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

The Steinitz quote as related in Landsberger was that he would not play in London "for the chief reason that I apprehend to encounter there greater hostility and unfairness than that which I had to suffer during the London tournament." This was in the New Orleans' Times Democrat on October 5th.

"Steinitz emigrated to the USA in late 1883.6 The negotiations now dragged on. The main disagreement was the location of a match."

The sentence about emigration should appear after mentioning the problem with the location of the match.

Also "...now dragged on." sounds wrong.

So:

There doesn't appear to be any digitized issues of the New Orleans Times Democrat. There is microfilm of it at various libraries but, alas, none in my area. We have to go with Landsberger then.

It has been the hope of Americans that these two men could be brought together over the chess board before they went back, and settle the matter of supremacy by a grand match at chess.>

Hartford Weekly Times, 1883.11.01

A great surprise to the American chess players was the arrival of J. H. Zukertort, the chess champion of the world, at New York on last Sunday. [...] We all hope that he may meet Steinitz, and deprive the "Bohemian Caesar," as he styles himself, of some of his unlimited conceit and vanity.>

St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1883.11.10

Zukertort wins London 1883 - Steinitz challenges him - Zukertort agrees in principle but is not ready yet - Steinitz emigrates to the USA - the negotiations were contentious, mainly due to the disagreement about the location of the match.

Here is the passage in current context in the mirror:

<Zukertort had become one of the world's strongest chessplayers in the 1870s.4 After Zukertort's overwhelming victory at London (1883) ahead of Steinitz, the question of who was the strongest chess player in the world became urgent. Therefore, Steinitz challenged Zukertort to a match after the tournament. Zukertort agreed in principle to the match, but his poor health after his tournament victory did not permit the stress of such a match in the near future.5

Steinitz emigrated to the USA in late 1883.6 The negotiations now dragged on. The main disagreement was the location of a match. Steinitz wanted to play in the USA preferably, but not in London where he had encountered unfairness and hostility.>

I agree with <Karpova> that this passage be left intact.

I just put a "call for help" out to <Tabanus>, who I think researched and wrote the intro to Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948).

There are some interesting and directly relevant facts in that intro for our first paragraph in Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951 that I would really like to confirm and use, if possible.

So a little longer on that, but not too much longer. If I can't confirm the facts about <Bronstein> in the <Salts> intro, I'll just write our first paragraph without them.

Did a real quick check in Dutch newspapers.

Article from 1946 is very clear he's only a master, no grandmaster. Two articles from 1948, about this Interzonal, mention him in passing as grandmaster. However I wouldn't rule out that these were either assumptions by the writers, or used as honorific title rather than official FIDE-title.

Didn't initially find an article mentioning when he did obtain the GM-title.

Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951

Regarding your previous post:

<Karpova>:

<"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".>

I checked the source (Note <1>), and then I changed this part of the paragraph to read as follows:

Well <Daniel> has not fixed all of the errata from FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948). So we'll wait on him and be patient about it.

The team has given an amazingly good overhaul of Game Collection: WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, but as you can see if you look at the mirror, and above the mirror, I'm currently doing a bit more research to fashion the most well-informed and interesting first paragraph I can. The original opening of this draft was pretty lame, as the team was quick to point out- and rightly so. Where did this "Bronstein" fellow come from? Was he stout? Did he go to a good school?

So there's currently no rush to choose the next "official draft for promotion." Daniel has to finish the last corrections and I have to finish the first paragraph of <Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951>.

This means the Editing Soviet may feel free to work on any of the existing "finished drafts" they choose to.

No work, no post will be lost. I read each and every one, and no good suggestion will fall through the cracks. It's very easy for me to archive such suggestions in the mirrors, as I've done many times before.

I second Shh-Boomie's thought this doesn't sound right. We might as well have a sentence like "It was a dark and stormy night.">

Did this dark and stormy night by any chance gob smack a handsome stranger?

--

The main problem I'd have with the sentence is the sudden intimate nowness due to the word 'now'. What if we'd take a bit more distance, for instance:

"Steinitz emigrated to the USA in late 1883.6 At this point the negotiations dragged on; the location of a match was the main point of disagreement [/issue]."

"Steinitz emigrated to the USA in late 1883 as the negotiations dragged on; the location of a match was the main point of disagreement [/issue]."

"Steinitz emigrated to the USA in late 1883.6 The negotiations now dragged on even more."

The reason is the following: Our starting point is Steinitz' challenge right after London 1883 (in summer) and Zukertort's willingness in principle. So the first step had been taken, but they hadn't got far yet.

Zukertort had to take a long rest. Then, Steinitz moved to the USA - this included first making up his mind about this move, also discussing with his family, planning everything, the move itself and finally settling in the USA. This alone should be enough to distract him for a while. His settlement in the USA became also important for the match otherwise, as one of his reasons for rejecting London was that he wanted to establish himself in the USA, so a longer stay in London would not be helpful. All in all, after an agreement in principle in summer 1883, they finally played in spring 1886.

My substitution for the dragged on queen was "The negotiations were contentious."

The world will weep for decades.. Although that'd be arguably the case <with> gob smacking as well.