< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
|Sep-17-06|| ||Gypsy: <percyblakeney> Thx.|
|Sep-17-06|| ||Gypsy: Piecing together the course of events from various very incomplete sources, the following picture emerges:|
1928 -- Capablanca has backing and issues a challenge to Alekhine. Alekhine in the mean time has accepted a challenge from Bogolubov to play in 1929.
1929 -- Alekhine plays Bogolubov for less than the full ammoung of $10,000.-
1929 -- Stock markets crash and Capablanca loses his backers to financial hard times.
Alekhine refuses to play Capablanca for less then the full ammount of $10,000.-
Alekhine later raises his demands to purse 'in gold', in an ammount that was equivalent to $10,000.- before the crash. (This raises the purse demands and compounds the crash problems because double deflation of goods to money and money to gold.)
1934 -- Alekhine plays Bogolubov again for less than $10,000.-
1935 -- Alekhine plays Euwe for 2,000.- goulden (significantly less than $10,000.-) and writes automatic rematch clause into their match contract.
1937 -- Alekhine plays the Euwe rematch. The purse money are still those from Euwe's Dutch backers.
I am not sure if all this is correct, this is just the picture I got.
Additions, clarifications and/or corrections are most welcome.
|Sep-17-06|| ||Calli: I wonder if any there was any coverage of this match in Soviet Russia. Both players being "persona non grata" at this point.|
|Sep-17-06|| ||whatthefat: <positionalgenius>
I wasn't intending to be derogatory. I just felt that you were parachuting out of the argument. And nobody was being accused of hypocrisy, rather I felt you were over looking the hypocrisy - please reread what I said.
|Sep-18-06|| ||positionalgenius: <whatthefat>I read your post the first time.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||whatthefat: Okay, well I intended no offence. I look forward to more heated discussions with you in future. :)|
|Sep-18-06|| ||positionalgenius: <whatthefat>Me neither.Yes,Me and Tal will meet again...:)|
|Oct-03-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: This was probably the most entertaining WCC match in the history. Despite all of that AA vs Capa rematch controversy (and mythology), which overshadows - as the previous discussion shows clearly - this event and its meaning in chess history, Bogo was an outstanding player who deserved his chance to play for the title. Look on these games more closely and judge for yourselves whether it was worthless or not to play this match.:-)|
|Jan-14-07|| ||gauer: The recent chesscafe annual quiz has a problem relating to the match here. Is there a way to allow for extra info to be allowed to be gathered in the games (or somewhere on the match-page intro) that would state which city the game was moved to for which games? Currently, the field is taken up by announcing the stature of the locality, which is also okay to include.|
|Mar-12-08|| ||MichAdams: <The match conditions were the best of 30 games, and 6 wins.>|
'...and 6 wins'!?
|Apr-08-08|| ||RookFile: Mich asks a good question, it's not exactly clear what the phrase means. Alekhine put 11 victories up on the board, so it can't mean that the match would have ended as soon as somebody scored 6 wins. (Unlike early Karpov vs. Kasparov matches, where that was a condition).|
|Apr-08-08|| ||MichAdams: The subject was discussed here:
Alekhine-Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934)
|Apr-08-08|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: I think it simply means that the match is best out of 30 games, with a 6 win requirement. So you if you are leading after 30 games but have only won 4 games the match is not over. The earliest the match could technically end would be after 16 games (16-0). I'm sure others have already posted this elsewhere|
|Apr-08-08|| ||Petrosianic: <Look on these games more closely and judge for yourselves whether it was worthless or not to play this match.:-)>|
In hindsight worthless. Beforehand, perhaps not.
<With> hindsight, it's hard to argue that someone who loses by 6 points was a good challenger. Some of the games are entertaining, yes, but I've felt the same way about some of the games of the Lasker-Marshall match.
|May-06-08|| ||whiteshark: <Ignoring an offer from Bradley Beach, New Jersey to host the Capablanca-Alekhine return match, Alexander Alekhine instead accepted a challenge from the Russian-born German grandmaster, Efim Bogoljubov. Bogolubov was one of those semi-sound attacking players of the type who score some impressive tournament victories, but who invariably come out very badly against their fellow elite. Despite Efim's victories at Moscow 1925, and Bad Kissingen 1928, the chess world gave him little chance of success.1>|
I wouldn't call it 'unbiased', quite the reverse.
|May-06-08|| ||whiteshark: <Gypsy <1929 -- Alekhine plays Bogolubov for less than the full ammoung of $10,000.->>|
My source* said price money <FF 200,000 <<<>>>> but I've no historical conversion table to compare it with US$.
It said nothing about %sharing. In a footnote it said that Bogo received all extra amounts from the organisers that accrued to them.
* Rochade Eurpa, issue 7/1993, page RE7.
|Sep-05-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <<With> hindsight, it's hard to argue that someone who loses by 6 points was a good challenger. Some of the games are entertaining, yes, but I've felt the same way about some of the games of the Lasker-Marshall match.>|
With all respect I disagree. Bogoljubov well deserved his chance for WC shot and his performance in the match was much better than the result may suggest. He won five games, some in pretty impressive brilliant style, and he could have won a few more of them. Alekhine in his then form would have probably crushed everybody and he was undoubtedly stronger player but Bogo by his bold entertaining play made the match very interesting and was able to score more wins against AA than Capa did during his match in 1927. To compare this match with completely one-sided wipe-out like Lasker-Marshall match is not much fair to Bogo.
|Sep-22-08|| ||offramp: As far as I remember this was Alekhine's first serious chess the Capablanca match. I think he had been doing a world tour for 2 years, playing simultaneoi.|
|Sep-22-08|| ||FHBradley: He is also supposed to have completed his Doctor of Law at Sorbonne (1928, I believe), which he didn't, though.|
|Oct-28-08|| ||nasmichael: I see that the match went for 25 games. My question is...in how many games were their adjournments? I like the "to-be-continued" aspect of the pre-computer games, as Bronstein has mentioned, and the opportunities for greater understanding and pursuit of endgame mastery in the process of studying what could exactly be done in the process of sealing a move, studying it with a second, and then preparing to fight another day. |
Again, does anyone know the number of adjournments in this match?
|Dec-06-08|| ||whiteshark: "There are 3 necessary factors to get success:
1. The understanding of own strength and weakness.
2. The accurate understanding of opponent's strength and weakness.
3. The more high aim than the current satisfaction. I see this aim in the scientific and artificial achievements which put chess game into the row of other arts."
(AA in 1929, about distinctions between him and Efim Bogoljubov).
|Jul-24-09|| ||ALEXIN: According to www.chessmetrics.com Bogo was number 4 top player when he played the match in 1929.|
|Aug-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 11 wins|
|Jul-20-10|| ||aragorn69: I lately stumbled on something quite out of the ordinary about this WC match: the titleholder wrote (almost daily) reports on the games for the New York Times! |
Amazing, isn't it? And totally impossible to imagine anything of the kind happening nowadays...
There were Alekhine articles about at least the first eight games, played at Wiesbaden. They make for a good read at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
|Jul-08-12|| ||Calli: Nice clear video of AA, Bogo and Lasker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ap0...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·