< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Mar-01-14|| ||offramp: http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Play... rated Bogoljubov as World Number 1 rated player for January & February 1927. This I imagine is a knock-on effect from his win at Moscow (1925).|
Alekhine was defending his title only 2 years after winning it. Capablanca had waited 6 years and lost it at the first attempt.
Oddly, apart from a small and not-very-strong tournament at Bradley Beach (1929) this WC match was Alekhine's first serious chess outing; he had been playing, as I fatuously called them earlier, simultaneoii.
The match was a good one. Unlike the 1927 match, this one was not a (essentially) one-opening pony; nor was it a constant disquisition on + endings. There were lots of errors but that's chess.
Soon after this match the full effects of the Black Monday US Stock Market Crash were felt in Europe and raising £2,500 became increasingly difficult. Also, Alekhine seemed to grow in strength in the years 1931-33 which may have discouraged challengers. Bogoljubov tried again but less successfully in Alekhine-Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934).
|May-30-14|| ||perfidious: <At Bad Kissengen in 1928, Bogoljubov won first prize ahead of Capablanca, despite losing his individual game against the Cuban....>|
This spelling of 'Kissingen' is incorrect.
<....Despite his victories at Moscow 1925, and Bad Kissingen 1928, the chess pundits expected that Bogoljubov had very little chance of success.>
The spelling in the above sentence is correct.
Some of these pages are much in need of attention, which I would give them if it were within my power to do so.
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <offramp> <Capablanca had waited 6 years>|
Capablanca didn't wait 6 years. It took that long for any challenger to get backing. Nimzovich actually had priority over Alekhine, but failed to deposit the required amount before the January 1, 1927 deadline. I believe Rubinstein had a challenge in before Nimzo, but also failed. Alekhine was next in line, and was the first one to get the money up.
|May-30-14|| ||offramp: <Petrosianic: <offramp> <Capablanca had waited 6 years>
Capablanca didn't wait 6 years...>
Yup! Exactly what I said!
|May-30-14|| ||RookFile: I don't know why folks keep talking about Capa putting up 10 K. It's not like Bogo did to get two matches with Alekhine.|
|May-30-14|| ||RedShield: <I don't know why folks keep talking about Capa putting up 10 K.>|
Because it was Capa who insisted on it first.
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <aliejin>: <"In 1928 Capablanca did manage to produce a $10,000 offer from Bradley Beach">|
<The team of CG told me they have no
evidence for this ... They just
read it in some site .... once ..
a could not remember where..>
It's mentioned in Harold Schonburg's book, "Grandmasters of Chess".
|May-30-14|| ||RookFile: Yes, I know about the London agreement and other things. There was also something called the great depression. The issue is that this 10 K requirement was enforced for Capa but it wasn't for Bogo. Ok?|
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <RedShield>: <Because it was Capa who insisted on it first.>|
Caissafact would rate that as Half True. Capa did insist on it but so did everyone who signed the London Rules, which included Maroczy, Bogo, Reti, Rubinstein, Tartakover, Vidmar, Capa, and yes, Alekhine.
Of course, the London Rules were written in 1922, before the Great Depression changed the economic landscape and made the conditions almost impossible to fulfill. Alekhine insisted on those conditions only for the one challenger he was trying to avoid, while playing lesser players for less money. That's how he got his reputation as an artful dodger.
The Bradley Beach offer, which met the conditions, would have come in before the Depression, but Alekhine still didn't play.
|May-30-14|| ||RedShield: You know about the London Rules, and Alekhine's insistence that Capa abide by them, yet you keep wondering why the issue is raised in a discussion of the putative rematch. Curious.|
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: I'm not reading you. Who said I was surprised that the issue was raised? That's kind of out of left field.|
|May-30-14|| ||RedShield: <Caissafact would rate that as Half True. Capa did insist on it but so did everyone who signed the London Rules, which included Maroczy, Bogo, Reti, Rubinstein, Tartakover, Vidmar, Capa, and yes, Alekhine.>|
The London Rules didn't insist on $10,000. A lesser amount was permissible, if the champion was agreeable. As it happens, Alekhine wasn't giving Bogo anything on a plate: according to Skinner & Verhoeven, it was reported that Alekhine was guaranteed to receive $6,800 if he won, and $5,000 if he lost, numbers not very different from the prize distribution if they'd played for $10,000 per the London Rules. Bogo, not Alekhine, was taking the financial hit.
But let's not get bogged down in the legalese. They weren't really the London Rules, they were Capa's rules, and Alekhine was quite within his moral rights in not feeling bound by them.
|May-30-14|| ||RedShield: <I'm not reading you. Who said I was surprised that the issue was raised? That's kind of out of left field.>|
I was addressing <Rookfile>.
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: Oh, I see. I had Rookfile killfiled, so I didn't see his post.|
|May-30-14|| ||RookFile: Red makes the case for me. Alekhine hid behind the London rules to avoid playing Capa. Thanks!|
|May-30-14|| ||TheFocus: Alekhine just used Capa's rules against him. Very crafty if you ask me.|
It was simply, "Put up or shut up."
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: It was certainly a crafty way of avoiding a re-match, but it didn't do Alekhine's long-term reputation any favors.|
Especially since Capa and Bogo both signed the London Rules, as did Alekhine. Bogo was exempted from "his own rules" because Alekhine wasn't afraid of him. It's a pity. If Alekhine had played Capa around 1931, when he might very well have won, he'd probably have gone down in history as better than Capa.
|May-30-14|| ||RedShield: So what if Alekhine and Bogo signed the London Rules? Condition 21 stated: <Any of the foregoing rules may be modified by mutual consent between the players...>, thereby meaning that Alekhine and Bogo were free to play under any conditions they liked.|
My issue is with treating the London Rules as if it were a morally (or even legally) binding agreement, rather than the temporary expedient (for Capa's benefit) that it really was. Note that the <Rules> make no provision for future changes in terms of opponents who are not signatories to the document. Did Capablanca make any attempt to enjoin Nimzowitsch or Torre or Euwe to join the fold?
|May-30-14|| ||TheFocus: These world champions always trying to change the rules to suit them. I guess Fischer was just carrying on the tradition.|
|May-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: Even Fischer didn't do this: Have one set of rules for one challenger, and another set for all the others. Fischer avoided all challenges equally.|
|May-30-14|| ||RookFile: I remember that the guy who paid for Fischer vs. Spassky in 1972 basically told Fischer publicly: "Come out and play, chicken". If Alekhine thought he was going to win a rematch against Capa, he would have done the same. There were a couple of years where Capa didn't want to play Alekhine, but he was available for other years. Alekhine apparently was never available for a rematch with Capa. He was too busy playing people that Capa routinely beat.|
|May-31-14|| ||Lambda: *Wonders if there might have been a bit of "I can beat Bogo easily, but with Capa I'd need to work really hard and prepare specially, so I'd like to be payed more for that.*|
Probably not, since Alekhine didn't have any laziness issues. But it's something to think about.
|May-31-14|| ||Olavi: The London rules stipulated that the champ is not obliged to play for a purse less that 10 000 dollars. It did not say that he is not allowed to play for less.|
|May-31-14|| ||RookFile: In Alekhine's case, it means he'll play any challenger except Capa for less than 10. The only qualification necessary was that the challenger routinely lost to Capa.|
|May-31-14|| ||offramp: Here is my old $0.02, from Jose Raul Capablanca.|
<Dec-28-05 offramp: In the 1927 match, after 29 games the score was 4-3 to Alekhine. For Capablanca this was a serious situation but in previous and subsequent WC matches players have recovered from worse. So there was all to play for in a potentially unlimited match.
In fact the match only lasted 5 more games, Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 is one of them. It is 18 moves.
I have said this before... In 1927 Alekhine pulled off one of the biggest upsets in all of SPORTING history, not just chess history. He beat Capablanca 6 times in 2 months; the Cuban was used to losing that many games in whole decades! He beat Capablanca twice as black in those turgid QGDs (one French - actually).
A rematch would have been under identical rules - ie the first to 6 wins. In 1930, in a post-Wall St-Crash world, which mental midget entrepreneur was going to write a blank check for a match between a stronger Alekhine and a better-prepared Capablanca?? A match of - what? - 40 games? 50 games??
And how many of those games would have been opened with the 'World Championship Opening' - the QGD? Probably all of them!
Capablanca did want a rematch. Alekhine did not. And who can blame him? He was not alone. Try and look through the eyes of the 1930s chess world and you'll get an inkling.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·