crank...

Ok I got you now.

I think "some" is still better than "some observers."

It's a pretty common idiom- "Some, including _______"

Hmm actually I just checked with GOOGLE ADVANCED SEARCH and it seems the idiom is more common with a subject noun after the word "some," as you say.

ok then.

"Some observers" is "catch of the day" in my view.

There are two other names I can put in, though I'm somewhat reluctant to label <Hans Ree> an "expert" due to his penchant for not doing even minimal research before he writes anything.

I already identified at least three errors in his introduction to the new English translation of <Dr. Euwe's> book on <The Hague-Moscow 1948>.

I like pundits, and not "chess pundits" either.

What other kind of pundit would it be?

I have (irritatingly) added the full bibliographical reference after each note in the mirror, because when I get back to Korea I'm going to add some new information from the new <Euwe> book, and this is the only way I can think of to keep sure track of the note numbers.

I'll be gone for the next 50 hours or so.

An observer *is* a pundit in the sense of the sentence, as <Ohio> points out.

Also, from the context/sense of the sentence, I think it's clear enough that "observers" doesn't signify contemporaneous observers.

In fact, if you wanted "observers" in this sentence to mean contemporaneous observers, you'd actually have to add the adjective "contemporaneous" in order for the meaning to be clear.

There doesn't appear to be any good way to indicate who made charges.

<There has been speculation that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.>

I would like to add that the case for collaboration has not been proven.

We was both right as usual. We are right for each other...heh.

Coming back again to <Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.>

I quote from your source: <I consider analysis potentially relevant, but by itself neither necessary nor sufficient to establish coercion. I have consulted several very strong players, without finding consensus. Those who see the games as evidence of coercion include GMs Hans Ree and Jan Timman, as well as Evans. On the other hand, IM John Watson and GM John Nunn are on record to the opposite effect.>

So Evans and Timman base their assertion on analysis of the games, other strong players disagree.

Perhaps this should be made clear as chess analysis is never mentioned, which may create the impression that <some> had any other evidence. I also favor <chess players> now, as this the most neutral and accurate.

If that is the emphasis, I think the title should be trotted out, to separate such luminaries from the cranks one finds at Chessgames.com who are indeed chess players, but still cranks, eg

This is just unclear enough I think we should add a couple words, to wit, "all the games <to be> played in Moscow." Without "to be" there's a slight sense of something like them wanting scoresheets of all the games that have already been played in Moscow. This is a fairly small objection, and I don't think it's wrong as it stands, but is worth the two words for clarity.

<The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played in The Hague for 10 rounds and Moscow for 15 rounds>

<The first 8 rounds were held in The Hague, followed by 12 rounds in Moscow. >

"Some chess players..."

I assume my suggestion is not acceptable since both of you ignored it.

Sorry for that! Maybe we could fuse the suggestions into something like:

<There has been speculation based on disputed chess analysis, that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win. However, there is no proof that this took place.>

or

<There has been speculation based on chess analysis, that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win. However, there is no proof that this took place and the analysis (itself) has been disputed.>

I think that it is worth clarifying that

a) the charges are based on analysis of the games

b) this analysis is being disputed

as the rest deals with statements by Keres and Botvinnik. So this is a completely different kind of "evidence".

If we mention that the charges were based on analysis, we may even shorten the second sentence:

<There has been speculation based on chess analysis, that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win. However, the analysis itself has been disputed.>

If it is more elegant, the wording of Kingston could also be used, e. g.

<There has been speculation inferred from the games, that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win. However, the analysis itself has been disputed.>

Although, I do not like that part about speculation and prefer charges or suspicions. The speculations were always there, but the chess analysis seems to be the only thing coming close to something like "evidence", as there are no statements or documents supporting these suspicions.

So maybe something like

The comments by Botvinnik and Keres are suggestive that there was pressure but don't rise to the level of proof.

Botvinnik claimed that Stalin suggested the other Russian players lose to him. However Botvinnik's statement that he refused to allow it is suspect as he probably didn't have the standing to refuse a request from Stalin and escape with his life. That puts the whole statement into question. Nevertheless, it is testimony.

Keres statement was that if Botvinnik didn't win the title, it would not be due to Keres. Since Keres' head was perilously close to the chopping block after WWII, I have to think such a suggestion would have a profound effect on his play. From what I have read about Keres' character, I tend to believe his statement.

Although neither statement rises to the level of proof, I think we should mention what they said or that they said something. There is no proof and probably never will be barring a surprise discovery in the Russian archives.

We aren't so much concerned about Kingston as with this article: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...

This is already in the Intro - both statements of Keres and Botvinnik are actually quoted, but the the sentence we are discussing deals with Evans', Ree's and Timman's chess analysis. And I think that it would be good to make clear that we are talking about a different kind of "evidence" here. And that the chess analysis itself is not undisputed.

The point is that we have

a) disputed chess analysis
b) statement by Keres (via Whyld)
c) statement by Botvinnik

Oops. Sorry. I blanked that out for some reason.

<disputed chess analysis not made clear>

How can we be clearer than this?

<Suspicions have been raised, based on analysis of the games, that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win. However, this analysis has been disputed.>