|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-26-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: What about putting the word "basic" in here?
"All parties agreed to the <basic> terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, although the new conditions stated that..." I fear that "although" isn't as strong as "with the exception of." |
|
Feb-26-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Colleagues>
Here is a games collection by <The Focus> that will prove exceedingly useful to us: Game Collection: Men's World Championship |
|
| Feb-26-14 | | Boomie: <WCC Editing Project: <Tim> 25 rounds. Each played the other five times instead of four, because <Fine> dropped out.> Remember that one player sat out each round. Since they played 5 games against 4 opponents, the total is 20 games. It took 25 rounds because only 4 could play each round. We may want to explain this confusing aspect. |
|
| Feb-26-14 | | Boomie: <WCC>
Here's the relavent section about the number of games in the Interregnum: "The March-April 1948 American Chess Bulletin (page 25) stated: ‘Last-minute efforts to include Reuben Fine of Los Angeles among the title seekers failed, in consequence of which the plans underwent a change. Instead of meeting each other four times, the players were required to add one game with each of his rivals to his schedule. Briefly, therefore, 12 games in Moscow, added to the eight at The Hague, make a total of 20 to be contested by each of those engaged in the title quest.’" |
|
| Feb-26-14 | | Boomie: "All parties agreed to the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, although the new conditions stated that..." I'm not happy with the use of "although" here. The sentence is saying "They agreed to this and added that." There is no need to imply a contrast with "although". Also, "the new conditions stated" seems needlessly wordy since it could all be replaced with "and added". "All parties agreed to the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, and added that the tournament would begin in spring 1948..." |
|
Feb-26-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Tim> Outstanding reading and "maths" skill, both of which I'm lacking, apparently. I'll fix up those round numbers now. I think we need a different word than "although" also- then I wouldn't need to put "basic" in the passage. <and added that>
This isn't the winning phrase though. I believe we will find the winning phrase among the four of us. |
|
| Feb-26-14 | | Boomie: <Wheat Carrot Cake: we will find the winning phrase> What do we win if we find it? |
|
Feb-26-14
 | | OhioChessFan: I understand the "although" issue, but think it's a necessary evil. I also like the appeal to "basic" but wonder if we could use an adverb to soften it up a little, maybe
"All parties <generally> agreed to the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, but (I think "although" is still okay too) the new conditions stated that..." As for this try:
"All parties agreed to the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, and added that the tournament would begin in spring 1948..." They didn't add. They subtracted from the originally proposed conditions. There's a bit of tension in there, and I think the reader needs a soft cue to take note that <almost but not all> of the conditions were kept. I think we need a nudge off of all, whether it be "generally" or "basic" or "although". |
|
Feb-26-14
| | OhioChessFan: "All parties agreed to the basic terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the new conditions stating that......." |
|
| Feb-26-14 | | Boomie: <OCF>
How about:
"All parties agreed to most of the terms..."
This nicely leads into the list of differences. |
|
Feb-26-14
| | OhioChessFan: It reads well. But it got me wondering as to whether the "basic terms" usage was accurate. I think it was. In fact, only the no player added issue strikes me as non-trivial. So, I think what they agreed to was far greater on the importance scale than "most". |
|
Feb-26-14
| | OhioChessFan: I have swung back to liking the flow of "most of the terms". No formulation is going to be perfect, so if it's imperfect, it might as well read well. Is the word "originally" necessary? My latest try:
"All parties agreed to most of the terms proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the new conditions stating that......." Or maybe "originally" is okay and "Winterthur 1946" is redundant, in which case: "All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed, with the new conditions stating that......." Initially a slight preference for the first. |
|
Feb-26-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <TimHio>
I also prefer the first selection :
<"All parties agreed to most of the terms proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the new conditions stating that......."> That said, I don't think there is enough of a grammatical nexus, if there is such a thing, between the first part and the second? "with the new conditions"
It feels to me that there should be something in front of this phrase? I liked "with the exception that" best of all. It does the most work, no? If we find a way to follow that with a well written sequence, I'm pretty sure it is best. They *were* exceptions more than anything else- as <Ohio> says, <I think what they agreed to was far greater on the importance scale than "most".> I agree with that, and I think it's very much on point here. So, can we find a way to blend the latest try with the follow up? <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 most of the terms proposed at Winterthur 1946, <<<something using "except">>>...the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played in The Hague for 8 games and Moscow for 12 games, and no extra player would be added.> I think this might be a winner if we can find a proper transition between "except" and the three differences between the new conditions and the Winterthur conditions. The prize is squid-flavored burritos, the only kind they have in Korea. |
|
Feb-26-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Steamed clams>
We have tons of time to work this out, so the more ideas the better eh? According to time/inclination.
I'll be on a plane in a few days and comatose for a few days after that. If I don't respond to posts for several days, just keep piling your ideas up in here. We don't want any good ideas to fall by the wayside. |
|
| Feb-27-14 | | Karpova: <Jess: <(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.> Although this is just a minor point, I want to add that it looks a bit strange to just name the participants, when this was a hotly debated question back then according to http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/.... Additionally, there is more discussion on which hotel (and why) Botvinnik resided in than on selection of the contestants. And <chessmetrics> is certainly not a reason not to alter it, but rather to alter it - obviously, it had no influence on the selection back then, but it may induce a modern reader to wonder why these 6 candidates were chosen. So I suggest to insert something like <according to FIDE> or <as selected by FIDE>, maybe "...of the best players from the USA and USSR as suggested by FIDE - Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, former world champion Max Euwe and the winner..." Again, this is just a minor point and seems very complicated as at least the USA seemed not entirely satisfied, yet in the end it all stayed as FIDE had proposed it. So my proposal is to make clear that the selection is based on who was regarded by FIDE to be best plus Euwe, the only living (former) world champion. Thereby we circumvent any "who was actually the best" discussion and it becomes more clear, why these players were chosen. |
|
Feb-27-14
| | OhioChessFan: <"All parties agreed to most of the terms proposed at Winterthur 1946, with the new conditions stating that......."> <WaterClosetConnoisseur: That said, I don't think there is enough of a grammatical nexus, if there is such a thing, between the first part and the second?"with the new conditions"
It feels to me that there should be something in front of this phrase? I liked "with the exception that" best of all. It does the most work, no?> I think it does too much work. It is pretty disruptive to the flow of the narrative. But I'll take it under advisement. We are going to get this. More food for thought. I am not sure we should abandon "originally". I like the gentle look back to the process of Winterthur, and one word to nudge the reader back to that work might not be so bad. Look at us here struggling one word at a time describing what they had to hash out. However (cough, cough), the "originally" never sounded right to my ear. So, instead of "originally proposed", how about "original terms"? |
|
Feb-27-14
| | OhioChessFan: Sharing my thought process: The scheduling issues are pretty much a trifle, but the no new player was a biggy. It is hard to say with precision that they agreed to <almost (but not) all> of the terms without some narrative blocking boulder. There has to be <some> appeal to nexus, but it's hard to decide what size boulder to use. With that said, here's my latest effort:
<All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946, although the new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played in The Hague for 8 games and Moscow for 12 games, and most notably, no extra player would be added.> |
|
Feb-27-14
| | OhioChessFan: Another try. Using the end of the sentence as a small boulder: "All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946. The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played in The Hague for 8 games and Moscow for 12 games, and most notably, no extra player would be added." |
|
Feb-27-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
I will follow your edit suggestion:
<my proposal is to make clear that the selection is based on who was regarded by FIDE to be best plus Euwe, the only living (former) world champion. Thereby we circumvent any "who was actually the best" discussion and it becomes more clear, why these players were chosen.> Incidentally, the <Botvinnik> hotel point is absolutely crucial to the narrative, given that it is a concrete, proven sign that the Soviet government may actually have been favoring <Botvinnik> over other Soviet players, as was suspected by some back then, and to the present day. |
|
Feb-27-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
I am enthusiastic about your latest try:
<All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946. The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played in The Hague for 8 games and Moscow for 12 games, and most notably, no extra player would be added.> I'm going to put that in the mirror now.
In my opinion, it solves all problems, and I'll declare it a "winner." Obviously there's still time to change it if you have more brainstorms, but in the meantime, your array of squid-flavored snacks is in the mail. |
|
Feb-27-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova, Fellow Clams> Well I've just this morning received the English translation of <Dr. Euwe's> book on <The Hague-Moscow 1948>, so I'm going to wait till I'm back in Korea to add the reasons for the selection of contestants. Why?
Because I may also add snippets from the new book, and I'm going to have to re-number the notes. I'll want to be well rested, alert, and in Korea to do that. |
|
Feb-27-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Tuxedos>
Don't forget to keep an eye on this page here: Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) It should change any day now, so we'll want to keep an eye out for "Queen's gambit" types of errors while <Daniel> is still paying attention to the new draft. |
|
Feb-27-14
| | OhioChessFan: <since Botvinnik won Groeningen 1946 and was already seeded into the championship<8,9> > Missing the period after "championship".
<Some, including Larry Melvyn Evans and Jan Timman, charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.> I think it would be better if it said "Some __________" |
|
Feb-27-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Ohio>
Thanks for the period.
Do you mean "Some charge that the Soviets..."?
If so, it works for me.
We can save space and make the sentence flow more smoothly. If people want to know who "some" are, they can easily read the sourced article for note <20>, which is online: <20> Taylor Kingston, "The Keres-Botvinnik case revisited: A further survey of the evidence" ("Chess Cafe" 8 Oct 2001), p.2. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt... I'm going to make both changes now. |
|
Feb-28-14
| | OhioChessFan: "Some people", "Some observers", "Some leading players", I don't know. "Some" is a bit orphanish. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
