Original: "Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.<20>"

Now that <to throw> is back in the game, what about <charges> instead of <suspicions> to emphasize the point that the chess analysis provided something tangible which could be discussed?

And then change the latest suggestion the following way:

What about shortening it the following way and putting in <OCF>'s suggestion:

Petrosian's and Spassky's preparation:

"I (Petrosian - ed.), as always, prepared for the match with my old chess friends - Grandmasters Isaac Boleslavsky and Aleksey Suetin. In the "Red Pahra" holiday home near Moscow we spent well our time in the company of Grandmaster Seymen Furman (who had trained Korchnoi and would go onto train Karpov - ed.) Quite a lot of the time I dedicated to physical fitness..."

<Source -> "Boris Spassky's 300 Wins", CS Chess Stars, 1998, p.165

Spassky was assisted Grandmasters by I. Bondarevsky and N.Krogius. They identified that sharp active play (hence the Tarrasch Defence) would be effective against Petrosian.

Consequently, Spassky planned to "maintain the desire and willingness to fight to the last move of the last game" and "play in a strictly classical manner...(Petrosian is) not a player of strict classical style his style directed towards limiting an opponent's possibilities is unique..."

Spassky stated after the match, "...you can draw the conclusion that passive cautious play 'to hold the balance' became one of the basic reasons for Petrosian's defeat".

<Karpova> no. 2 is up!

Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

I found two errors so far- I just emailed this to <Daniel>:

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

Errata:

1. There appears to be a "note orphan" right at the top of the page?

<Lasker vs Capablanca 1921
Havana
(Russell Enterprises 2006), pp.290-295>

2. This sentence should have a hyperlinked <Emanuel Lasker> inserted:

New WCC Page: ...and reigning champion commented "Capablanca has shown himself to be a great player."[4]

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

I'm going to put your suggestion here into the mirror now:

I changed the standard amount of time for us to examine drafts for promotion- I don't think 1 week is enough, so let's go for 2 weeks instead:

In footnote 1, the <In "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek" http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...> is missing, although it is present in Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921

Footnote <32> is also incomplete, it's

32 Edward Winter, "How Capablanca Became World Champion" 2004 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

I sent those new corrections off to <Daniel>, also reminding him that <Note 1> still needs to be fixed.

For the next draft, I propose a change of policy:

Thanks so much for your further contributions to Game Collection: WCC: Petrosian-Spassky 1969!

"plus" doesn't sound right. I'd prefer "and included" or "along with" instead. Maybe:

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players, along with Euwe because (or maybe "since") he had held the world title(or maybe "he was the previous champion".>

Or to go another direction, it's hard to bifurcate that sentence without getting really clumsy, but the Euwe clause possibly deserves major distinction from the rest of the sentence, more than just a clause after a comma. As an opening try,

Instead of using parentheses, why not just two sentences, maybe with the addition of "also"?

I don't like to use parentheses unless there's no other option:

Ok what about this then:

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included because he had held the world title.>

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included because he was a previous champion.>

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included because he was the last living holder of the title.>

I like this one much the best, because it supplies the most information:

Anyone think "due to" is better than "because of"?

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

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

I think a reference to winning by three points is in order.>

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included <since> he was the last living holder of the title.>

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included <because> he was the last living holder of the title.>

<Botvinnik never relinquished the lead, winning by three points ahead of Smyslov.>

<Botvinnik clinched the title by round 22, finishing three points ahead of Smyslov.>

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Many thanks- I'm going to put these in the mirror now:

<FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players. Euwe was included <because> he was the last living holder of the title.>