Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

WCC Overview

<< previous

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP

next >>

Alekhine vs Bogoljubov 1929
Germany and the Netherlands

Alekhine-Bogoljubow A few days after Alexander Alekhine won the Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927), both masters made a general agreement to play a rematch sometime within the next year, under the same rules as they had played the first match. Jose Raul Capablanca did not, however, issue a formal challenge at this time.^[1] On February 10, 1928 Capablanca wrote FIDE president Alexander Rueb, explaining his ideas about future changes to the world chess championship. Capablanca recommended altering the playing times and reducing the number of games to 16. He also forwarded this letter to Alekhine.^[2] Alekhine interpreted this as a wish to change the conditions for their planned rematch, and wrote Capablanca that he refused to play under any new conditions.^[3] Capablanca answered publicly, explaining that he had been talking about future matches, not the match with Alekhine, which "he hoped to arrange... under precisely the same conditions as those which obtained at Buenos Aires."^[4] In the meantime, on August 24, 1928 Efim Bogoljubov now challenged Alekhine to a world title match.^[5] Alekhine accepted in principle, provided that Bogoljubov could "give the guarantees provided for under the rules of London of 1922," which included a guaranteed $10,000 purse.^[6] On October 8, 1928 Capablanca now formally challenged Alekhine to a rematch.^[6] Alekhine wrote Capablanca that he would give Bogoljubov until January 15, 1929 to "arrange for and give me the guarantees provided for under the rules of London of 1922... In case my match with Mr. Bogoljubov should take place.... I would then be ready to accept your challenge, after the end of that encounter."^[6] In November 1928, American organizers offered Bradley Beach, New Jersey as a venue for an Alekhine-Capablanca rematch, but there exists no evidence that they ever raised the required $10,000 purse.^[7] In January 1929, Alekhine announced that "The match with Bogoljubow interests me far more than the battle with Capablanca... Bogoljubow is a much more serious opponent."^[8] In August 1929, when it became clear that Bogoljubov could not guarantee a $10,000 purse, Alekhine agreed to play him for a smaller amount.^[9]

Efim Dmitriyevich Bogoljubov was born April 14, 1889 in Stanislavitsk, near Kiev, Russian Empire (today Ukraine).^[10] During the 1920s he posted a series of strong results. He drew the Alekhine - Bogoljubov (1921) match, and finished first over Alekhine at Bad Pistyan (1922). After sharing first with Alekhine and Geza Maroczy at Karlsbad (1923), he won both the USSR Championship (1924) and the USSR Championship (1925). At Moscow (1925) he finished first over Emanuel Lasker and reigning world champion Capablanca. Bogoljubov was also the FIDE champion, a title he had won twice in succession: Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928) and Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928).[11] At Bad Kissingen (1928) he triumphed over a group of very strong masters, including Capablanca. Despite these substantial successes, Bogoljubov's play and results also suffered from inconsistency. The Wiener Schachzeitung noted that prior to the match, no one in the chess world had even the slightest doubt about Alekhine winning, except for Bogoljubov himself.^[12]

The match began September 6, 1929 under the following conditions: Alekhine would get $6,000 dollars win or lose, with any surplus going to Bogoljubov. A winner would be declared if he scored 15½ points with 6 wins from a maximum of 30 games.^[9] Unlike the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 match, which had been played in private, the Alekhine-Bogoljubov match would be played in public.^[13] The organizers insisted on this, in order to raise money from ticket sales.^[14] Only those cities that contributed to the purse would be allowed to host the match: Wiesbaden (games 1-8; 24-25), Heidelberg (games 9-11), Berlin (games 12-17), The Hague (games 18-19; 23), Rotterdam (game 20), and Amsterdam (games 21-22).^[15] Emanuel Lasker served as arbiter in the Berlin games.^[16]

Alekhine won the 1st game, but Bogoljubov kept pace, evening the score 1-1 after a win in Game 4. The world champion won the next game, and Bogoljubov came right back again to win Game 6, tying the score at 2-2. Alekhine attributed this loss to an "enforced exchange of queens" on move 15 which produced a position that "could not be defended against by accurate play."^[17] Capablanca was not impressed, writing to Norbert Lederer "...can you imagine B. winning two games from me or Dr. L. so early?"^[18] The world champion now began to draw away with two consecutive victories. Alekhine regarded his win with the black pieces in Game 8 to be among his best, featuring an incisive mating combination beginning with 26...♘g3+!^[19] The match was now interrupted by a scheduled two week break so that Alekhine could attend the 6th FIDE congress in Venice.^[20] On resumption, Alekhine extended his lead to four games, but Bogoljubov clawed back to win games 13 and 14. This would be the challenger's last real resistance. Alekhine now won five of the next eight games, putting the match well out of reach. The final game proved a fitting example of the whole match, which featured exciting, but risky tactical chess throughout. The Wiener Schachzeitung commented that the games were played in "Wild West style," and that Alekhine had won by adapting himself to Bogoljubov's specialty, "the field of tactics."^[12]

After the match, the Allgemeine Zeitung asked Alekhine what he thought were the most significant aspects of the contest. The world champion addressed Emanuel Lasker's prediction that chess would eventually succumb to "draw death,"^[21] explaining that the notion of "draw death in chess is senseless... that is the fault not of chess but the players concerned."^[22] Asked to compare Capablanca and Bogoljubov, Alekhine reckoned that his most recent foe was "more dangerous, although it is much more difficult to win against Capablanca."^[22] In an interview with a Düsseldorf newspaper, Bogoljubov maintained that "Now nobody has a chance to win a match with Alekhine." He went on to say that he "would not advise (Capablanca) to play a rematch, because after this new bout, his aura has completely darkened."^[23]

click on a game number to replay game 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Alekhine 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 ½

Bogoljubov 0 ½ ½ 1 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 0 0 1 0 ½

click on a game number to replay game 21 22 23 24 25
Alekhine 1 1 ½ ½ ½

Bogoljubov 0 0 ½ ½ ½

FINAL SCORE: Alekhine 11; Bogoljubov 5 (9 draws)
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929]

NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]

    · Game #18     Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1929     1-0
    · Game #8     Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1929     0-1
    · Game #1     Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1929     1-0

FOOTNOTES

American Chess Bulletin (March 1928), pp.45-47. In Edward Winter, Capablanca: a compendium of games, notes, articles, correspondence, illustrations and other rare materials on the Cuban chess genius José Raúl Capablanca, 1888-1942 (McFarland 1989), p.209; American Chess Bulletin (July-Aug 1928), p.108. In Edward Winter, Capablanca pp.211-212

American Chess Bulletin (May 1928), pp.86-87. In Edward Winter, Capablanca, pp.207-209

American Chess Bulletin (March 1928), pp.45-47. In Edward Winter, Capablanca p.209

American Chess Bulletin (July-Aug 1928), p.108. In Edward Winter, Capablanca pp.211-212

American Chess Bulletin (Sept-Oct 1928), p.133. In Edward Winter, Capablanca p.213

American Chess Bulletin (Dec 1928), pp. 174-175. In Edward Winter, Capablanca p.213

W. H. W., Daily Mail (16 Nov 1928), p.17. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 8193

Deutsche Schachblätter (1 Feb 1929), pp.35-37. In Edward Winter, Capablanca p. 215

Wiener Schachzeitung (Aug 1929), p.253. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

Jeremy Gaige, Chess Personalia- A Biobibliography (MacFarland 1987), p.44

The FIDE champion was not considered to be world champion. See Edward Winter, "FIDE Championship (1928)"

Weltmeister Aljechin. Wiener Schachzeitung (Nov 1929), pp.337-338. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

Edward Winter, Chess Note 7567

Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946 (MacFarland 1998), p.364

Skinner and Verhoeven, pp.364-371

Wiener Schachzeitung (Oct 1929), pp.311-313. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

Edward Winter, "Seven Alekhine Articles"

The Russell Collection Item 1494. In Edward Winter, Capablanca p.217

Alexander Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937 (Harcourt, Brace and Company 1948), pp.59-60

"Tidskrift för Schack"(Nov-Dec 1929), p.263

Emanuel Lasker, Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca (1926 ed.), pp.32-33. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5437

Gespräch mit dem Schachweltmeister, Allgemeine Zeitung. Reprinted in the Aachener Anzeiger - Politisches Tageblatt (30 Nov 1929). In Edward Winter, Chess Note 7567

Yuri Shaburov, (The Voice 1992), p.43 (pagination from the online edition) "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion"

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing>
Oct-12-16		Allanur: @keypusher, <I was talking about Capablanca.> then, before Alekhine he was challenged by Nimzowich and Capa waited. After his failure, Capa could have still cherry-picked Nimzo instead of Alekhine like Alekhine still chery picked Bogoljubov after he failed to fullfill the demand of Capa. @beatgiant said < The purpose of Capablanca's <London Rules> was to ensure that title matches were lucrative, non-negotiable and rare. Does anyone doubt that? > nonsense. these rules made champion obliged to defend his title under a certian condition. if Capa wanted to ensure title matches non-negotiatible, he could have went on like his predecessors or his successor. After all, Lasker or Steintiz could have ignored any challenge as they wish. < As for cherry-picking Euwe, I think we can say Euwe proved a worthy challenger, given that he actually won the match.> He was cherry-picked before the match he won hence the match he won does not have any effect on him being cherry-picked. <Capablanca refused actual challenges by Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch because they could not raise the stakes.> what a great difference. for Capa, it did not matter by whom he is being challenged. As long as the [weaker] challenger failed, he went on to the next challenger even if the next one is stronger than the failed one. He did not stick to the failed challenger after realising the next challenger might put his title under scrutiny or after realising the next challenger is more of threat than the previous one. what did Alekhine do? He first gave deadline to first challenger, after the first failed he did not appreciate the next one who is more of a challenge, he just sticked to the weaker one. <Alekhine himself was more of an underdog in 1927 than Euwe was in 1935.> debatable but mis-said. Capa was more of a favourite in 1927 than Alekhine was in 1935. Not alekhine was more of an underdog. < So he'd know as well as anyone that upsets happen.> non-sequitor. what relation do these examples have? After all, Bogo was also underdog in 1934. With your logic, Alkehine must have known Bogo will win him and after the match Alekhine must have tealised how wrong he was.

Oct-12-16		beatgiant: <Allanur> <these rules made champion obliged to defend his title under a certian condition.> True, but a condition that could rarely be realized. <Lasker or Steinitz could have ignored any challenge> But they in fact accepted more challenges than Capablanca did. If Capablanca had wanted more matches, he could have had them. <non-sequitor. what relation do these examples have? After all, Bogo was also underdog in 1934.> Any time the champion puts the title at risk against another player in the top five, as Bogoljubov and Euwe then were, there's a non-negligible chance that the title will change hands. And nobody can know that in advance. That possibility existed, no matter whether it actually happend (as with Euwe) or not (as with Bogoljubov).

Oct-13-16		Allanur: <beatgiant: True, But they in fact accepted more challenges than Capablanca did.> Lasker ignored challenges as he wished something Capablanca did not do < If Capablanca had wanted more matches, he could have had them. > Capablanca wanted a match with 10 000 and he played when there was. < True, but a condition that could rarely be realized > so, the absurdity which read < The purpose of Capablanca's <London Rules> was to ensure that title matches were lucrative, non-negotiable and rare. Does anyone doubt that? > is proven nonsense. As for being realised rarely, yes it was realised barely after Capablanca's successor started to cherry pick opponents. < Any time the champion puts the title at risk against another player in the top five, as Bogoljubov and Euwe then were, there's a non-negligible chance that the title will change hands. And nobody can know that in advance. That possibility existed, no matter whether it actually happend (as with Euwe) or not (as with Bogoljubov). > offtopic. the context of this [out of quoted, edited] passage was about Euwe being proven to be worthy challenger at the time he was cherry picked by the 'great' champion Alekhine. Any time a champion cherry-picks an opponent to put his title under risk by, there is non-negligible possibility that the reason the champ cherry-picked him is the champ felt that he is unworthy safe opponent. especially if that cherry-picked opponent lost twice to the man the champ defeated twice.

Oct-13-16		beatgiant: <Allanur> <As for being realised rarely, yes it was realised barely> If Alekhine had continued to accept only those who raised the $10,000, I think there would have been no title matches at all for the rest of his life. There would certainly have been no rematch with Capablanca, who never came close to raising $10,000 as far as we know. If <top 5 players> are not worthy to play for the title, who is? Would you post your criteria or your list of <worthy challengers> (1927-1939)?

Oct-13-16		Allanur: < If Alekhine had continued to accept only those who raised the $10,000, I think there would have been no title matches at all for the rest of his life. There would certainly have been no rematch with Capablanca, who never came close to raising $10,000 as far as we know. > probably right, probably obvious. but does this this possibility have anything against/for "Alekhine cherry pickedd his opponents, Alekhine avoider Capa"? if Alekhine did it, we would probably not have thought he avoided Capa or he cherry-picked his opponents. < If <top 5 players> are not worthy to play for the title, who is? Would you post your criteria or your list of <worthy challengers> (1927-1939)? > why did you ask me this question? why should I write it?

Oct-13-16		beatgiant: <Allanur> So it becomes clear that what you expected of Alekhine was <no title matches at all for the rest of his life>. Am I reading this right? <why did you ask me this question> Do you agree that Alekhine's challengers were worthy? If not, I'm asking you to defend your opinion.

Oct-13-16		Petrosianic: Bogo may or may not have been worthy in 1929. But he wasn't worthy in 1934, and Alekhine himself as much as said so.

Oct-13-16		beatgiant: The signatories to the London Rules were Rubinstein, Maroczy, Reti, Alekhine, Bogoljubov, Tartakower and Vidmar. How did those masters rank in 1922? I doubt Maroczy was a greater threat to Capablanca in 1922 than Bogoljubov was to Alekhine in 1934. Some notable masters (e.g. Spielmann, Grunfeld, Nimzowitsch, Thomas) were missing from the list. As far as I understand, those were not guaranteed a match even if they raised the stake. Does anyone have different information?

Oct-13-16		Petrosianic: There were no rankings back then (chessmetrics is retroactive), but all those people would be regarded as top tier players (although granted, Maroczy was past his prime and unlikely to challenge).

Oct-13-16		Petrosianic: If important people were missing from the signing, it's because they weren't present. The London Rules were drawn up during the London 1922 tournament, and all the signatories were people who were actually <playing> in the tournament. Euwe was there too, but was not yet an important enough player to be involved. (he finished -4, in 11th place).

Oct-13-16		beatgiant: <Petrosianic> Those who did not sign it were not bound by it, and so I doubt they could claim any rights under it either. For example, if a lesser master like Znosko-Borovsky or Ahues managed to raise $10,000 for a title match, would Capablanca be obliged to accept the challenge?

Oct-13-16		Petrosianic: Legally, no. The whole thing was an elaborate Gentleman's Agreement. But a champion who refused to meet a challenge under it after agreeing to it would be severely compromised. The feeling was probably that no lesser master would be able to raise the money, but if someone like Znosko-Borovsky somehow came up with it, and nobody else did, I think Capa would have felt he had to take his money.

Oct-13-16		Petrosianic: You know, something like that ALMOST happened a couple of years ago. FIDE came up with the 2700 Rule, allowing anybody over 2700 to make a challenge. Radjabov, who was a top flight player, but nowhere near THE top got some rich Azeri backers, quickly challenged Topalov under it, and was accepted. But the Unification Match came first, and when Topalov lost, Radjabov's challenge evaporated. But had Topalov become Unified Champion, the match was supposed to be on.

Oct-13-16		RookFile: I believe that if aging Lasker had played Bogoljubov in a match in 1929, Lasker wins.

Oct-15-16		Allanur: <beatgiant: <Allanur> So it becomes clear that what you expected of Alekhine was <no title matches at all for the rest of his life>. Am I reading this right?> no, I did not expect anything from Alekhine <<why did you ask me this question> Do you agree that Alekhine's challengers were worthy? If not, I'm asking you to defend your opinion.> no, I do not agree. what opinion of mine do you ask me to defend? Alekhine the cherry-picker opinion?That is what we are discussing. or did you reckon me to have said "Alekhine's opponents are unworthy"? No, I do not think anyhing on his opponents (e.g: worthy or unworthy)

Oct-15-16		Olavi: I don't understand. All that the London agreement stipulated in this regard was that the champion must defend the title if $10 000 is raised. Of course he could defend it for less. I see nothing wrong with Alekhine's actions.

Oct-15-16		WorstPlayerEver: Bogo had a plus score against Colle, Tarta, Nimzo and Spielmann and he tied Marshall. The facts.

Oct-15-16		offramp: <Olavi: I don't understand. All that the London agreement stipulated in this regard was that the champion must defend the title if $10 000 is raised. Of course he could defend it for less. I see nothing wrong with Alekhine's actions.> Nor do I. Like Lasker and Steinitz, Alekhine could defend the title against whoever he wanted. But if some schmo raised $10,000 then he HAD to play. Quite simple. In 1929 he chose to play against the man that chessmetrics rated as the World Number 1 player in 1927: Bogoljubov. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Play...

Oct-15-16		aliejin: Once removed Lasker was no more Alekhine/Capablanca level chess players The next would be Botvinic but when this great Soviet chess player began to establish itself ... came the war. I think in 1939 Alekhine still was more than Botvinnic (mere speculation of course).

Oct-15-16		RookFile: <WorstPlayerEver: Bogo had a plus score against Colle, Tarta, Nimzo and Spielmann and he tied Marshall. The facts. > With a record like that, they should have just saved time and declared Bogo champ.

Oct-16-16		WorstPlayerEver: Bogo was past his prime in 1929. Until London '27 Bogo beat Nimzo 7 to 2 (1 draw). Then Nimzo beat Bogo 4 to 0 (4 draws).

Sep-11-17		offramp: <beatgiant: ...As for cherry-picking Euwe, I think we can say Euwe proved a worthy challenger.> That is what cherry-picking means: <cherry-pick: to pick or accept the best people or things in a group>. If Alekhine "cherry-picked" an opponent that means he chose the best possible person.

Sep-11-17		beatgiant: <offramp> We agree about that bit. The dispute is: <best possible person> for what goal?

Sep-11-17		Lambda: <I believe that if aging Lasker had played Bogoljubov in a match in 1929, Lasker wins.> You could credibly predict that for Lasker against anyone. He was clearly the best player in the world for 1923-1925, and we have no info after that for nearly a decade.

Sep-11-17		keypusher: < Lambda: <I believe that if aging Lasker had played Bogoljubov in a match in 1929, Lasker wins.> You could credibly predict that for Lasker against anyone. He was clearly the best player in the world for 1923-1925, and we have no info after that for nearly a decade.> Now just a minute! Moscow (1925) Lasker certainly played some great chess, but I'd hesitate to say he was <clearly> the best player in the world in those years. Lasker and Bogoljubov played this interesting exhibition game in 1927, where Bogoljubov seems to have developed some chances. Lasker vs Bogoljubov, 1927 Some of the "living pieces" must have been quite worn out by the end.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!