Thanks for the accurate "delay recovery fail safe" time.

This gives me an extra 30 minutes-

You know I would rather the "fail safe" time be five hours.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

I like "enabling"- I'm going to put it in the mirror, for now anyway:

<Steamed Colleagues>

Please weigh in on <Ohio's> edit suggestion on commas to be added or not added in these instances?

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

<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.>

Readings from the Comma Sutra

<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"."

I'm not hearing a pause there requiring a comma.

However you can eliminate the "in-in" kerfuffle with:

<...the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.>

----

<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 delegation from the great state of Washington casts all one vote for the 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."

However you can eliminate the "in-in" kerfuffle with:

<...the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.>

OK. That's not quite right. It would have to be something like:

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

That's some nice editing there.

For starters, I'm going to put this in now:

<...the contest for the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.>

<...the contest for the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.>>

I agree it isn't quite right. A vacant title isn't contested. Do we need the word "vacant"? Taking it under advisement.....how about simply:

15 Golombek, p.4 >

HAHAHAHAAH

Brilliant.

<"a" strikes me as much better>

I agree, and I'm changing it now.

I'm keeping the "vacant" though. It's true, and it's also suitably dramatic.

I'm going to go with "enabling" over "helping."

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

<<14 Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" p.111 18 Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" pp.113-114

15 Golombek, p.4 >

Why does Botvinnik's entry repeat the article name in subsequent mentions in notes and Golombek's doesn't? FWIW I prefer the Golombek usage.>

Because there are two different books by "Mikhail Botvinnik" in the notes, but only one book by "Harry Golombek."

I think the current usage is okay, as there is another book by Botvinnik cited

<19 Mikhail Botvinnik, "15 Games and their Stories" Jim Marfia, transl. (Chess Enterprise Inc. 1982), pp.40-42>

Jinx!

I completely understand your point, but that *is* the academic convention- regardless of chronology and such.

<-One source from one author- after the first full citation, you can just carry on with all subsequent citations in this format:>

Flintstone, p.1

<-More than one source from the same author- after the first full citation, you can still abbreviate subsequent citations, but you must include the book/article title in every one of these abbreviations:>

Flintstone, "Chess is Hard," p.3

Flintstone, "Chess is Easy," p.6

Did you see this gift from <Calli> in the Bistro?

Game Collection: Österreichische Schachzeitung and others

It's a fine system, but given our penchant for sourcing every second word in our drafts, the text might look a little cluttered.

I wish we could make the "note numbers" even half smaller than they are now.

I'm reminded of the infamous Clint Eastwood quote-

The entire paragraph uses past tense, and I think "were held" should be used here.

<In a 1994 conversation with Gennady Sosonko, Botvinnik simply said >

Why is "simply" there? It sort of suggests evasion on Botvinnik's part.

<Ohio>

<Decided by lot, the first 10 rounds were held in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.>

Much better, thank you.

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

What's below the "######" line is irrelevant to our editing process here. Oh except for my next comment..

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

"simply"-

I meant to convey that despite all of the furor and shocking statements about "thrown games or no thrown games" over the years, by the time of his 1994 conversation with <Genna>, I think <Botvinnik> may have tired of it all and just wanted to give a simple, straightforward answer to <Genna>.

I deleted "simply".

I think it represents an assumption on my part that I have no proof for. If <Genna> had used that adjective in his recollection of the conversation, I'd keep it. But he didn't.