Talk:World Chess Championship 1948

message: The Al Horowitz book, From Morphy to Fischer (Batsford 1973) is probably the same as The World Chess Championship; A History (Macmillan 1973  ), but I don't have the Batsford edition so I don't know for sure.  The Macmillan edition has 291 pages and I have seen the Batsford edition described as having 300 pages.  I will use the Macmillan edition to expand the article.  If someone here has the Batsford edition you can check the page numbers to see if they match up. Quale (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page numberings are identical. Mine ("From Morphy to Fischer") is Batsford, 1973, and is 291 pages, and the page 121 refs you have added are also page 121 in my edition. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Tomorrow (well, actually later this morning here) I'm going to try to track down World chessmasters in battle royal; the first world championship tourney (1949, ) by Horowitz and Kmoch at a nearby library.  It's 199 pages devoted exclusively to the 1948 WC tournament, based on the 1948 coverage in Chess Review.  Much of the 199 pages is probably scores and annotation of the 50 games played, so I don't know if there's any more description of the tournament than appears in the Pandolfini reprint of Chess Review.   Kmoch does the annotation, and I find him fun to read.  There are a few amusing bits in the Chess Review coverage, even if they might not always be true.  One story is that a non-playing member of the large Soviet delegation approached Reshevsky, and intending to ask "Who are you?" mixed up his English and instead asked "How are you?"  When Reshevsky replied "Fine", the Soviet hurried back to his group to report that Reuben Fine had arrived.  Quale (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I read through the 3 references cited in the "Controversy" section, and the author did not express the opinion that the "Controversy" section claimed he did.  I think the sentence describing the "author's opinion" (which is not the author's opinion) should be deleted.  Thoughts?
Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the section. Following Charlesreid1's comment I've just re-read the last of Kingston's 3 articles, and I still think the "Controversy" section summarises Kingston's conclusions accurately. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think what you wrote is good.  Unless we get a more specific complaint, it can be kept as is. Quale (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on World Chess Championship 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905102233/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt to http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified