio>

<"FIDE congress">

The words tournament or congress are not going to be capitalized in this or any other draft, consistent with modern practice. When capitalized in a directly quoted source, I'll leave the capitals in.

I'll add a historical note that is already on record in our forum: I also prefer to capitalize "Congress" and "Tournament" and "Match", but we're not going to do that. My personal preference, or the personal preference of other members of the panel, will take a back seat to following contemporary standards and practices on this issue. Simply put, nowadays these words are usually not capitalized. Since we are editing "nowadays," we will follow current practice.

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

<Karpova>

<Answering my first question <Soviet consul Ivanovich Chikirisov>

I see it now on p. 113 of 'Achieving the Aim', his full name is Filipp Ivanovich Chikirisov. The safest option would be to give his full name, <Filipp Ivanovich Chikirisov> or maybe just fore- and surname <Filipp Chikirisov>, if the former option is too long. Perhaps even just <Chikirisov>. But I suggest forename, patronym and surname.>

Great catch! Thank you, I'll use your preferred suggestion <Fillip Chirkirisov>.

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

<Tim>

<"The Soviets were now members of FIDE.<7> All parties agreed to the conditions proposed at Winterthur 1946 with the addition that the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.">

Outstanding! I'm going to use that sentence with some minor additions- a word and a comma: <The Soviets were now members of FIDE.<7> All parties agreed to the conditions originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the addition that the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6>>

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

<Tim>

<Karpova>

<<the following contenders-Max Euwe>

"the following contenders - Max Euwe" I would prefer space between - and name.>

I changed it to this:

"the following contenders- Max Euwe..."

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

<<He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.<4>>

Did the Dutch newspaper speak of Russians or Soviets?>

You can check for yourself right here:

<4> "CHESS" (Dec 1946), p.63. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<Under the title ‘World championship bust-up’, page 63 of the December 1946 CHESS gave this account:

‘Holland having got together £4,000 for the world championship tournament planned by the FIDE next June, Euwe arranged a meeting of the six prospective participants (himself, Fine and Reshevsky of the USA and Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov of the USSR) at Moscow. <<<At this, Botvinnik in anger stated that one Dutch paper during the Groningen tournament [won by Botvinnik, ahead of Euwe and Smyslov] had said that the Russian participants might work together to put him into first place.>>> He therefore refused to play for the championship in Holland. Russians know no ‘freedom of the press’. It was finally agreed to stage the event half in Holland, half in Russia, but there was further argument over the question of where the first half should be held.>

So. I don't have a problem trusting <Winter> to have gotten the direct quotation from <Chess Dec 1946> right, but if we use this information we are forced to trust the <Chess Dec 1946> writer to have gotten reliable information from "one Dutch paper."

Some homework.

To streamline this editing project, I'm going to ask you to do something. If you have any edit suggestions to do with the factual record of events occurring in this part of the draft...

<World chess champion Alexander Alekhine died on 23 March 1946. At the July 1946 Winterthur congress, FIDE proposed the vacant title be contested in June 1947 in the Netherlands.<1> They planned a quadruple round robin of the following contenders- Max Euwe, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments.<2,3> The tournament was delayed, partly because the USSR was not yet a FIDE member.<4> On 15 Sept 1946 the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details. This meeting occurred a day after the USSR-USA match ended, and did not involve FIDE.<5> Botvinnik reportedly announced that he would not play in the Netherlands. He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.<4> The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow, but the Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright.<6> Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament.<4>

Nothing concrete was decided until the next FIDE congress in The Hague on 30 July-2 Aug 1947. The Soviets were now members of FIDE.<7> All parties agreed to the conditions originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the addition that the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6> In addition, no extra player would be added. Although Miguel Najdorf won at Prague 1946, he wasn't invited to join the championship due to the new agreement.<8,9> Shortly before the tournament, Fine dropped out because of academic commitments.<10,11>>...

I will ask you first to read- carefully read until you understand every single word of it- this <Edward Winter> article, which is the main source for all of that information:

Edward Winter, "Interregnum" (2003-2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

If we all do this homework then we'll all literally be "on the same page," and then we can more easily sort out how best to "tell the story" in our final edit for this draft.

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

Clearly, the "Najdorf/Prague/Botvinnik/Groeningen" information has to be presented better than it is now in the draft.

I will think about this and work on it from my end, and also consider the ideas <Karpova> has already presented to help make this part of the story more clear.

Keep a weather eye on this page here:

Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

Soon it will turn into <Karpova's> draft, so we'll want to monitor it closely in case there are any "Queen's gambit" type mistakes we may have missed.

In the few days after our draft is promoted, <Daniel> will be alert and ready to correct any final errors we might find.

Remember though, no further style corrections will be made.

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

**CURRENT DRAFT UNDER INSPECTION FOR PROMOTION: Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

<(another idea is to explain why the candidates were chosen, e. g. "...of the best players from the USA and USSR - Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, former world champion Max Euwe and the winner...").>

I'm not going to do that, at least not for now.

As was pointed out by several people months ago, according to "chessmetrics" the selected line up is not clearly the "best players" available at the time.

That's why we deleted earlier drafts that said "best players of the time" or "top contenders."

Maybe we can enact your idea at a later point.

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

<and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.<2,3>>

I made your suggested change.

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

<and no extra player would be added. This affected the winner of Prague 1946, Miguel Najdorf,<8,9> who would have qualified directly as Botvinnik won at Groningen 1946.">

I put this version of your suggestion in the mirror:

<This affected the winner of Prague 1946, Miguel Najdorf, who would have qualified directly because Botvinnik, already seeded into the championship tournament, had won Groningen 1946.<8,9>>

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

<The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow, but the Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright.<6>>

I had a look at 'Achieving the Aim' and maybe it would be more clear if it was added that the Soviets refused because they wanted the event to be held in Moscow only (then <6> would be "6 Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim, pp.107-108").>

I changed it to this:

<The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow. The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games played in Moscow.<6>>

<Whiskey Chugging Chick: Clearly, the "Najdorf/Prague/Botvinnik/Groeningen" information has to be presented better than it is now in the draft.>

"This affected the winner of Prague 1946, Miguel Najdorf, who would have qualified directly because Botvinnik, already seeded into the championship tournament, had won Groningen 1946."

I always get confused between "affected" and "effected". Which one is right here?

The fact that Najdorf had an affected personality may have effected their decision.

Yes, if we don't know we can't report on it. We can, and should, report on facts we do know.

"affected" is correct. Affected means A altered B in some way.

"effected" means to do something. The doctor effected a cure.

I do appreciate that you read the entire article: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...- thanks so much!

These are some awkward phrases I'd like to become less awkward, if you and/or <Ohio> or <Karpova> can effect such a result?

All of the facts have to stay, but the way they are presented isn't the best style. Additional facts could also be added if necessary:

<All parties agreed to the conditions originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the addition that the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6> In addition, no extra player would be added.>

The repetition of "addition" isn't good here. Any reforumlation ideas would be appreciated.

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

I think the following passage could be made clearer by making it longer:

<This affected the winner of Prague 1946, Miguel Najdorf, who would have qualified directly because Botvinnik, already seeded into the championship tournament, had won Groningen 1946.<8,9> >

"All parties agreed to the conditions originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the addition that the tournament would be split between The Hague and Moscow and begin in spring 1948.<6> In addition, no extra player would be added."

Making sentences longer goes against everything I hold sacred but sometimes you have to hold your nose and dive in.

25 rounds. Each played the other five times instead of four, because <Fine> dropped out.

The first 10 rounds played in The Hague, the remaining 15 rounds played in Moscow.

Thanks also for working on the "problem child" sentence! I believe <Ohio> has put it all together in his last post there.

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

<Ohio> I'm going to put a version of your new edit into the mirror- it's much better than what I have there at the moment, thank you!

The only changes I made were to correct the round numbers and to replace the word "Candidates" with the phrase "championship tournament."

We can't call the tournament a "candidates tournament," although that's technically what a championship tournament really is.

Anyways here is the amended version- it repeats the word "championship," but if you can find a way to make it better without using the word "candidates," by all means go for it:

=================