<Euwe has always struck me as a proper gentleman, and it's likely he did not mean any offense toward Alekhine> Absolutely , I didn`t pick the right expression it seems.

Alekhine by his own admission studied chess 8 hours a day, thoroughly prepping his openings with effective novelties that got him the kind of middlegames where his creative talent could shine, and analyzing all of his opponent's games for weaknesses to exploit and his own games for shortcomings he needed to improve on. This kind of Alekhine chess policy seems to me the real beginnings of the Soviet school of chess, which the later Soviet masters took up.

This is the tragedy of early retirements (Morphy, Fischer, amongst the champs, others brilliant but perhaps not at the top). Each great player has a certain special quality of seeing the game, and by leaving early in their careers, chess-evolution in a sense stops and must be rekindled. Botvinnik's absence and rationing of competition after becoming champ also takes away from chess as a whole.

The loss of matches like Lasker-Rubinstein, Capablanca-Alekhine II, FIscher-Karpov, and all the possible match-ups Botvinnik interfered with by staying champ after '57 (any combination of Bronstein, Smyslov, Keres, Tal, Petrosian) are significant and sad.

Speaking of early USSR masters , they had Alekhine`s wave same as USA had Fischer`s , and (especially late 30s and on) Botvinnik wasn`t much weaker than AAA , maybe less brilliant and less strong ie experienced in matches , anyway his youth and iron will compensated it in tournaments , so they didn`t lose that much IMO.

@ <Everet> Nice chain of fantasies. Now , if Tal was healthy , if Fischer was less looney ... I suggest CG to , besides the played matches , make phantom-pages for unplayed ones , so we can discuss what would happen in Rubinstein-Lasker 1910 , How-many-to-zero would Kaspy crush Shirov etc =)

PS speaking of AAAs possible opinion on helping USSR masters(or anyone else in fact) , he didn`t care too much about anything else but himself. Very illustrative quote from aforementioned V.Vukovic`s book , namely back in 30s he had conversation with Alekhine , and @ some point they touched theme of god and eternal life/mortality. Our friend AAA had very simple argument : `I can`t imagine that something like <ME> can simply dissapear?`

Am I reading this right, that his tremendous ego asserts because of his greatness his soul must live on somehow? Interesting... But it does not mean he wouldnt be willing to teach and pass on his knowledge.

Chess masters throughout history had much stronger tendencies to be indifferent or even leave their religious studies and go playing chess than the opposite (Steinitz , Rubinstein) .

Does it means that if after 30 games, for example, Euwe would be up a point but with 5 to 4 wins (rather than 9 to 8 as happened actually), then they would have to play on, until one or the other of them collected his 6th win?

It means that BOTH of those conditions are required. So, for example, if after 30 games, you're ahead +4-3=23, the match continues until somebody has 6 wins. (And it might not be the guy who had the +4). If someone scores the 6 Wins before Game 30, then there's no difference between a straight Best of 30 format.

"The match was to consist of 30 games, but the winner's score had to include at least six wins.

The set number of games is an unfortunate condition that was imposed in order to give each city a certain portion of the match, in consideration of its contribution to the expenses.

The effect is that as soon as one player has won 6 games every draw brings him nearer victory. His opponent is handicapped by having to avoid drawish lines, and the final score is not necessarily an indication of the true relative strengths of the contestants."

That's because you're a cultural pygmy. There are tons of old color photographs available on the internet.

Ever hear of Wikipedia?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...