WCC Editing Project Member since Jul-19-13 · Last seen Aug-24-24 no bio

WCC Editing Project has kibitzed 3286 times to chessgames   [more...]

Jun-07-15 Biographer Bistro    WCC Editing Project: <zanzibar: Since I'm an adviser to editors, rather than an editor, I'm unfamiliar with what exactly editors can do.> I want to bring this post to your attention again: Biographer Bistro (kibitz #10966) It explains what editors can do and what not.      May-31-15 chessgames.com chessforum    WCC Editing Project: <chessgames.com> Maybe you overlooked this post Biographer Bistro (kibitz #11028) , since the Bistro has become rather fast-paced. An answer would be interesting to several people.      May-29-15 WCC Editing Project chessforum    WCC Editing Project: <Chessical> Thank you very much for your contribution(s)! We hope that you will support us in the future, also. For sure, you have helped us quite a lot already. The draft in question is already finished and was send away, though. It is still a valuable source and      Apr-01-15 Moscow (1925)    WCC Editing Project: <Capablanca> on his experience at <Moscow 1925>: <"Although very philosophical, very observant and completely dispassionate in my judgment about everything concerning chess and its great exponents, I was nonetheless <<<unable to ...      Mar-08-15 Tabanus chessforum    WCC Editing Project: Ribli - Torre Candidates Quarterfinal (1983) Audiovisual aid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8G...      Mar-08-15 Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929)    WCC Editing Project: <beatgiant> In case you want to read further on this topic, I have prepared a sourced timeline that summarizes the <Alekhine-Capablanca> rematch negotiations from 26 Feb 1929 - March 1935: Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ARCHIVE      Jan-29-15 suenteus po 147 chessforum    WCC Editing Project: <One Third of the original "Big Three"> I beg your pardon! I'm on vacation in Canada, and I just now saw your post in the WCC forum. By "we" I meant the cg.com biographers, not the WCC project. All of the research compiled for additions to your intro was done by ...      Nov-23-14 R Fuchs vs Tal, 1969    WCC Editing Project: <MC Scarlett> If so, very very quietly...      Nov-19-14 Alexander Alekhine    WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> Thanks for the correction! That sum makes more sense now in conjunction with the report on the organizers' losses. Good heavens- they can't have made much on ticket sales.      Nov-17-14 E Walther vs Tal, 1966   WCC Editing Project: Queen trap Trick or Treat- this game was played on Halloween, 1966.

indicates a reply to the comment.

WCC Editing Project

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 90 OF 127 ·  Later Kibitzing> Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: <WashCycleCleanser: As much as I love this construction- <Bronstein surprised Botvinnik in the first game of the match....>, I don't think we should use it, because it presupposes conditions not in evidence> Did it surprise the spectators, commentators, etc? Or we could use something like the cg.c construction per the first Battle of the Brains, to wit, <Things took a surprising twist on the very first move, when Team Black played the St. George Defense> Apr-06-14    Karpova: What about simply not connecting surprise to Botvinnik, e. g. <Bronstein surprisingly opened the first game of the match with the Dutch Defense.>? Apr-06-14    dakgootje: Well, yes, it sounds good.. But it doesn't really make it correct. It might be surprising - but to whom? It's something that happens to someone. Without the someone, apparently the writer was surprised. Which isn't of interest to the reader. So perhaps some spectators/commentators construction can indeed be made - but I don't think it should be left dangling otherwise. Isn't there some nifty news article whereby the annotators was mightily surprised? Apr-06-14    Karpova: <To surprise> was one of the alternatives to the too colloquial <to kick off>, so if it was not actually surprising to anyone, it would be easiest to go for a a neutral alternative, even if it may be perceived as duller than <to kick off>. What about something like <to commence> or <to start (off)>? Seems to make more sense than to waste time and energy to find a source for <to surprise>. Apr-06-14    dakgootje: I'm on board with that. I'd group in the category of Minor Points - so I'm okay with a slightly dull, but solid, phrasing; rather than going back and forth for an extra day over a more exciting wording :P Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: Maybe instead of surprising, we could reference it as only the third time Bronstein had played it, according to the cg.c database. So how about <Bronstein began the <first game of the match>-<insert game link here> Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 with the Dutch Defense-only the third time he'd tried that opening. Botvinnik had not prepared for this system, likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch.> Apr-06-14    Boomie: <da goodie two shoes: I'm okay with a slightly dull, but solid, phrasing; rather than going back and forth for an extra day over a more exciting wording :P> So we probably shouldn't say "Botvinnik was gob smacked when Bronstein played the Dutch." Dang. Apr-06-14    dakgootje: <So we probably shouldn't say "Botvinnik was gob smacked when Bronstein played the Dutch." Dang.> It sounds promising. Perhaps we should take it to a vote? Along with "Bronstein played the Dutch, after which Botvinnik never ate a single piece of cheese ever again". <Maybe instead of surprising, we could reference it as only the third time Bronstein had played it, according to the cg.c database.> We might have to directly reference the database in that case. And be quite sure other db's don't have a higher verified number - because that'd look quite silly. Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: <So we probably shouldn't say "Botvinnik was gob smacked when Bronstein played the Dutch." Dang.> <It sounds promising. Perhaps we should take it to a vote?> The errr....gentleman from Ohio votes aye. Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: Another try: <Bronstein began the <first game of the match>-<insert game link here> Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 with the seldom played Dutch Defense. Botvinnik had not prepared for this system, likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch.> I am starting to dislike the redundancy of "began" and "first game". Taking it under advisement, but one should probably be dele. Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: Maybe we could reference the Dutch in its rarity in WCC Matches. One of the crack historians can work that one out, I'm sure, though I wouldn't be shocked if it was never played before. Apr-06-14    Shams: <OCF> Played seven times by both players here: Botvinnik-Bronstein World Championship Match (1951) Apr-06-14    Boomie: <OhioChestFan: I am starting to dislike the redundancy of "began"...> How about "opened"? Apr-06-14    Boomie: <Shams: <OCF> Played seven times by both players here> Thanks. However, that's the match we are currently editing so the issue is how often was the Dutch played before then. Apr-06-14    Boomie: Here's the frequency chart for the Dutch - Dutch (A80). Apr-06-14    OhioChessFan: I am hoping then that this match was the first one with the Dutch. That'd be a decent reference to the unusual/surprising/whatever choice of opening. Apr-06-14    crawfb5: Not so much. Marshall vs Lasker, 1907 Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1948 Apr-06-14    Boomie: <Ohio votes aye.> So are we unanimously behind "gob smacked"? Apr-06-14    Shams: <Boomie>, <OCF> Sorry, I should have read further down. Apr-06-14    Boomie: So pulling it all together I've got: "The surprising Bronstein gob smacked Botvinnik in the premier partie by opening with the rarely utilized Dutch Defense." Apr-07-14    Karpova: Was the point really to surprise Botvinnik or the rarity of the Dutch Defense itself? As <crawfb5> showed, it had been played before. Furthermore, the rest of the Intro creates the impression that we may be on the wrong track here. Botvinnik hadn't prepared for it, not because he didn't expect it, but likely because he considered himself an expert*. And when Botvinnik explains Bronstein's strategy, he again doesn't mention that Bronstein wanted to surprise him, but that he wanted to beat him on his home turf. The fact that Botvinnik considered himself an expert on the Dutch Defense makes the surprise theory very unlikely, in my opinion. *as Botvinnik's book is the source for this information, why is it merely <likely>? Is Botvinnik himself not specific about it? Apr-07-14    WCC Editing Project: Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951 I agree with <Karpova>. Please note that this is the current actual draft on this section: ################### Bronstein opened the <first game of the match>-<insert game link here> Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 with the Dutch Defense. Botvinnik had not prepared for this system, 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."<11> Apr-07-14    OhioChessFan: I think "first game of" can safely be dele. Apr-07-14    Karpova: <Jess> The sentence "Botvinnik had not prepared for this system, likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch.<2>" left me curious - source <2> is Botvinnik's match book, but the explanation starts with <likely>. So who is speculating here? Apr-07-14    Boomie: <OhioChessFan: I think "first game of" can safely be dele.> That alters the meaning of "opened" from "used the opening" to "started the match". Or I'm hallucinating again. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 127) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 90 OF 127 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com. If you need an account, register now; it's quick, anonymous, and free! If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.