<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that he didn't play to lose [to Botvinnik], and hadn't been ordered to; but he had been warned that if Botvinnik didn't become champion, it "must not be the fault of Keres.">

<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that he hadn't played to lose, and hadn't been ordered to; he was, however, warned that if Botvinnik failed to win the tournament, it "must not be the fault of Keres.">

<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that while he didn't play to lose [to Botvinnik] and hadn't been ordered to do so, he had been warned that if Botvinnik didn't become champion, it "must not be the fault of Keres.">

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Thanks for four (4) new suggestions!

I'm still leaning towards the fuller direct quote from source, and not just because it reads the smoothest (and it does).

I think that "the horse's mouth" is preferable to a paraphrase, particularly in this case.

We're already citing a quotation that's third-hand reported speech to begin with eh?

Each new generation of paraphrase increases the risk of losing veracity.

I'm going to put this in the mirror now-

<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres.">

This part is certainly on point:

<FIDE Candidates – historical review It all started in 1948; after a hiatus of two years, created by the sudden and untimely demise of the then world champion Alexander Alekhine in 1946. Like a kingdom in search of a worthy ruler a committee was formed under the leadership of the only surviving former world champion, Max Euwe, which after much deliberations and designs and the passage of two years, finally decided on a match to be played in The Hague and Moscow between three Russians, one American and one Dutch – <<<arguably the best players notwithstanding the process of selection which came under scrutiny and questions at the time on certain omissions>>>.>

The "scrutiny and questions" are covered in part, as you know, in Winter's article.

I'm not going to get into that in the final draft though- I'm going to leave this as is:

--

<I'm going to put this in the mirror now-

<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres.">>

- Why do we dot the dots after lose - is something left out of the original quote?

- However starting sentences with however is doomed - but starting with but is not? :| Can't we settle for something like conversely or on the other hand?

The full original quote is posted above, and here again now:

"Referring to items 42 and 50 in this Diary, Ken Whyld wrote me: "Keres told me in private, when he was my guest in Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."

Yeah.. I'd normally want to rewrite to something like 'Keres declined to KW that (...)', thereby unknotting another not. But I suppose keeping the quote intact might be more important.

Just a thought:

"By the 10th round Botvinnik led the field by a point and faced Keres. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Botvinnik later recalled, "After six days' rest, Keres sat across from me, pale as death." Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day."<19>"

What about switching it around, with Botvinnik's warning first and then the introduction of Keres?

I think that's a superb edit, thank you!

See WCC Editing Project chessforum

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:

The source is also a weblink, so folks who want to know more detail can easily just click on it and read the article.

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

"Botvinnik later recalled, "After six days' rest, Keres sat across from me, pale as death."<19> Keres indeed lost <the game> <insert game link>"

I like "But" better as well- BUT I'm going to stick with the longer direct quote I have in the mirror at the moment:

<According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres.">

You'll note it does have a but in it. But the but is used to start a second sentence.

I'm going to stick with this for two reasons:

1. The information is already 3d hand, and translated at least once from Russian to English, so I don't really want to do a 4th paraphrase. Best to use what's left of the actual horse's mouth. I think.

I feel I should have been more specific about why I liked <Karpova's> idea for this edit:

<"By the 10th round Botvinnik led the field by a point and faced Keres. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." Botvinnik later recalled, "After six days' rest, Keres sat across from me, pale as death.">

Immediately upon reading it I thought it sounded less disjointed than what I had previously.

I think part of the reason is that now there is a crucial nexus between the first and second sentences, making the "scheduling" issue clear across two time periods.

Also, I like the way Keres is made into "bookends"- the passage starts and ends with him. The connecting material about "scheduling" is in the middle, and I think it belongs there.

<By the 10th round Botvinnik led the field by a point and faced Keres. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." Botvinnik's prophecy came true. As Botvinnik later recalled, "After six days' rest, Keres sat across from me, pale as death." Keres proceeded to lose in 23 moves Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948>

I'm not 100% on board here, but I like this better than the current model.