Thank you!

Interesting how in some cases, the "" can signify both a direct quote *and* the ironic usage at the same time, eh?

Mistakes:

Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament.4 <4 is no link>

The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played partly in The Hague and partly in Moscow, and most notably, no extra player would be added.8,9 <8 and 9 are no links>

FIDE therefore decided to stage a quintuple round robin, for a total of 25 rounds, with one player having a bye each round.10,11 <10 and 11 are no links>

The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.12,13 <12 and 13 are no links>

Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.12,15 <12 and 15 are no links>

Footnotes:

4. "CHESS (Dec 1946), p.63. In Winter, Interregnum." <Why is this all in quotation marks?>

<ERRATA FILE>

<CROSSTABLE:>

There should be a plain text crosstable, such as the one <Phony Benoni> has created. It should be labeled "Crosstable" and it should be directly below the FOOTNOTES SECTION and above the games list section.

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

<MAIN ARTICLE SECTION:>

These notes in the main article are plain text- they should be blue hyperlinks to the NOTES section:

================

Note 4 here:

Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament. 4

===

Notes 8 and 9 here:

The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played partly in The Hague and partly in Moscow, and most notably, no extra player would be added.8,9

===

Notes 10 and 11 here:

FIDE therefore decided to stage a quintuple round robin, for a total of 25 rounds, with one player having a bye each round.10,11

===

Notes 12 and 13 here:

The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.12,13

===

Notes 12 and 15 here:

Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.12,15

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

<FOOTNOTES SECTION:>

Note 21 is truncated.

It should read in full:

<21> Taylor Kingston, "The Keres-Botvinnik case revisited: A further survey of the evidence" ("Chess Cafe" 8 Oct 2001), p.2. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...

“Chess Cafe” should be the blue hyperlink.

===

Note 22 is on the same line as note 21. It should be on a separate line.

===

Note 21 is missing information. It should include all of the following text:

<23> Max Pam and Genna Sosonko, "Een interview met Michail Moiseevitch Botwinnik" (Vrij Nederland 20 Aug 1991) http://www.maxpam.nl/archief/IBOTWI.... In Tim Krabbé, "Open Chess Diary" Item #42 http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/.... In Kingston, pp.4-5

Missing from the note is <"Een interview met Michail Moiseevitch Botwinnik" (Vrij Nederland 20 Aug 1991)>

“Vrij Nederland” should be the blue hyperlink for this weblink: http://www.maxpam.nl/archief/IBOTWI...

Excellent. I have added the information from your errata list that I didn't already have in my errata file.

We will continue to look for at least two more days eh?

4 is not a live link.

<and most notably, no extra player would be added.8,9 >

8, 9 are not live links

<with one player having a bye each round.10,11 >

10, 11 are not live links

<The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.12,13 >

12, 13 are not live links

<Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.12,15 > 12, 15 are not live links

<"After six days' rest",>

Your header should update this:

<The "view games" links all take you right back to the tournament page.>

Outstanding catch!

I've added that to the Errata File.

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

<Your header should update this:

<Finished Draft>
Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948>

Correct, thank you.

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

<"After six days' rest"> is right out of Mighty Mike's mouth.

No sic will be used.

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

<<Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title. In Chess Life and Review (Apr 1948), p.7 > If that is the title of an article in Chess Life and Review, it should be in quotation marks and not italicized. I don't think there should be a space after the last dot of the ellipsis. Is it spelled "Royal"?>

<it should be in quotation marks and not italicized.> There aren't, and won't be, any quotation marks at all in the FOOTNOTES to any of the promoted drafts. Anything that would be in quotation marks is converted to italics. That's the convention being followed anyways.

<I don't think there should be a space after the last dot of the ellipsis.>

That's how it is in the title of the article. It's also a punctuation error *not* to leave a space after the third "dot."

<Is it spelled "Royal"?> It is indeed.

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

<Ohio> I want to thank you for every one of your errata points, because I actually looked up every single one of them.

If Mighty Mike didn't put that apostrophe in, then we'd have to change it, for example.

Anyways.

<Daniel> has confirmed receipt of our errata file, and he is currently working on the corrections. One of them involves fixing a "bug" so please be patient.

<Ohio> the Wiki page on "Jock Tamson's bairns" was most interesting.

The part where they say "Jock Tamson" would be "Jack Thompson" outside of Scotland reminded me of my Dad.

<Steinitz considered his world championship tenure to have started with his win over Adolf Anderssen, 2 although in these matches the title of world champion was not officially at stake.>

"considered" is a signal that we aren't talking "official", so the whole "although" clause is sort of redundant.

< the question of who was the strongest chess player in the world became urgent. >

I think that fails the test of "all facts in the intros must be sourced to reliable primary material".

<Steinitz wanted to play in the USA preferably, but not in London where he had encountered unfairness and hostility.>

That needs work. Here's a first try.

"Steinitz wanted to play in the USA, and definitely not in London......"

<The St. Louis leg ended on February 10 after Steinitz scored 3 wins and a draw.19 After a rest of almost 2 weeks, 22 the New Orleans leg began on February 26. >

I'm not sure how 16 days is "almost 2 weeks".

<Zukertort struck back with a win, but managed only 3 draws and another loss in the next games. >

<"considered" is a signal that we aren't talking "official", so the whole "although" clause is sort of redundant.>

That it is a <signal> which makes the rest just <sort of> redundant, is not enough to abstain from the emphasis on their unofficial status. After all, it is a very important point that this match was the first official WC match. The clarification is probably worth a bit of redundancy.

<I think that fails the test of "all facts in the intros must be sourced to reliable primary material".>

So we have established that Steinitz was the strongest, then that Zukertort dominated the important London tournament, winning ahead of Steinitz. This made Steinitz challenge him again to clarify a matter, a challenge which, according to the 'BCM' (source <5>), arose naturally out of Zukertort's tournament success. That's not enough yet?

<I'm not sure how 16 days is "almost 2 weeks".>

They played on February 10 and February 26, so possible rest days lay between February 11 and 25, i. e. 14 possible rest days. During these 2 weeks, they still had to travel from St. Louis to New Orleans.

<"Steinitz wanted to play in the USA, and definitely not in London......">

This changes the sense too much, and also clashes with the fact that Steinitz was willing to play a return match in London.

<I think the sentence should end "...in the next 4 games.".>

Why the change from "win" to "matches"? Another try:

"Even though these matches didn't offically carry the title of the world championship, Steinitz considered his tenure as world champion to have started with his win over Adolf Anderssen."

<So we have established that Steinitz was the strongest, then that Zukertort dominated the important London tournament, winning ahead of Steinitz. This made Steinitz challenge him again to clarify a matter, a challenge which, according to the 'BCM' (source <5>), arose naturally out of Zukertort's tournament success. That's not enough yet?>

No. The claim is "the question of who was the strongest chess player in the world became urgent." It arose naturally but was "urgent"? I think that's editorializing.

I really don't understand your point about the 16 days being almost 2 weeks.

<"Steinitz wanted to play in the USA, and definitely not in London......">

<This changes the sense too much, and also clashes with the fact that Steinitz was willing to play a return match in London.>

<I really don't understand your point about the 16 days being almost 2 weeks.>

What are the 16 days you are talking about? They played on February 10 and February 26, i. e. these do not belong to possible rest days they could take. Furthermore, they had to travel from St. Louis to New Orleans, which didn't provide them with much rest either.

<Well, what is the sense? I really don't follow it at all. And if my reconstruction is a problem per the rematch, how is the original not a problem also?>

Simply put, we have a source for Steinitz not wanting to play the match in London. To rephrase it with <definitely> turns it into Steinitz categorically refusing to play in London, which clashes with his later willingness to play a possible rematch in London. The point is that <definitely> is too strong.

The first suggestion sounds okay, so maybe switch it as in the previous sentence the matches are enumerated:

11-25 (including both days) is actually 15 days. (11 = 1; 12 = 2; ... ; 25 = 15)