"David Bronstein had <beaten>-<insert game link here> Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944 Mikhail Botvinnik as early as the USSR Championship (1944), but it was not until he won the Saltsjöbaden 1948 Interzonal that he rose to the rank of potential world championship contender."

Is this 1944 game between them so significant, that it is used as an introduction to Bronstein as a challenger? At that tournament, he came in 15th/17 with a -3 score: USSR Championship (1944) Furthermore, Botvinnik won, but he was not yet world champion, and the then current title holder was still alive. I think that this kind of introduction should at least be a bit changed, because the tournament result (and it seems it was the first big tournament for the young Bronstein, or not?) makes it clear that he was not yet a contender for the world championship in 1944, as he didn't have had great successes before (I mean, it would be different with a player who had great tournament successes under his belt, and then a weaker one in between). Perhaps it would be better to put the emphasis on the success of such a young player against the future world champion, and make at least two sentences out of it.

E. g. "Already at the age of 20, David Bronstein beat the future world champion Mikhail Botvinnik in the USSR Championship (1944) in their individual game. Bronstein continued to develop, and rose to the rank of potential world championship contender after winning the Saltsjöbaden 1948 Interzonal."

I also wonder why you don't include the link to the Saltsjöbaden tournament page, I gave earlier.

---

"Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he'd won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), but he studied thoroughly by annotating every game Bronstein had played in the previous 2 1/2 years.<1>"

I think it should be made clear when he started with what. I guess he started to prepare for him after Budapest Candidates (1950) which ended in August, so he started his preparation with Bronstein's games from 1948 onwards, didn't he? This may be done by connecting the sentence to the previous one about Bronstein. Perhaps simply inserting "his recently/newly determined challenger" prior to "Bronstein".

---

"with the champion enjoying draw odds."

"receiving" may be more neutral.

---

"According to FIDE rules, the winner would receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000, but Andrew Soltis maintains that Botvinnik and Bronstein actually got considerably less than this.<6,8>"

I suggest

"According to FIDE rules, the winner would receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000,<6> but Andrew Soltis maintains that Botvinnik and Bronstein actually got considerably less than this.<8>"

I'm trying to keep up with most of your fine editing suggestions though.

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

<<but he studied thoroughly by annotating every game Bronstein had played in the last 2 1/2 years.>

<ince we're 60 years removed, "previous" seems better than "last".>

Done

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

<< Shortly before the match Bronstein also played a training game against Semyon Abramovich Furman, and another against Paul Keres.>

Needs a comma after "match">

Done.

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

<<According to FIDE rules the winner should receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000>

I'd like a comma after "rules". I'd strongly prefer "would" to "should". Well, I insist>

Done

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

<<He describes the final move of game 23, 57.Bg5: "Zugzwang... Bronstein needed forty minutes to convince himself of the inevitability of defeat," and resign.>

"and resign" is a bit of an orphan phrase there. If it's not part of Botvinnik's quote, I don't think it belongs.>

Done

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

<<Years later both Bronstein and Botvinnik appraised the match in a more acrimonious tone. >

"appraised" doesn't seem quite right.>,
<This sentenece should probably be blown up and completely redone.>

I put this in- further suggestions welcome-

<Years later, both Botvinnik and Bronstein spoke more harshly about each other.>

<"but it was not until he won the Saltsjöbaden 1948 Interzonal"

Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948)

"to earn the right to challenge <Botvinnik> for the title."

Link to Botvinnik's playing profile already in the first sentence, so <> unnecessary here.

"but Andrew Soltis maintains"

Andrew Soltis >

Both done, finally- I hadn't noticed the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948) before.

########################]

<"If the champion lost, he had the right to play in a three player match tournament for the title at the end of the following 3 year candidates cycle. In this case, Botvinnik would have the right to play for the championship against Bronstein and the winner of the next cycle.<6,9>">

I put this one in now

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

Combining some, but not all of editing suggestions from <Ohio> and <Karpova> o this passage, which now reads-

Bronstein <kicked off the match>-<insert game link here>Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 with the Dutch Defence, an opening Botvinnik had not prepared in his notebook, likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch.<2> Botvinnik suspected that Bronstein meant to "force me to fight against my 'own' systems," a ploy he dismissed as "naive."

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

<"By game 22 Bronstein led by a point, and needed only to win once more or draw twice in the last two games in order to unseat the champion."

Maybe changing the commata "By game 22, Bronstein led by a point and needed only to win once more, or draw twice in the last two games, in order to unseat the champion.">

I put your suggested sentence in-

"By game 22, Bronstein led by a point and needed only to win once more, or draw twice in the last two games, in order to unseat the champion."

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

<"57.Bg5"

Is there a possibility to use also the {} in the Intros, to make the move look like Bg5?>

This is a good idea- I'm going to put it at the top of the draft, so as not to forget to ask <Daniel> about it.

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

<"Years later, both Bronstein and Botvinnik">

Done

<"5 Bronstein and Furstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" p.300"

Fürstenberg (and again footnote 15)

"17 "Revista Internacional de Ajedrez" (March 1993), pp.38-42. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 4753: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/..."

Chess Note>

Much better already.

Do we really need the word 'both', given that we've already got "about each other"?

I don't really like 'more harshly' yet, but haven't thought of a satisfactory change. Perhaps simply 'less friendly/highly'.

--

<Given that we have full control over the appearance of the links, we should take the opportunity to spell Opočenský as Opočenský and Ståhlberg as Ståhlberg.>

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that we could get <Daniel> to make the proper spellings into Blue Links in the final draft?

If he could, would the links still redirect to the player profiles?

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

<The winner would be first to 12 1/2 points from 24 games,> It needs to be "the first". I'm not in love with "from" 24 games.>

plus

<"with the champion enjoying draw odds."

"receiving" may be more neutral.>

I't not a neutral arrangement, therefore neutral language isn't strictly required to describe it. Nor is it advisable to describe it with neutral language.

I put this in for now- further suggestions for construction welcome:

"The winner would be the first to score 12 1/2 points from a maximum of 24 games, with the champion enjoying draw odds."

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

<The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves an hour thereafter, with an adjournment to the following day after 5 hours of play.>

I'd prefer "and 16 moves...." or "with 16 moves..." >

I put this in- improved construction ideas welcome:

Sure about the 'kicked off'-bit?

I'm going to play the brainless outsider again.

Bronstein played the Dutch-D. Botvinnik hadn't prepared it. But the he/himself in the last part of the sentence seems ambiguous. I could read it both that Bronstein played the Dutch because he considered himself an expert; and I could read it that Botvinnik didn't prepare because he considered himself an expert.

Now it so happens that I'm actually silly, because I don't know the answer. The latter, Botvinnik-version, seems more plausible. So what about chopping up the sentence, so generally something like:

"<David Bronstein had <beaten>-<insert game link here> Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944 Mikhail Botvinnik as early as the USSR Championship (1944), but it was not until he won the Saltsjöbaden 1948 Interzonal that he rose to the rank of potential world championship contender."

Is this 1944 game between them so significant, that it is used as an introduction to Bronstein as a challenger? At that tournament, he came in 15th/17 with a -3 score: USSR Championship (1944) Furthermore, Botvinnik won, but he was not yet world champion, and the then current title holder was still alive. I think that this kind of introduction should at least be a bit changed, because the tournament result (and it seems it was the first big tournament for the young Bronstein, or not?) makes it clear that he was not yet a contender for the world championship in 1944, as he didn't have had great successes before (I mean, it would be different with a player who had great tournament successes under his belt, and then a weaker one in between). Perhaps it would be better to put the emphasis on the success of such a young player against the future world champion, and make at least two sentences out of it.>

This is a good point- I'm going to think of another sentence better to introduce <Bronstein>. Mentioning his first win over <Botvinnik> needn't be part of the new introduction

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

<"Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he'd won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), but he studied thoroughly by annotating every game Bronstein had played in the previous 2 1/2 years.<1>"

I think it should be made clear when he started with what. I guess he started to prepare for him after Budapest Candidates (1950) which ended in August, so he started his preparation with Bronstein's games from 1948 onwards, didn't he? This may be done by connecting the sentence to the previous one about Bronstein. Perhaps simply inserting "his recently/newly determined challenger" prior to "Bronstein".>

This is also a good idea. I'm going to have to look at my source book again in order to write a more precise version of events.

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

<"According to FIDE rules, the winner would receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000,<6> but Andrew Soltis maintains that Botvinnik and Bronstein actually got considerably less than this.<8>">

Done

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

<<<Years later, both Botvinnik and Bronstein spoke more harshly about each other.>> Much better already.

Do we really need the word 'both', given that we've already got "about each other"?

I don't really like 'more harshly' yet, but haven't thought of a satisfactory change. Perhaps simply 'less friendly/highly'.>

Now the sentence reads-

Thanks so much <Ohio>, <Karpova>, <Switch>, and <Dak> for your expert and prompt work!

Sorry, I thought I'd put this in before, but now it's in:

<and 16 moves>:

I't not a neutral arrangement, therefore neutral language isn't strictly required to describe it. Nor is it advisable to describe it with neutral language.>

Needs a space between . and Bg5

<By tying the match score 12-12, Botvinnik had retained his title on draw odds.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluper...

The most pertinent point is probably this:

<Examples of the English pluperfect (past perfect) are found in the following sentence (from Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning): A man who for years had thought he had reached the absolute limit of all possible suffering now found that suffering had no limits, and that he could suffer still more, and more intensely.

Here, "had thought" and "had reached" are examples of the pluperfect. They refer to an event (a man thinking he has reached the limit of his capacity to suffer), which takes place before another event (the man finding that his capacity to suffer has no limit), that is itself a past event, referred to using the past tense (found). The pluperfect is needed to make it clear that the first event (the thinking and the supposed reaching) is placed even earlier in the past.>

"enjoying" is staying.

It's standard idiomatic English. It doesn't mean that anyone is actually "enjoying" something as in feeling an emotion.

<"Boston enjoyed a one game lead in the series."> To use the idiom in this case requires no knowledge of what the actual players on Boston may or may not be feeling, nor does it purport to report on any such feeling.

In the case of our draft, the idiom simply describes a situation where one party has a structural advantage over another. It makes no value judgment of any kind; rather, it more accurately states the factual nature of a state of affairs than does "received."

It's better than "received" in this case because some who are interested in chess may not understand that "draw odds" statistically favors the incumbent champion.

Idiomatically, "enjoyed" is in no wise "less neutral" than is "received." It is, however, more accurate.

<This case is closed.>

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

<<57.Bg5> Needs a space between . and Bg5

<By tying the match score 12-12, Botvinnik had retained his title on draw odds.>

I'd prefer to dele "had".>

<WCC Editing Project: This case is closed.>

Doh what a giveaway...

That would be like the pot belly calling the kettle which is also fat.

From the Department of Redundancy Department.

"If the champion lost, he had the right to play in a three player match tournament for the title at the end of the following three year candidates cycle. If the champion lost, he had the right to play in a three player match tournament for the title at the end of the following 3 year candidates cycle."

In addition to "three" and "3" we should include Roman numerals "III".

This is followed by:

"In this case, Botvinnik would have the right to play for the championship against Bronstein and the winner of the next cycle."

No, it isn't.

The first sentence is the clause. The second one is the application of it. But the sentence could perhaps be improved further, as in the second sentence, there is only one new information (winner of the next candidates cycle would face them) + the clarification of how it would be applied. Perhaps, both could even be turned into one sentence, e. g.

"If the champion lost, he had the right to play in a three player match tournament for the title at the end of the following three year candidates cycle, against the champion and the winner of the next cycle."

or

"If the champion lost, he had the right to play/face the champion and the winner of the next cycle in a three player match tournament for the title, at the end of the following three year candidates cycle."

but this may be too long.

Thank you very much.

<Karpova> I replaced the entire construction with your choice number two above, but I added "new" in front of the word champion:

Ungawa, Daktari.