I'm not sure where, and when, I will post information form our current Draft under Examination that doesn't make it into the "Final Draft for Promotion" text.

I can assure you that for other Drafts I've been doing it regularly since I started our WCC project 8 months ago. I just did it a few days ago here:

Zurich Candidates (1953)

I originally found and stored that information some time ago into our Mirror here: Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954

I also regularly post research I just did in a given Mirror onto a relevant game page, almost at the same time, mainly so I won't forget which game page is actually relevant to the given research.

I'm curious as to why you don't believe I won't post any of the "extra" research I did for our current Draft under Examination?

I can tell you one thing though- I don't go around posting research that <Karpova> did for our project on other pages. If I wanted to do that in an instance, I'd ask her first- because maybe she wants to post it herself.

As for corrections, I do make an effort to make sure I have not made a typographical transcription error when I post research in a Draft. I check again a second time if I use that same material on another page.

Sorry, forgot to answer this part-

Aha ok thanks for clarifying.

Yes, the material *will* be posted elsewhere. Where and when, exactly, I couldn't say at this point.

As for the needed corrections:

Do you mean corrections for typos from the directly sourced speech from a source?

As mentioned, I do make an effort to correct such mistakes when I make a post somewhere else on the site. I also do a second proofread for such typos in the "View Kibbutz" box before I post it. And usually a few minutes later I look at the post and check one more time if I made any typos. I've deleted and re-edited more than a few times in this "final phase." Of course I still end up posting some mistakes.

But I don't believe I need any extra help with that kind of correction.

If you are talking about misspellings in text I actually wrote, I also try to find those errors before posting, and double check.

If you are talking about style edits for text I wrote to explain, introduce, or analyze the direct source material, I don't believe I need help with that either. That said, if I were struggling with getting a phrase, or word right from one of our archived research write-ups, I would not hesitate to seek you out and ask for your help.

Do you mean in the body of the mirror below the Edit Draft?

Please don't worry. That's often a shorthand I use when entering data.

If I were to post this information here outside of the mirror-

<<Botvinnik refused to stay in the "Kurhaus" and was given rooms in the "Hotel Twee Staden." He was joined at the Hotel by his wife, daughter, and his <<<2d>>> Ragozin.>

or

<Source for Moscow being the <<<2d>>> venue by lot (drawing of pawn)>,

I'm pretty sure that I would type out the word "second" if posting the information on an actual game, forum, player, or tournament page.

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

You do raise a good point though about the actual EDIT Drafts.

These use a mixture of numerals (2) and written out numbers (two).

In some cases, such as with amounts of money, it seems (to me) that it looks better on the page to write $5,000 dollars than to write five thousand dollars.

But in other cases, (to me), I think the reverse looks better.

Take this sentence from our current <1948> draft:

<Players were permitted 2 assistants to help analyze adjourned games.>

That would look better to me as <two> assistants.

And take the case of ordinal numbers. Some writers prefer to say 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and so on.

I prefer to type the names of the oridinals- first, second, third, fourth, and so on.

I can tell you something I found out on this topic with my handy "online word an character counter"- it counts <1st> as the same "number of words" as <first>.

<"In Moscow, the masters played in the magnificent Salle des Colonnes in front of 2000 spectators. 3000 more were in the streets outside following the action on a giant demonstration board.">

I like it better also. I'm putting it in now.

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

I also put this change in just now:

Also <me being sick> update.

I'm not going to send in our Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948 draft until

SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY.

WE'RE FILLING THE Salle des Colonnes WITH MUD.

SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY

I like "3000 more people" much better than what's there now.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Did you see this yet?

Yes, not only did you find the right Dutch passsage:

http://www.maxpam.nl/archief/IBOTWI...

Question: - Fischer heeft altijd beweerd dat de Sovjet-spelers in combine tegen hem speelden. Is er indertijd wel eens sprake geweest van zo'n combine?

Botvinnik: <"In het geval van Fischer kan ik daar geen oordeel over geven, maat ik heb zelf wel eens meegemaakt dat er opdrachten werden verstrekt. In 1948 speelde ik met Keres, Smislov, Reshevsky en Euwe om de wereldtitel. Na de eerste helft van het toernooi, dat in Nederland werd gespeeld, werd het duidelijk dat ik de nieuwe wereldkampioen zou worden. Ik stond op kop. Tijdens de tweede helft in Moskou gebeurde er iets onaangenaams. Op heel hoog niveau werd voorgesteld dat de andere Russische spelers expres tegen mij zouden verliezen, om er zeker van te zijn dat er een Sovjet-wereldkampioen zou komen.>

Question: - Hoe hoog?

Botvinnik: <"Stalin heeft dat persoonlijk voorgesteld. Maar ik heb dat natuurlijk geweigerd! Het was een intrige tegenover mij om mij te kleineren. Een belachelijk voorstel, slechts gedaan om mij als de toekomstige wereldkampioen nog even te kleineren. In sommige kringen wilde men liever dat Keres wereldkampioen zou worden. Het was oneerbaar, want ik had al lang bewezen dat ik op dat moment sterker was dan Keres en Smislov.>

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

But check out this translation in full from our dear friend <dakgootje>:

Question: - Fischer has always asserted that the Sovjet players played together against him. Has such a team-play* taken place at the time?

Botvinnik: <"I can't judge regarding the case of Fischer, but I've personally experienced that orders were handed out. In 1948 I played with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the World Title. After the first half of the tournament, which was played in the Netherlands, it became clear that I would become the new World Champion. I had the lead. During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. From very high up it was proposed that the other Russian competitors would lose to me on purpose, so as it be sure that there'd be a Sovjet-World Champion.>

Question: - How high up?

<<3,000 more people were in the streets outside following the action on a giant demonstration board.> Needs a comma after "outside".>

I believe you're right about that.

I'd like a comma after "1947".

<On 15 Sept 1946 the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details.>

Halfway between "I'd like" and "needs" a comma after "1946".

<The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games to be played in Moscow.>

It would be okay to have a comma after "outright". It's okay not to.

<Keres proceeded to <lose in 23 moves> <insert game link>- Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948, allowing Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg. >

I'm going to leave all of these up for colleague opinions. I may even form a few of my own:

COMMA EDITS:

<<At the July 1946 Winterthur congress, FIDE proposed the vacant title be contested in June 1947 in the Netherlands.> I'd like a comma after "1947".

<On 15 Sept 1946 the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details.>

Halfway between "I'd like" and "needs" a comma after "1946".

<The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games to be played in Moscow.>

It would be okay to have a comma after "outright". It's okay not to.>

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

With regard to this:

<Keres proceeded to <lose in 23 moves> <insert game link>- Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948, allowing Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg. >

<I'm not sure that the two clauses are equitable. Did that one game allow Botvinnik to take a 1.5 point lead? Well, sort of. I have to think about this one. It might be the word "allowing" that bothers me. But something doesn't feel right here.>

Because editing of all of that text would take an incredible amount of time, although the text is not going to be published (unlike the draft), at least not the way it is presented below the draft in the mirror.

The supplementary material is posted there to store additional information for the the drafts, e. g. found by other people or in several scattered sources or which became available only later, or simply to collect crucial bits of information to have it at hand, or make some background information available to others to provide context.