The obvious implications shouldn't need to be spelled out...

I think pgns should be sourced as clearly as possible, particularly in the case of compound sources where a game score from primary source was altered in a subsequent book. That said, I do understand the wish to keep pgns as brief as possible, given that a fuller data provenance can be displayed in the kibbutz box, as it is here.

But what about cases in which someone wishes to export a chessgames.com pgn to another database? In this case, exporting relevant kibbutzing on data provenance would prove a pain, and unnecessarily so. It won't kill anyone to provide a compound source tag that clearly lists the non-primary source that reprinted the primary source, as in the case of this game.

<MissScarlett>

hmm I hadn't thought about it like that- thanks for your amplification. I can't really disagree with much of what you added.

That said, I will continue to add compound sources to any pgns I publish here at cg.com- particularly in those cases where I found a primary contemporaneous source listed inside of a book. In these cases I want readers to know that I did not necessarily have direct access to that contemporaneous game score.

<z> Are you taking bets on where <MissScarlett's> response will fall on the <Stanford-Binet polite to rude 1-10 scale>?

Yes, but limited preview rights precluded it. What does Renette have to say about the <BNL>'s garbled score?

< whoever claimed <CG> used the <Belfast News-Letter> (which I suspect wasn't consulted directly))>

<We should treat <cg.com> as an end in itself. When taking material from other sources, does one do so blindly? Why expect less of others?>

Yes, maybe I should have paid attention to Nosibor's preceding comment, but I keyed off your adding moves past 66.

But I saw you added moves from Harding

<I'm adding this reconstructed finish from the point of current termination, as given by Harding in his Blackburne book (p.324):>

and then crediting <BN-L>. Which isn't correct. If you used Harding for the reconstruction then you should put Harding in the Source. If you wish to credit <BN-L> over the other source mention by Nosibor you might explain why in your comment.

Really it seems both sources should be included after Harding to be fair.

In fair, I'd like to see *for myself* the scans of both newspapers. They're out of copyright, and a scan isn't a creative or derivative work according to US copyright law.

It would very helpful, and I claim a duty, for historians to help other historian check their work.

Since Harding is copyrighted, you might even consider including the <BN-L> moves here, and note where you (and Harding) decided to alter the score in your (and Harding's) reconstruciton.

I put those into Z-base, usually as a comment, but maybe (can't remember) sometime in a Note. It's natural to put it in the movelist since it automatically notes where the adjournment occurred. It's useful to include info on when play resumed as well, if available.