|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 91 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-07-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
That's me speculating that Botvinnik likely considered himself an expert on the Dutch. The speculation is based on two pieces of information: 1. Botvinnik specially worked on and prepared many opening systems for his match with Bronstein- but he did not bother doing any work on either side of the Dutch. 2. The fact of what Botvinnik actually wrote about Bronstein's choice of the Dutch in game one: "So, the Dutch Defence. And this is no accident. In this match my opponent normally employed those openings that I had usually chosen earlier. He apparently thought that he would force me to fight against 'my own' systems... (ellipses written by Botvinnik) Such a 'method' seems to me to be rather naive, if it was not forced." This is the text from source <11> in the Draft. If Botvinnik refers to the Dutch as one of "my 'own' systems", then it really is likely he considered himself an expert on the Dutch. He certainly did a lot of work on it in his career, both before the Bronstein match and after. Finally, "likely" isn't much of a speculation. It's likely as weak as a speculation can be phrased. |
|
Apr-07-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <TimHio>
I agree with <Ohio>. If Bronstein opened the match with the Dutch, we already know it was the first game. Changing it now. |
|
| Apr-07-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
Still, I think it would be better to change the sentence this way "Botvinnik had not prepared for this system,<2> likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch." as <2> is not source of the second part of the sentence. |
|
Apr-07-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Just to clear up any confusion about the difference between notes <2> and note <11>. They are from the same book as you already know. Note <2> refers to the section in which Botvinnik's opening preparation is noted in detail. He didn't prepare the Dutch. Note <11> is from the section of the book where Botvinnik annotates game one. I think that this sentence here should actually have both notes <2> and <11> as a reference: "Botvinnik had not prepared for this system, likely because he considered himself an expert in both sides of the Dutch.<2>,<11>." I'm going to change that now. |
|
Apr-07-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Jinx!
I believe the problem is solved with the addition of note <11> after that sentence. That way, both pieces of information in the sentence are sourced. |
|
| Apr-07-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
Except for the speculation. If you wanted to get rid of it, you may consider something like this: "Botvinnik considered himself an expert on both sides of the Dutch, and had not prepared for this system.<2>,<11>" "Botvinnik, who considered himself an expert on both sides of the Dutch, had not prepared for this system.<2>,<11>" |
|
Apr-07-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
Excellent. I put this one in:
<Botvinnik considered himself an expert on both sides of the Dutch, and had not prepared for this system.> |
|
Apr-07-14
 | | OhioChessFan: <1. Botvinnik specially worked on and prepared many opening systems for his match with Bronstein- but he did not bother doing any work on either side of the Dutch.> Do we know Botvinnik didn't prepare for a Dutch at all? I mean, just because there's no mention of the St. George doesn't mean he didn't prepare for it.
As an alternative, how about "possibly" instead of "likely"? |
|
Apr-07-14
| | OhioChessFan: Well, what's important is the specific language per the note. |
|
| Apr-07-14 | | Karpova: <Jess>
According to your convention, it should be <2,11> and not <2>,<11> in the text. |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Boomie: <Wet Clothes Contestant> I'm guessing that "gob smacked" is right out, nu? Dagnabbit. |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Team>
Well with the current unsolved mysteries I wouldn't rule anything out. The <Grand Piano> did make an appearance on the main stage yesterday with some pithy and supportive comments on the "Great Java Fiasco." No sign of our <1948 All-Star World Tournament> promotion yet though. |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: Ah sorry by <Team> I meant <Tim>. I just realized that it also stands for all of us. As does <Team>, I'm sure. |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Karpova: Perhaps, <chessgames.com> is trying to create a tournament crosstable for the WC tournament, like for the other tournament pages. This may slow it down a bit. But this is pure speculation from my part. |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Boomie: <WCC Editing Project: Ah sorry by <Team> I meant <Tim>.> That's OK as long as I can call you Jeez.
We're not in any hurry so it doesn't matter how long it take to promote a draft. Unless I run out of WCC jokes in which case we're all in trouble. Fortunately I seem to be an eternal font of WCCs. |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova> I was thinking something similar, and mentioned it to <crawfb5> as a possibility. You know I think that <Phony Benoni> has already made a crosstable for this event and he has it stashed somewhere? I may be imagining this.
But yes, perhaps <Daniel> has to invent some new code to make a crosstable format for the WCC events. |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <After a Long Day in the Fields brand Timpon> I'm not in a hurry either. |
|
Apr-08-14
 | | Phony Benoni: <WCCEP> Are you talking about the 1948 FIDE World Championship? If so, I've just stored a crosstable here: Game Collection: Just Checking |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Karpova: A crosstable like that, i. e. text, would be nice. However, I was thinking of something like this: Chinese Championship (2014) |
|
Apr-08-14
| | Phony Benoni: <Karpova> OK, that's what <cg> calls the <Leaderboard>, probably because it was designed to show the standings in a tournament currently in progress. It's something only they can produce--at least, in that form. |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Karpova: <Phony Benoni>
It would be great to have a crosstable and a leaderboard for the 1948 tournament - the good thing about the leaderboard is the convenient way to access all of one players games played in that tournament. |
|
| Apr-08-14 | | Karpova: On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 I came to the conclusion that this sentence
<We assume that a +1 score was sufficient to win the match.> (at the end of the 3rd paragraph) should be deleted.
It appears unnecessary as we later cite the 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (<Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory (13), Schlechter played actively and got a promising position.>) for the 10th game. This basically says that a +1 score would have sufficed for Schlechter. So our first speculation appears not only redundant, but also misplaced (first we assume that a +1 score was enough, later we state that a draw would have sufficed and give a source). |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Phony Benoni>
Thank you for adding the <1948> crosstable along with the USSR Championship crosstables to Game Collection: Just Checking, which is a very useful resource for me, as you well know. QUESTION: Why did you change the title so it's not a pun any more? Is it because the new Czeching doesn't involve any Czechs? |
|
Apr-08-14
| | WCC Editing Project: <Karpova>
I made the change you requested in Game Collection: WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910. Good thinking. |
|
| Apr-09-14 | | crawfb5: I just heard from Daniel. The new intro for the 1948 FIDE tournament should be up "shortly," so stay tuned, sports fans. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 91 OF 127 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
