[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 3 of 5 | next >>

WCC: Lasker-Janowski 1910 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) David Janowski was born in Wołkowysk, Poland (today Vawkavysk, Belarus), but later relocated to France. From the end of the 19th century onward, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.<1> Among his successes were a win in the Janowski - Marshall, 1st Match (1899) and a shared 1st with Geza Maroczy at the Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905). He became known for his strong combinational skills.<2> Janowski was described as "extremely ingenious, sometimes shifty, resourceful" and possessing first class education in chess technique.<3> He was also noted for his low percentage of draws.<3> After London (1899), Janowski challenged world champion Emanuel Lasker to a match for £400 a side. Lasker accepted the challenge,<4> but the negotiations broke down when Janowski insisted on 10 games up and Lasker refused more than 8 games up.<5> In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against Lasker in Paris, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6> In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910). Lasker and Janowski played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) <8> in Paris from October to November 1909, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).<9> On November 12, 1909 they signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10> Lasker defended his crown in the drawn Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February, and Janowski got his shot at the title. Janowski was eager to crush the champion,<11> and had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<12>. He claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<11> According to the challenger, Lasker had worse positions in most games and his opponents only lost because they played for a win prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."<11> During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."<13> The match for the world championship was held November 8 - December 8 in the Kerkau-Palast in Berlin.<14> Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 francs <14> for the first to score 8 victories, draws not counting.<10> Tournament director Ehrhardt Post let Janowski draw the lot to decide who would commence the match with the white pieces.<15> The match began at 4 pm with Lasker having the first move.<15> He won a <22 move miniature> Lasker vs Janowski, 1910 when Janowski blundered a piece on the 19th move. Janowski played for an attack in <game 2>, Janowski vs Lasker, 1910 <16> which was adjourned after 33 moves. Playing time was set from 4 pm to 8 pm the next day,<16> and the game ended in a draw.<17> <Game 3> Lasker vs Janowski, 1910 was a marathon game which had to be adjourned four times and Janowski defended tenaciously to salvage half a point after 101 moves.<18,19> The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in <game 5>. Lasker vs Janowski, 1910 <20> Janowski defended stubbornly again in <game 6> Janowski vs Lasker, 1910 to split the point after two adjournments.<21> Lasker won <game 7> Lasker vs Janowski, 1910. In the twice-adjourned <game 8> Janowski vs Lasker, 1910, Janowski reached a favorable position and refused to take a draw by perpetual check, only to end up losing.<22,23> After losing <game 9> Lasker vs Janowski, 1910 following an adjournment, Janowski took a rest day.<24> Lasker also won games 10 and 11 and retained his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3).<25> There was limited attention from the public since most people thought Janowski had little chance of winning, and it was the second title match in a short span of time.<14> Furthermore, the press gave limited coverage, because Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, so they couldn't be printed without charge.<26> A leading contemporaneous chess periodical criticized the quality of the games, claiming that Nardus' sponsorship was the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.<14> 1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487... 2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", July-August 1910, p. 252. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 3 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February 1927, pp. 29-30. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 4 "British Chess Magazine", September 1899, p. 373 5 "British Chess Magazine", December 1899, p. 509 6 "Wiener Schachzeitung", August 1909, pp. 234-236. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 7 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1908, p. 376. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 8 Edward Winter, "Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 9 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1909, pp. 410-413. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 10 "La Stratégie", February 1910, pp. 60-61. In Edward Winter, "Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 11 "Algemeen Handelsblad", 3 June 1910, p. 9. Provided in Delpher, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... 12 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 9 November 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 13 Emanuel Lasker, "Ost und West", December 1910, p. 825. In http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... 14 "Wiener Schachzeitung", January 1911, pp. 32-33. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 15 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 10 November 1910, p. 10. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 16 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 12 November 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 17 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 13 November 1910, p. 11. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 18 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 14 November 1910, p. 4. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 19 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 16 November 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 20 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 25 November 1910, pp. 8-9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 21 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 23 November 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 22 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 1 December 1910, p. 9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 23 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 3 December 1910, pp. 8-9. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 24 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 6 December 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 25 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 11 December 1910, p. 13. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 26 "Bohemia", 27 November 1910, p. 34. Provided in Kramerius (a project of the National Library of the Czech Republic), http://kramerius.nkp.cz/kramerius/h... ############################## <Placeholder> In May 1909, financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against Lasker in Paris, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France before reaching a final decision.<6> In addition, he had already accepted Carl Schlechter 's challenge in November 1908 to a title match,<7> which was finally played in <early 1910>-<insert match link here>-Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910). Lasker and Janowski played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) <8> in Paris from October to November 1909, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).<9> On November 12, 1909 both masters signed an agreement for a title match in autumn 1910, provided that Lasker retained his title in his upcoming match against Schlechter.<10> ############################## <IMPORTANT SOURCE IMPROVEMENT> The part about Janowski's preparation for the Lasker match based on source <2>, was taken over by the WSZ from the 'Algemeen Handelsblad'. I found the original: http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... 'Algemeen Handelsblad', 3 June 1910, p. 9 the decisive paragraph is the in the 2nd column, right above the game score of the 2nd game. If we implement it, this would be the new source <10> (the WSZ article had been used at the beginning for the characterization of Janowski as a strong combinational player so it has to stay and can't be simply replaced), so in this paragraph "Lasker defended his crown in the drawn Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)) in January and February, and Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<2> He had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<10> The challenger considered Lasker's play to be weak, but the world champion's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."<2> During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."<11>" source <2> would become the new source <10> (i. e. the Algemeen Handelsblad): "Lasker defended his crown in the drawn Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February, and Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker.<10> He had prepared for the match for several weeks in Ostend.<11> The challenger considered Lasker's play to be weak, but the world champion's opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."<10> During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."<12>" and all the subsequent footnotes would have to be changed accordingly. ############################################# EDIT <Karpova>- from Page 5 of 'The Brisbane Courier' of July 26, 1899: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art... -<CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. LONDON, July 25 Herr Lasker has accepted the challenge of M. Janowski to play for the chess championship of the world and £400 a side. In the great international chess tourney which was recently concluded in London Herr Lasker easily won the first prize, and M. Janowski tied with Messrs. Pillsbury and Maroczy for second place. After the conclusion of the tourney M. Janowski challenged Herr Lasker to play for the championship of the world, and the challenge has now been accepted.> ######################################################### EDIT <JFQ>- From Ken Whyld's article on Lasker-Janowski: <"After the tournament Lasker fulfilled engagements in the Baltic states, but was taken ill in Riga and cancelled a projected tour of South Africa. After a period of convalescence in Berlin he went to Paris to play a short match against Janowsky who had a wealthy patron Leonardus Nardus, willing to finance it. The idea was that if Janowsky did well enough Nardus would pay for a full title match. Lakser was never unwilling to allow those with excess wealth to contribute to the needs of the chess community. Four good games were played, <<<Lasker>>> winning the first and last, and Janowsky the second and third. There is certainly no evidence from the games that Nardus was being led on, but the cynic may note that in total Lasker won twenty-six games, drew seven and lost four against Janowsky, and two of these losses were in this short match. Nardus was delighted, and soon arranged a well-paid match of ten games. Lasker explained that it could not be a championship match, because he was already committed to one with Schlechter, but Nardus went happily ahead. Janowsky won one game. It was a Pyrrhic victory for Lasker as it turned out, because it killed any interest in the Schlechter match...> <after the Schlecter match> <...Perhaps the result <<<of the Schlechter match>>> led Nardus to think that Lasker was fading-- after all, he had been at the top for almost 20 years. For whatever reason, he once more financed his protege, and, after a tour of North and South America, Lasker returned to Berlin to collect an easily earned wedding present... (Whyld means the win over Janowski was a wedding present)> -"Emanuel Lasker" by Ken Whyld in <World Chess Champions> Edward Winter, ed. Pergamon Press 1981 pp. 46-47 ######################################################## [[In 1909, Emanuel Lasker played two exhibition matches in Paris against the strong Polish master, David Janowski, drawing the first one (+2 -2 =0) but handily winning the second (+7 -1 =2). These matches were not considered world championship matches. The matches were sponsored by a wealthy painter and chess patron, Léonardus Nardus, who paid Lasker 7,000 francs for the exhibition. Janowski's relative success in the first exhibition match, combined with his financial backing, was enough impetus for Lasker to put his title on the line. ]] ##################### EDIT <Karpova> Original version: <Janowski's relative success in these matches, combined with his financial backing, was enough impetus for Lasker to put his title on the line for the third time in a little over a year. > INSERTED EDIT <JFQ> Edited version: <<Janowski's relative success in the first exhibition match, combined with his financial backing, was enough impetus for Lasker to put his title on the line.> You'll note I also changed "these matches" to "the first exhibition match" because Janowski's score in the second exhibition can in no way be considered part of a "relative success.">> ############################## EDIT <Karpova> <The 1909 'Wiener Schachzeitung' reports on pages 235-236 that the sponsor of the three matches, Leonardus Nardus, tried to arrange a WC match between Dr. Lasker and Janowski right after their drawn exhibition match. Dr. Lasker had agreed in principle (<Lasker hat im Prinzip seine Zustimmung gegeben>) but he had to leave Paris for New York before he could arrive at a decision (<bevor der Weltmeister zu einem Entschluß gelangen konnte.>). It should be noted, that the wording is rather ambiguous - Nardus wanted a WC match but that Dr. Lasker agreed in principle could mean that he merely considered a second match and not necessarily that he would be willing to put his title at stake. Later that year, Nardus finally managed to make them play another match (page 410) but as far as I know there's no contemporary source proving that it was a WC match. The actual WC match in 1910 received the least public attention (pages 32-33 of the 1911 'Wiener Schachzeitung') and the report on it was everything but nice for the following reasons: 1) Janowski not only hadn't faired too well against Dr. Lasker in the II. exhibition match, he had lost earlier in 1910 a match against Dr. Esser. 2) For sure, the dramatic WC match against Schlechter overshadowed such a one-sided affair. 3) Dr. Lasker had reserved the property law for the game scores so the periodicals could not print and annotate them. That's why that scant 2-pages report from 1911 is the only one on the match, while the exhibition matches got extensive coverage> ############################## EDIT <Karpova> <Winter's feature article on why the 1909 matches were not for the WC title reproduces the 1910 WC match agreement from pages 60-61 of the February 1910 'La Strategie' (as it is reiterated there, that no 1909 match was for the title): http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> ################################# [[It would be another 11 years before another world championship match would take place. The first player to secure 8 victories (draws not counting) would claim the title. On the present occasion Janowski fared even worse than in the exhibitions, as Lasker gained an overwhelming victory by 8 games to 0, with 3 games drawn. Janowski was subject to unfortunate oversights in some of the games, and his erratic play was a great handicap to his chances. Play took place in Berlin. The first game was played on November 8th, the match finishing on December 8th.1 ]] ######################################## [1 The Yearbook of Chess, edited by Fred Wilson] EDIT <Phony Benoni> <"The Yearbook of Chess edited by Fred Wilson" is a misnomer. <The Year-book of Chess> was issued by E. A. Michell from 1907-1915. Wilson used selections from the Year-book to compile two books, issued by Dover in 1975 and 1976: <Classical chess matches, 1907-1913> <Lesser-known chess masterpieces, 1906-1915>.> ########################## <FINISHED DRAFT EDIT> <Karpova> David Janowski was born in Wołkowysk, Poland (today Vawkavysk, Belarus) but later relocated to France. From the end of the 19th century onwards, he was a regular participant in strong international tournaments.1 Among his successes were a win in the Janowski - Marshall, 1st Match (1899) and a shared first place with Geza Maroczy at the Barmen Meisterturnier A (1905). He became known for his strong combinational skills.2 The games of his heyday were described as showing the "lion's claw" and he was well-known for his low percentage of draws.3 Financed by his wealthy patron Leo Nardus, in May 1909 Janowski played an <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) against world champion Emanuel Lasker in Paris, which ended drawn (+2 -2 =0). Enthusiastic about the outcome of the match, Nardus proposed a match for the world championship. While Lasker had no objection in principle, he had to leave France.4 They played a second <exhibition match>-<insert match link here>- Lasker - Janowski (1909) 5 in Paris from October to November, which saw Lasker emerge as the clear winner (+7 -1 =2).6 It's possible that Lasker's contract with Carl Schlechter and his departure for America did not allow for negotiations for a world championship match with Janowski in 1909. Despite the last setback, Janowski got his shot at the title in late 1910, after Lasker had defended his crown in the drawn Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) in January and February. Janowski was eager to take revenge and claimed to have studied hundreds of games by Lasker. He considered the world champion's play to be weak but his opponents lost because they tried to cash in on the victory prematurely. Janowski wanted to demonstrate to the world that "Lasker's game was not chess, but dominoes."2 During their title match, Lasker characterized Janowski in the following way: "Independently he searches for the beautiful, ingenious, deep and hidden. Sadly, he goes too far therein. He pays not the slightest attention to ordinariness. In fact, this gives his play a special appeal, at the same time it is also his weak spot."7 The match for the world championship was held from November 8 to December 8 in the Kerkau-Palast in Berlin. Leo Nardus donated a prize of 5,000 Francs for the winner, declared to be the first to score 8 victories. The match began with Lasker winning a miniature, after Janowski blundered a piece on move 19. After an uneventful draw in game 2, Janowski defended tenaciously and salvaged half a point after 101 moves in game 3. The world champion won the next two games, although he had a losing position after 11 moves in game 5. Janowski defended stubbornly again in game 6 to split the point. But Lasker went on to win five consecutive games with Janowski refusing a 3-fold repetition in game 8. Lasker defended his title after only 11 games (+8 -0 =3). The match received limited attention from the public as Lasker had secured the copyright for the games, which therefore couldn't be printed without charge. The games were also criticized as being of low quality with Nardus' sponsorship being the only thing "grandmasterly" about the contest.8 1 http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487... 2 Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1910, page 252 3 Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1927, page 29 4 Wiener Schachzeitung, August 1909, pages 234-236 5 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 6 Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1909, pages 410-413 7 Ost und West, December 1910, page 825 8 Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1911, pages 32-33 3 games, 1910 WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ORIGINAL: Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) 3 games, 1934 WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ARCHIVE ORIGINAL: Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) <1 April - 14 June 1934> Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ARCHIVE Contenders http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=... <NEGOTIATIONS> 26 Feb 1929 "Jose Raul Capablanca, formerly chess champion of the world, told the Associated Press today that Alexander A. Alekhine of Russia, present title-holder, has sent him an invitation for a return match, which he has accepted." Capablanca: "The Cuban Government has materially aided me so that I may continue with my playing and take part in forthcoming international tourneys. I am confident that the crown I lost to Alekhine at Buenos Aires will be regained." -<"The New York Times" 26 Feb 1929, p.23. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.216> === 6 Sept - 11 Nov 1929 Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) === 8 Sept 1929 "Havana, 2 September. A credit of $5,000 recently voted by the Havana City Council to pay the expenses of J.R. Capablanca, former world's champion chess master, has been annulled by virtue of a decree signed at the Presidential Palace by General Muchado." -<"The New York Times" 8 Sept 1929, Section 2, p.3. In Winter "Capablanca" p.216> === Late October 1929 Stock Market Crash === 12 Nov 1929 (One day after the finish of the Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929)) Capablanca letter to Alekhine: "Dear sir... I hereby confirm my previous challenge to play a match for the Chess Championship of the World. I have deposited the sum of five hundred dollars with Dr. Lederer to guarantee the above challenge in accordance with the London Rules of 1922." -<"L'Echiquier" July 1930, pp.859-860. In Winter "Capablanca" p.216> === 28 November 1929 Alekhine Letter to Capablanca "Dear Sir,- I hereby confirm that in Wiesbaden on 14 November last I received your challenge for a world championship match to be played according to the London Rules of 1922. I accept your challenge in principle and I set- in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 10 of the London Rules, 1922- the start of the match for the last months of 1930, i.e. between 15 October and 15 December. As regards the designation of the Referee and stakeholder, this formality should be carried out after I have been advised in which country and place the match is supposed to be held, and the names of those persons or groups who will be responsible for its organization." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.218> === 30 November 1929 Alekhine interview after the 1929 match: ‘And the match with Capablanca?’ Alekhine: ‘If I receive his challenge, I shall meet him in a year’s time, probably in America, where it is an easy matter for him to acquire the money necessary.’ -<published in the Allgemeine Zeitung (Chemnitz) and reprinted in the Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt of 30 November 1929 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> === 24 Dec 1929 Capablanca is relying on Norbert Lederer to set up the details and provisions for the rematch. However, Mr. Lederer now sends bad news to Capablanca: "Dear Capa-... Referring to the match, I am of course perfectly willing to do my best regarding the organization of the same, but you will have to supply the main effort yourself as without your help it will be very difficult to raise the money. The recent Wall Street crash has hit some of our friends very hard indeed and we will find it quite difficult to get any substantial amounts from them. ...the date set for the match by A. is likewise very unfortunate and A. knows this perfectly well: it was carefully explained to him by the Mayor of Bradley Beach that their whole interest lies in the publicity which the town of Bradley Beach would get from the match and the publicity is only of value, of course, if it precedes the season, in which case the hotels would profit thereby. In the winter, everything is closed and they feel that publicity gained in December is of little or now value for the season starting the following July" -<Archives of the Manhattan Chess Club. In Winter "Capablanca" p.219> === 1 June 1930 Capablanca letter to Alekhine Capablanca: "From the information I have received I gather it will be impossible to hld the match in the U.S. this year on the new date suggested by you. The match could have been held in Havana but as you have declared that you would not play there, I could do nothing about it... However, if, as I expect, you really desire to play the match, I am ready to post a forfeit of five hundred dollars to guarantee the match for the Winter of 1930-1931 in some place outside Cuba... -<Winter "Capablanca" p.219> === 12 June 1930 Alekhine writes to Capablanca Alekhine: "Dear sir,-From your letter of 1 June it follows that youare unable to organize the match between us at the time fixed by me... As regards the question of Cuba.... I have never received from you or from a person mandated by you any concrete proposals to play in Cuba... ...the last months of the Winter of 1930-1931, as requested by you- thus 15 February for the start of the match- would be the absolute deadline. Should the further sums referred to in paragraph 12 of the 1922 London Rules not be deposited three months before this date- i.e. by 15 November 1930- your challenge of 12 November 1929 will be considered cancelled and the sum of $500 to which I shall be fully entitled, will have to be paid to me by the stakeholder. " -<Winter "Capablanca" p.220> === 13 June 1930 Lederer writes to Alekhine Lederer: "Mr. Capablanca informs me that the proposed championship will not take place in the fall of the year and has therefore requested me to withdraw the deposit of $500.000 which I have been holding..." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.222> =============== 18 June 1930 Capablanca letter to Alekhine Capablanca: "Dear sir,-I find a clerical error was made in my letter of 1 June 1930. My proposal for the match is for the Winter of 1931-1932... Of course, I shall have no objection to you playing anyone else before." Capa doesn't want to lose his $500 forfeit- Capablanca: "I... wish to call your attention to paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 which make clear the fact that the forfeit of the Five Hundred Dollars is only deposited as a guarantee of good faith after both the referee and stake-holder are appointed." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.221> === 3 July 1930 Alekhine writes Capablanca Alekhine: "...Dr. Lederer has just informed me that... you have asked him to return the sum of $500 deposited by you... This, together with your last two letters, is tantamount to the cancellation of your challenge of 1 October/12 November 1929. As a result, from today onwards I am again free both as regards yourself and others.... I shall not accept any future challenge from you unless it is formally supported by a Federation or a group known in the chess world guaranteeing the entire financial side of the match. In other words, I shall in future require from you the same guarantees I gave you from the outset of the organization of our match in Buenos Aires." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.222> === 25 Sept 1930 Alekhine visited Vienna and was interviewed by Hans Kmoch on September 25, 1930 (pages 257-258 of the September 1930 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'. Page 257: Alekhine just ended his European tour and wants to remain in Vienna for about 2 weeks to finish his book "Der Weg zur Weltmeisterschaft" (On the road to World Championship). On October 18 he will leave for America, to visit the USA and Mexico but just for journalistic purposes and it has nothing to do with a rematch against Capablanca. He will return to Europe around Christmas. Page 258: No Match against Capablanca, who withdrew his challenge for financial reasons. According to London Rules, he had to deposit $500 "Reuegeld" (forfeit/fine) to Norbert Lederer. Alekhine is convinced that it expired, while Capablanca is entertaining the thought of demanding it back. If the matter is not settled amicably, Alekhine wants to appeal to the contractually stipulated arbitrary court. But he emphasizes, that he doesn't want the money for himself, but donated for a good cause. Alekhine's intention is merely to create a precedent. The World Champion shouldn't be challenged and thereby bound to certain obligations, maybe even financially harmed, and then quietly disbanded so to speak (<dann aber sang- und klanglos quasi entlassen wird>). So it's not directed against Capablanca but a matter of principle. Yet, Alekhine believes that there will be time for a rematch against Capablanca on a later point of time. The first among other candidates is Nimzowitsch but there are also younger ones like Kashdan and Flohr. Alekhine also heard the rumour that Bogoljubov was preparing for a second WC match but he doesn't know the full particulars. At the moment there's no challenge pending but he is ready to accept one any time. -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (Sept 1930), p.257-258> === 20 Feb 1931 Capablanca now publishes an open letter to Alekhine Capablanca: "...Whereas since the Buenos Aires match I have repeatedly challenged you to a return match and made every reasonable effort for an opportunity to regain my title, and whereas you have persistently delayed such a re-encounter with me in defiance both of the official rules and the tenets of good sportsmanship... I now hereby issue a final call upon you to accept my challenge for the playing of a match for the chess championship of the world, to be played under the London Rules of 1922- either in the United States or Cuba during the winter of 1932-32... in the event of your failure to accept this challenge to appear against me, I will be compelled to claim the Championship of the World by default, and will be prepared thereafter to meet all comers for the title in free and open competition." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.225> === 16 March 1931 Alekhine writes Capablanca Alekhine: "I accept your challenge based strictly on the 1922 London Rules.... However, to bring such a challenge about ...You will have to submit to arbitration on the matter of the forefeit of the sum of $500 resulting from the fact that you did not realize your challenge of November 1929." Alkehine demands arbitration on the forfeiture of the original $500 and the deposit of a new guarantee of another $500 before the proposed match can move forward, or "I shall consider your challenge null and void." -<Winter "Capablanca" pp.227-228> === 15 May 1931 Capablanca letter to Alekhine Capablanca refuses to forfeit the original $500 he gave to Lederer, claiming that previously, Alekhine had no problem with this: "...when Dr. Lederer wrote to you on 13 June 1930, about the forfeit, you raised to objection to his returning it to me, which would evidently imply that the matter thereby came to an end... I once more remind you that it will be no easy task to make the necessary financial arrangements, especially under present economic conditions, and therefore stipulations increasing the difficulties could hardly fail to create... the unfortunate impression that you are not anxious to play." -<Winter "Capablanca" pp.229-230> === 9 July 1931 Alekhine response to Capablanca published in the "Times Weekly" 9 July 1931 Alekhine: "You say that you are not able to fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 10 of the London Rules. In addition, you have not paid to the stakeholder the sum of $500 (this would be a new $500 paid to a new stakeholder, in addition the forfeiture of the $500 already paid to Lederer) required by the aforesaid rules. Consequently- as I warned you in my letter of 6 March- I consider your challenge as formally annulled." -<Winter "Capablanca" p.230> === Sept 18, 1933 Bogoljubow's challenge. From our chess correspondent. A Reuter message from New York states that on the eve of his departure for his home in Paris Dr. A. Alekhine received a challenge from E. D. Bogoljubow for another match for the chess championship of the world. According to the message Bogoljubow will be ready to play next year under the London conditions, and one may assume that his recent win of the championship of Germany is one of the reasons for his fresh challenge. It will be rembered that he played his previous match with Alekhine at various places in Germany and Holland during the autumn of 1929, and that this match ended somewhat abruptly so soon as it was certain that Alekhine would win, though the stipulated number of games had not been played. Under the London conditions the challenger must find a purse of S10,000, travelling expenses for both players, and living expenses during the period of the match, which means probably about 40,000m. to 45,000m. at the present rate of exchange between Berlin and New York. (The London conditions were based on the American dollar.) One may assume that Bogoljubow consulted the new "Chess Leader" in Germany before issuing his challenge, besides informing him of the probable cost. The message announcing the formation of the All-German Chess League, and the appointment of the new "Chess Leader," published in The Times of July 11, indicated a strict control of the game in Germany, and I cannot see a match of this kind escaping that control. -<"The Times" (18 Sept 1933), p.10> === October 1933 both Capablanca and Alekhine were in the United States, but the champion reported that he was "indisposed" to discuss a rematch with the Cuban. -<"British Chess Magazine" (Oct 1933), p.423. In Edward Winter "Capablanca" p.233> === October 1933 "According to what's recently been reported, Bogoljubow has challenged Aljechin to a match about the world championship. Aljechin has accepted, with the reservation, that the economical conditions be met." -<"Tidskrift för Schack" (Sept-Oct 1933), p.146 http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo...> === October 1933 p. 299 of the October 1933 'Wiener Schachzeitung', it is reported that Bogoljubov challenged Alekhine for the world championship and the latter accepted. Still, he would have to raise $10,000 which will be a hard task, despite of the dollar devaluation. -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (Oct 1933), p.299> === October 1933 British Chess Magazine: "perhaps, in view of the reconstitution of the German Chess federation under Government patronage, Bogoljubow will find it easier to find sufficient backing. -<"British Chess Magazine" (October), p.420> With regard to an Alekhine-Capablanca rematch: "...it is fairly plain that the financial situation is the great obstacle to a match for the championship." -<"British Chess Magazine" (October), p.423> === 19 Feb 1934 Alekhine Radio broadcast arranged by the "N.V. Philips' Omroep Holland Indie" <"British Chess Magazine" (April 1934), p.181> (correction) The broadcast "On the occasion of Dr. Alekhine giving a simultaneous blindfold exhibition in Holland..." -<This was on 19 Feb 1934 (Skinner and Verhoeven, p.488)> "He considered that his most important opponents in matches have been Capablanca and Bogoljuboff. The first man was the more difficult to beat, but Bogoljuboff's play was more dangerous as he is very enterprising, and at times risks everything on a certain combination. His match with Dr. Euwe in 1926 h considered as being too short. He rather underestimated Dr. Euwe so he thought the result of 5 1/2 - 4 1/2 was a correct one, but Dr. Euwe of 1926 is not the same as Dr. Euwe of 1934. At present his chess is very deep and gives great promise for the future... With regard to his match with Bogoljuboff which is commencing early in April and which is guaranteed by the State of Baden, the game will be played mostly in Baden Baden, Munich and Nuremberg. He was hoping to win this match, and if so it is quite likely that Bogoljuboff will not be able to find a backing for a return match. After him the following would come into consideration for further matches-- Dr. Euwe, (page break) Flohr, and Kashdan, since these three are the great masters of the future." -<"British Chess Magazine" (March 1934), pp.97-98 In Edward Winter Chess Note 8868 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> === March 1934 TfS March 1934 p. 61: "The match ... will be start in Baden-Baden 1 April. It will be of 30 games and played in in different places: Baden-Baden, Villingen, Karlsruhe, Mannheim, Pforzhlien, München, Nürnberg, Bayreuth and Wiesbaden. There will be 3 games a week ... According to what's been reported, the winner will meet Euwe in a match." -<"Tidskrift för Schack" (March 1934), p.61 http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo...> === April 1934 -Völlig ernst zu nehmen ist das Projekt eines Matches Dr. Aljechin-Dr. Euwe, über welchen in Amsterdam Vorverhandlungen geführt wurden. Der Weltmeister hat sich grundsätzlich bereit erklärt, im Falle eines Sieges über Bogoljubow gegen Dr. Euwe anzutreten. Auch über die Kampfesdauer (30 Partien) und die damit zusammenhängenden Bedingnngen [sic] ist man sich bereits einig.> The project of a match between Alekhine and Euwe, about which prenegotiations took place in Amsterdam, has to be taken completely serious. The world champion has agreed in principle to play against Euwe, if he beats Bogoljubov. The length of the match (30 games) and the interrelated conditions have been agreed upon already. Source: Um die Weltmeisterschaft, Wiener Schachzeitung, April 1934, pp. 97-98 (this piece of information comes entirely from p. 98). -<"Um die Weltmeisterschaft" "Wiener Schachzeitung"(April 1934), pp.97-98> === April 1934 "It seems... that the next match for the title will be between Dr. Alekhine and Dr. Max Euwe of Amsterdam, whose challenge was accepted by the former 'in principle,' pending the outcome of the match with Bogoljubow." -<"American Chess Bulletin" (April 1934), p.66. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.233-234> === May-June 1934 "Dr. Alekhine and Dr Max Euwe... have agreed to play the next match for the title the latter part of next year... The champion has also announced that he will be prepared, within four months of the conclusion of this engagement, to play a return match with Jose R. Capablanca under the agreement of 1922, stipulating, however, that the amount of the purse must be guaranteed in gold dollars." -<"American Chess Bulletin" (May-June 1934), p.75. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234> === February-March 1935 "During the Moscow tournament in February-March 1935 Capablanca gave an interview to the <Moscow Daily News>. 'He considered Dr. [sic] Alekhine's retention of the title without a match against a serious competitor unjustifiable... Alekhine should, in the first instance, play the promised return-match with himself." -<"British Chess Magazine" (April 1935), p.189 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234> ###################### <CONDITIONS> "The conditions are the same as in the previous match five years ago" -The Times, April 2, 1934, p.8 === The match conditions were identical to those in 1929. There could be up to 30 games, but the winner had to score at least 6 wins and score 15 1/2 points, meaning that there was also a necessary minimum number of games that had to be completed before a winner could be declared.2 This feature was included in order to maximize the purse by spreading the match out over different German cities. Games 1-3 were played in Baden Baden, 4-5 in Villingen, 6-8 in Freiberg, 9-10 in Pforzheim, 11-12 in Stuttgart, 13-15 in Munich, 16 in Bayreuth, 17-18 in Kissingen, 19-20 in Nuremberg, 21 in Karlsruhe, 22-24 in Mannheim, and 25-26 in Berlin. Games 1-3 in Baden Baden Games 4-5 in Villingen Games 6-8 in Freiberg Games 9-10 in Pforzheim Games 11-12 in Stuttgart Games 13-15 in Munich Game 16 in Bayreuth Game 17-18 in Kissingen Games 19-20 in Nuremberg Game 21 in Karlsruhe Games 22-24 in Mannheim Games 25-26 in Berlin> -<Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p.364> =================== De Telegraf: "Games scheduled from 2-7 pm each day. Time control 40 moves in the first 2 1/2 hours." -<"De Telegraaf" (20 March 1934) http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i...> ================== Match Conditions and venues: "The conditions were that there could be up to 30 games in the match, and the winner had to obtain at least six wins and score 15 1/2 points. To increase the financial return, it was decided that games should be played in a number of German cities and that publicity would be maximised by giving simultaneous exhibitions and displays with living pieces in these cities. Play was to start in Baden-Baden on Easter Sunday, 1 April." -<Skinner and Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p.490> ---- Crawfb5: There is a maximum number of games (30). By implication, there is also a <minimum> number of games (16 -- 15 wins and one draw=15.5). While six wins are <required> to win the match, a 6-0 score is not <sufficient> because the minimum number of games have not yet been played. Why specifically 15.5? The maximum score for the loser in a full 30-game match would be 14.5 -<crawfb5> =================== It is clearly stated the the conditions were the same as in the 1st match: 30 games, the winner is the first to get the most points (15.5) if 6 wins are included therein. -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (April 1934), p.97> ================= March 3 1934 "Als nl. de stand 5-5 mocht worden, wordt het match, nul en behoudt, dr. alekhine zijn titel." If the match is drawn with each player having 5 wins, Alekhine retains his title. -<"De Telegraaf" (20th March 1934, and the item was written on March 19) http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i...> === -<Arbiter> Albert Hild of the Thüringian Chess Federation. -<"De Tijd" (27 March 1934) http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i...> 27-03-1934> -<Seconds> "Hans Kmoch was Alekhine's, Hans Mueller Bogoljubov's secundant. Arbiter: Hild, Wettkampfleiter (Wettkampf = match, leiter = leader (but not Führer) or head/chief/manager): Prof. Kraft. At the first game, April 1, Dr. Rueb, representatives of German Chess Federations, P. Biscay the president of the French Chess Federation and also Nimzowitsch among others were present. -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (April 1934), p.113> =================== -<FUNDING> October 1933 p. 299 of the October 1933 'Wiener Schachzeitung', it is reported that Bogoljubov challenged Alekhine for the world championship and the latter accepted. Still, he would have to raise $10,000 which will be a hard task, despite of the dollar devaluation. -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (Oct 1933), p.299> --- 19 Feb 1934 "With regard to his match with Bogoljuboff which is commencing early in April and which is guaranteed by the State of Baden, the game will be played mostly in Baden Baden, Munich and Nuremberg. He was hoping to win this match, and if so it is quite likely that Bogoljuboff will not be able to find a backing for a return match. After him the following would come into consideration for further matches-- Dr. Euwe, (page break) Flohr, and Kashdan, since these three are the great masters of the future." -<"British Chess Magazine" (March 1934), pp.97-98) In Edward Winter Chess Note 8868 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> --- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schach... "The prize fund approximately $ 10,000 were provided converted." Original- "Als Preisfonds wurden umgerechnet etwa 10.000 US-Dollar bereitgestellt." Sourced from the article to -<"The Chess Review" (April 1934), p.50> From <Paint My Dragon>: The Chess Review article actually states: "According to our advices the stake is one of $10,000 in American money." =================== S G Tartakower, Im Zeichen des ewigen Schachs, Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1934, p. 8, who notes that the forthcoming match sets 3 precedents: 1) You are allowed to challenge the world champion without a firm basis yet, and only after he accepted you look for / create such a basis somwhere and somehow. 2) Therefore, the financial basis of the London Rules is invalid. 3) The world champion agrees to play in his challenger's country. -<S.G. Tartakower, "Im Zeichen des ewigen Schachs" "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Jan1934), p.8) http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...> The way Tartakower writes it, point 2 seems to follow from point 1. ----------- -<Rainer Buland, Bernadette Edtmaier, and Georg Schweige, "The guestbook of the World Chess Cup 1934 in Germany: facsimile, research, history and environment" (Lit Verlag June 11, 2014)> In the article of Rainer Buland, Page 22: He quotes <Sauberer, Schach-Lang-Läufer (2013), pp. 91-97> saying that Bogoljubov was able to fulfill Alekhine's financial demands thanks to German patrons. Page 27: The Badische Schachverband managed to organize the world championship almost by himself. that's why the GSB, but also the Berlin and the North German Chess Federations felt hurt. Berlin became a game location only very late, and had the highest risk - the last games may not be played at all. Page 29: Quoting <Sauberer, Schach-Lang-Läufer (2013), pp. 91-117> again: 40,000 Reichsmark (about 200,000 Euros) - a lot of money for a chess event in the 1930s. But this sum appears to encompass the money necessary for the whole event. Page 146: Raised cash 40,000 RM. -In January 1934, 2.61 Mark were worth $1, so 40,000 Mark amounted to roughly $15,000. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty... -- the Badische Schachverband is the Baden Chess Federation. On page 146, it says that the Baden Chess Federation arranged the match (to be exact, the Baden Chess Federation in the GSB). They say (p. 27) that the GSB was not the driving force behind the arrangement and financing of the world championship. The GSB was not too enthusiastic about it for a long time, also because it was possible to do it without them. They admit that there are no direct sources, but studying the contemporaneous chess periodicals leads to the strong implication that the Berlin and North German Chess Federations would have felt hurt, had the Baden Chess Federation managed all of this on his own. Otto Zander is quoted on p. 28 and his words were harsh. The goal of the GSB was to promote chess among the German manual workers (? <Handarbeiter>), and the world championship match does not lay on the way to this goal. Zander was against promoting the match himself or even grant <Bundesmittel> for it. However, he leaves it to the chairman of the Baden Chess Federation to arrange the match in the territory of the Baden Chess Federation. He goes on to say that Dr. Kraft tried so at first, but financial difficulties made him look for game locations outside of Baden - by doing so, he didn't act as a chairman, but as a private man and this led to conflicts with other Chess Federations. Zander notes that it was considered inappropriate that Bohgoljubov was called a German Master or representative of Germany. Zander couldn't prevent Bogoljubov's participation in the Bad Pyrmont tournament, since it had already progressed to far, when he became chairman of the GSB. It could be misunderstood, that the opinion in Germany was today still that someone (e. g. here Bogoljubov) could become German via naturalization. In the future, the German Championship will only be open to players of German blood. ================== De tribune : soc. dem. weekblad 30-06-1934 After the match, it was revealed that The organizers had lost twenty thousand guilders. -<"De tribune" (30 June 1934) http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i...> ################# <PREDICTIONS> April 1934 I checked the Wiener Schachzeitung again (source 5), and found it's p. 97 (not 96). The sentence reads "Der Weltmeister erklärt, sich der Schwere seiner Aufgabe wohl bewußt zu sein, fühlt sich aber trotzdem seines Sieges sicher." when he says that he feels confident about winning the match. Perhaps, our earlier paraphrasing may be improved: "In the spring of 1934, Alekhine reported that he was aware of the difficulty of the task ahead of him, but felt nonetheless sure of victory." or something like that. I think that "feel confident" is a bit too weak for what he actually said - he didn't just have a good feeling, he was sure he would win.. (April), the match is announced/introduced and no scathing remark to be found. Several years had passed since the last WC match and Alekhine is quoted as saying that he was aware of the hard task ahead of him but feels confident. Bogoljubov is said to probably hope for having learned from his mistakes in their first match. Overall, a successful title defense was expected but also many exciting games rich in content (<Die ziemlich einheitliche Meinung der Schachwelt geht jedenfalls dahin, daß Dr. [sic] Aljechin den Weltmeistertitel behaupten wird. Man erwartet auch inhaltsreiche, spannende Partien und das wird wohl in Erfüllung gehen.>). Other masters: Flohr wants a match within 5 years, Capablanca has a long way to go to organize a rematch while the most serious other challenger (p. 98) is Euwe (they proved to be right). === Thanks to <Karpova, thomastonk and whiteshark> for translation of this passage: "Die ziemlich einheitliche Meinung der Schachwelt geht jedenfalls dahin, daß Dr. [sic] Aljechin den <<<Weltmeistertitel>>> behaupten wird. Man erwartet auch inhaltsreiche, spannende Partien und das wird wohl in Erfüllung gehen." In any case, the prevailing opinion of the chess world suggests that Dr. Alekhine will retain the WC title. The people's expectations to see substantial and exciting games will surely be met." -<"Wiener Schachzeitung" (April 1934), p.97> === "In view of the forthcoming match between Dr. Alekhine and E.D. Bogoljubow... the Cuban (J.R. Capablanca)... predicted a second victory for Dr. Alekhine..." -<"The New York Times" Sports Section (24 Dec 1933), p.2. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.233> === "With all deference to Bogoljubow's chess strength, it is difficult to imagine him testing the holder to the utmost." -<"British Chess Magazine" (April 1934), p.152. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.234> ############################### <COURSE OF THE MATCH> ############################## <1st game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> Karpova: The incident is reported on page 134 of the 1934 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': <Hier reklamierte Dr. Aljechin, während seine Uhr lief, Remis durch Zugwiederholung, offenbar in der Annahme, daß sich nach 65....Kc3-d3 - was er dann auch aufschrieb - zum drittenmal dieselbe Stellung ergeben hätte. Bogoljubow überzeugte sich nicht selbst, sondern fragte den Schiedsrichter Herrn Hild. Dieser befand sich in dem Glauben, Aljechin hätte schon 61...Kd3 gezogen und bejahte Bogoljubows Frage. Der wieder gab sich sofort zufrieden und die Meister begannen zu analysieren. Das alles spielte sich in wenigen Sekunden ab. Von anderer Seite wurde dann sofort aufmerksam gemacht, daß die Züge erst zweimal wiederholt wurden, das automatische Remis daher nicht gegeben sei. Die Analyse zeigte, daß Weiß auf Gewinn steht. Es hätte 66. Tb8 Kc2, 67. g4! b2, 68. Ke4! geschehen sollen, Weiß opfert seinen Turm und gewinnt mit den Bauern. Auch 67. h4 b2, 68. Ke4 dürfte genügen. Bogoljubow erklärte sofort, er fühle sich in keiner Weise geschädigt; er habe nur an die Fortsetzung 66. Tb8 Kc2, 67. f5 gedacht, die ohnedies nur zum Remis führt, und zwar wegen 67.... b2, 68. Kf4 Ta4+! 69. Kg5 Ta3, drohend sowohl Txg3+ als auch Tb3. Zur Durchrechnung anderer Varianten fehlte ihm die Zeit, da er für 15 Züge nur etwa 7 Minuten zur Verfügung hatte.> In short: After 65.Rc8+, Alekhine claimed a draw via three-fold repetition while his clock was running. Bogoljubov didn't check himself but asked the arbiter Hild instead who wrongly assumed that 61...Kd3 had been played and so answered Bogoljubov's question with yes. Efim was contend and both started to analyse. All of this took just a few seconds. Then, someone pointed out that it had only been a two-fold repetition. Analysis gave the following winning lines for White: 66.Rb8 Kc2 67.g4! b2 68.Ke4! with White sacrificing his rook and win with the pawns. But 67.h4 b2 68.Ke4 should also have been sufficient. Yet, Bogoljubov didn't feel cheated as he had only seen the drawing line 66.Rb8 Kc2 67.f5 (67...b2 68.Kf4 Ra4+! 69.Kg5 Ra3 threatening Rxg3+ and Rb3). Furthermore, he hadn't had enough time to calculate other variations being down to about 7 min for 15 moves. ################################ <2d game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1-0> P-K4 (e3-e4)! click for larger view "A surprise for Black who most likely expected the half-suicidal P-K Kt 3. (g2-g3)" In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.134 ################################ <3d game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <4th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1-0> In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.135 Kasparov: 19.Bd3-c4? click for larger view (p.415) After 19...Bc6-b7 click for larger view "Now White has a difficult, strategically almost hopeless position. It is another matter that Alekhine begins somehow to defend himself and to wriggle, Bogoljubow is unable to find a forced win, and time-trouble interferes." (p.416) 48...Nd5xf4? click for larger view "...a ridiculous mistake" Alekhine: "This exchange of his best-posted piece against the cripple at e2 definitely spoils Black's position." (p.417) -<Garry Kasparov, "On My Great Predecessors Part 1" (Everyman Chess 2003), pp.415-417> ################################ <5th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <6th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <7th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <8th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> Nimzowitsch recalls conversation with Bogolujbov after game 8: Paraphrase by Skinner and Verhoeven- "He reported on a conversation he had with Bojoljubow after the eighth game, when he was asked by Bogoljubow: 'Do you believe tht one can by hypnotised.' Nimzowitsch went on to say: 'Apparently he believed that his performance in the match was being influenced by some hypnotic power brought about by Alekhine.' In spite of being assured by Nimzowitsch that this was impossible, Bogoljubow insisted that it could be done. He seemed unable to comprehend that Alekhine was deliberately playing on his well known sense of optimism in dealing with complicated tactical situations. Instead of defusing and simplifying the positions that Alekhine provoked, he aided and abetted Alekhine's strategy by entering into the tactics with great enthusiasm" -<"De Telegraaf" (1 May 1934) report on game 8 by Nimzowitsch. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.490> --- -<Chess Note 5282> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Mr Wrinn also draws attention to the following remark by Emanuel Lasker: ‘Bogoljubow, it seems, believes in the art of subjecting one person to the will of another by some extraordinary power. Can such an art exist? Decidedly no. If it did exist and someone set himself up as a teacher of this art, he would have the whole world for his customers and yet derive no advantage therefrom, because his pupils would hypnotize him and then suggest to him the return of the tuition fee.’ This comes from page 11 of Lasker’s book Games Played in the Return Match for the World’s Championship (London, 1935), and for the context we reproduce below the full page: ============== Chess Note 5282 5282. Alekhine and Bogoljubow (C.N. 5274) Mr Wrinn also draws attention to the following remark by Emanuel Lasker: ‘Bogoljubow, it seems, believes in the art of subjecting one person to the will of another by some extraordinary power. Can such an art exist? Decidedly no. If it did exist and someone set himself up as a teacher of this art, he would have the whole world for his customers and yet derive no advantage therefrom, because his pupils would hypnotize him and then suggest to him the return of the tuition fee.’ This comes from page 11 of Lasker’s book Games Played in the Return Match for the World’s Championship (London, 1935), and for the context we reproduce below the full page: lasker http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ################################ <9th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <0-1> 4.P-QB4 (f2-f4) click for larger view "This decidedly premature rejoinder can only be explained by the fact that Bogoljubow had again missed a win in the previous game, and was particularly anxious to make a better show in this one." In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.139 ################################ <10th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <0-1> ################################ <11th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <0-1> ################################ <12th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <13th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <14th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <15th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <16th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1-0> In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.141 ################################ <17th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <0-1> In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.144 ################################ <18th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <19th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <20th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <21st game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <0-1> ################################ <22d game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ################################ <23d game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <1-0> AVRO38: <8...Bc2 doesn't make sense to me. That bishop will eventually get kicked out, and it can't cause any damage while there. According to chessgames.com this is the only instance of this move.> The point of 8...Bc2 was to trap the queen after 9...Nb6. In the 1934 and 1935 matches Alekhine played bad moves like this expecting his opponent to fall for his tricks or to at least fail to find the best response. The final score of the 1934 match should have been much closer than it actually was but Bogo failed to convert winning positions into full points. Euwe learned from this and made Alekhine pay the price in 1935. Alekhine in turn learned his lesson and played only solid chess in 1937. The result speaks for itself. ################################ <24th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <0-1> ################################ <25th game> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934 <0-1> In <My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937>, p.145 ##################### <26th game> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1934 <1/2> ###################### <POST MATCH EVALUATIONS> http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... On <game 4> After noting a suggested improvement on move 29... from <Dr. Lasker>, Alekhine goes on to say: "This game – more than any other – proves how useless from the sporting point of view was the arrangement of this second match, and at the same time explains my indifferent play on a number of occasions. I felt sure that Bogoljubow was no longer able to take advantage of the opportunities my play might present to him, and – very unfortunately for the general artistic value of the present match – the score 7 to 1 in my favour after the 22nd game fully justified my sanguine outlook." -<Alexander Alekhine "My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937" (Dover 1995), p.137> === "With all due respect to Bogoljubow, who as a tournament player has attained the highest flights, this result is wholly in accordance with general expectations..." -American Chess Bulletin May-June 1934, p.75 In Winter "Capablanca" p.234 ====== "The result was, as we say, generally anticipated. It might indeed be called inevitable, nothing having occurred during the past five years to suggest that the challenger had any chance of defeating the holder of the title. this is no disparagement of so fine a fighter as Bogoljubow, but merely a necessary tribute to the present pre-eminence of Alekhine among the chess masters of the world." -The British Chess Magazine 1934, p. 287 In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.490 1 game, 1934 WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ARCHIVE Contenders Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 ARCHIVE Analysis of <POTENTIAL OPPONENTS> for Alexander Alekhine between Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) (6 Sept - 12 Nov 1929) and Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) (1 April - 14 June 1934) -<Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, Kashdan, Flohr, Euwe, Bogoljubov> ############################## <Relevant Events> -<The Hague Olympiad> (21 July - 6 Aug 1928) Kashdan 1st board for USA, won gold medal with +12 -1 =2 === Karlsbad (1929) (31 July - 26 Aug 1929) Nimzowitsch 1st, Capablanca and Spielmann shared 2nd, Euwe shared 5th, Bogoljubov 8th A Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1929 <1/2> Bogoljubov vs A Nimzowitsch, 1929 <0-1> A Nimzowitsch vs Euwe, 1929 <1-0> Euwe vs Capablanca, 1929 <1/2> Capablanca vs Bogoljubov, 1929 <1/2> Bogoljubov vs Euwe, 1929 <1/2> === Budapest (1929) (1-16 Sept 1929) Capablanca 1st, over Rubinstein, Tartakower, Vajda and G.A. Thomas === Hastings (1929/30) (27 Dec 1929 - 4 Jan 1930) Capablanca 1st, over Vidmark, Sergeant and Menchik === San Remo (1930) (16 Jan - 4 Feb 1930) Alekhine 1st, Nimzowitsch 2nd, Rubinstein 3rd, Bogoljubov 4th Alekhine vs A Nimzowitsch, 1930 <1-0> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1930 <1/2> Bogoljubov vs A Nimzowitsch, 1930 <0-1> === -<Hamburg Olympiad 1930> (13th - 27th July 1930) Flohr 1st board for Czechoslovakia, won silver medal with +14 -2 =1 Kashdan 1st board for USA, won bronze medal with +13 -1 =3 (Kashdan won round 5 by default) Kashdan vs Flohr, 1930 <1-0> === Liege (1930) (19-30 Aug 1930) Tartakower 1st, over Sultan Khan, Ahues and Nimzowitsch === Frankfurt (1930) (6-18 Sept 1930) Nimzowitsch 1st, over Kashdan, Ahues, List and Colle A Nimzowitsch vs Kashdan, 1930 <1/2> === -<Stockholm 1930> (20-27 Oct 1930) Kashdan 1st, over Bogoljubov, Stoltz, Stahlberg and Spielmann Bogoljubov vs Kashdan, 1930 <0-1> === Hastings (1930/31) 20 Dec 1930 - 7 Jan 1931 Euwe 1st, over Capablanca, Sultan Khan and G.A. Thomas. Flohr won the Premier Reserves Section (Di Felice 1931-1935 p.3) Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931 <1/2> === -<New York 1931> (Di Felice p.37) (18 April - 2 May 1931) Capablanca 1st, over Kashdan, Kevitz, Horowitz Kashdan vs Capablanca, 1931 <1/2> === <Capablanca - Euwe (1931) Match> (1-10 July 1931) Capablanca won +2 -0 =8 === -<Prague Olympiad 1931> (11 - 26 July 1931) Alekhine 1st board for France, won gold medal Bogoljubov 1st board for Germany, won silver medal Kashdan 1st board for USA, won bronze medal Flohr 1st board for Czechoslovakia Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1931 (1/2) Alekhine vs Kashdan, 1931 (1/2) Flohr vs Alekhine, 1931 (0-1) Kashdan vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (1/2) Flohr vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (0-1) Kashdan vs Flohr, 1931 (1-0) === Bled (1931) (23 Aug - 28 Sept 1931) Alekhine 1st, over Bogoljubov, Nimzowitsch, and Flohr/Kashdan/Stoltz/Vidmar shared 4th-7th Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (1/2) Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1931 (0-1) Alekhine vs A Nimzowitsch, 1931 (1-0) A Nimzowitsch vs Alekhine, 1931 (0-1) Alekhine vs Flohr, 1931 (1-0) Flohr vs Alekhine, 1931 (1/2) Alekhine vs Kashdan, 1931 (1/2) Kashdan vs Alekhine, 1931 (1/2) A Nimzowitsch vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (1/2) Bogoljubov vs A Nimzowitsch, 1931 (0-1) Flohr vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (0-1) Bogoljubov vs Flohr, 1931 (1-0) Bogoljubov vs Kashdan, 1931 (1-0) Kashdan vs Bogoljubov, 1931 (0-1) Flohr vs A Nimzowitsch, 1931 (0-1) A Nimzowitsch vs Flohr, 1931 (1-0) Kashdan vs A Nimzowitsch, 1931 (1-0) A Nimzowitsch vs Kashdan, 1931 (0-1) Kashdan vs Flohr, 1931 (0-1) Flohr vs Kashdan, 1931 (1/2) === Game Collection: Hastings 1931/32 (28 Dec 1931 - 6 Jan 1932) Flohr 1st, over Kashdan 2nd and Euwe 3rd Kashdan vs Flohr, 1931 (1/2) Flohr vs Euwe, 1931 (1/2) Kashdan vs Euwe, 1932 (1-0) === -<Bogoljubov-Spielmann Match 1932> (Di Felice p.131) (7-20 Jan 1932) Spielmann won +4 -3 =3 === London (1932) (1-12 Feb 1932) Alekhine 1st over Flohr 2nd, Sultan Khan and Kashdan shared 3rd Alekhine vs Flohr, 1932 (1/2) Kashdan vs Alekhine, 1932 (1/2) Flohr vs Kashdan, 1932 (1/2) === -<Flohr-Euwe Match Part I> In London (22-27 Feb 1932) Flohr won +2 -1 =3 === -<Bad Sliac 1932> (Di Felice p.77) (11-28 June 1932) Flohr shared 1st with Vidmar, over Pirc, Canal, Maroczy and Spielmann === Bern (1932) (16-30 July 1932) Alekhine 1st over Euwe and Flohr shared 2nd, Bogoljubov shared 5th Alekhine vs Euwe, 1932 (1/2) Alekhine vs Flohr, 1932 (1-0) Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1932 (1-0) Flohr vs Euwe, 1932 (1/2) Euwe vs Bogoljubov, 1932 (1-0) Flohr vs Bogoljubov, 1932 (1/2) === -<Flohr-Euwe Match Part II> In Karlsbad (12-22 Aug 1932) Drawn. Flohr won the overall match by 7½-6½ === Game Collection: 1932 Pasadena (16-29 Aug 1932) Alekhine 1st, over Kashdan 2nd, Dake and Reshevsky Alekhine vs Kashdan, 1932 (1-0) === Mexico City (1932) (6-17 Oct 1932) Alekhine shared 1st with Kashdan Alekhine vs Kashdan, 1932 (1/2) === Game Collection: Hastings 1932/33 (28 Dec 1932 - 6 Jan 1933) Flohr 1st, over Pirc, Lajos Steiner and Sultan Khan Flohr vs S Khan, 1932 (1-0) === -<Folkstone Olympiad 1933> (12-23 July 1933) Alekhine 1st board for France (gold medal), Kashdan 1st board from USA (silver medal), Flohr 1st board for Czechoslovakia Alkhine rested in 13th round vs Czechoslovakia and did not play Flohr. Kashdan vs Alekhine, 1933 (1/2) Flohr vs Kashdan, 1933 (1-0) === -<Scheveningen 1933> (Di Felice p.180) (25 July - 1 Aug 1933) Flohr 1st over Maroczy and Bogoljubov shared 2nd-3rd Flohr vs Bogoljubov, 1933 (1-0) === Botvinnik - Flohr (1933) (28 Nov - 19 Dec 1933) Drawn === Hastings (1933/34) (27 Dec 1933 - 5 Jan 1934) Flohr 1st, over Alekhine, Lilienthal, C.H.O.D. Alexander and Eliskases Flohr vs Alekhine, 1934 (1/2) ================ Bogoljubov prepared for the match by playing a tournament in Bayreuth, Germany (9.5/10 ahead of E. Hahn with 9.0 points). He then played a serious 15-games match against Hans Mueller, scoring +7 -3 =5. Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, May 1934, p. 141. Provided in "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek", http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... === Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) (1 April - 14 June 1934) === Zuerich (1934) (14-28 July 1934) Alekhine 1st, over Euwe and Flohr shared 2nd-3rd, Bogoljubov 4th, Lasker 5th, Nimzowitsch shared 6th-7th === Hastings (1934/35) (27 Dec 1934 - 5 Jan 1935) Euwe amd Flohr shared 1st, over G.A. Thomas, Capablanca and Botvinnik. =============== 25 Sept 1930 Alekhine visited Vienna and was interviewed by Hans Kmoch on September 25, 1930 (pages 257-258 of the September 1930 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'. p.258: The first among other candidates is Nimzowitsch but there are also younger ones like Kashdan and Flohr. Alekhine also heard the rumour that Bogoljubov was preparing for a second WC match but he doesn't know the full particulars. At the moment there's no challenge pending but he is ready to accept one any time. === January 1934 (TfS Jan. 1934 p. 13), http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... Aljechin says (as he had been interviewed by the Swedish magazine "Vecko-Journalen" at Café du Dome in Paris, one day after he had returned from Czechoslovakia, and he was to leave for Rotterdam the next day, and then to Hastings): "You know that I recently have agreed about a return match with Bogoljubow, don't you? It will probably be played in Baden-Baden in April. True I have once beaten B. in a championship match, but it will certainly be interesting to meet him again. He is a dangerous player - next to me he is one of the world's three strongest." === 19 Feb 1934 -<This was on 19 Feb 1934 (Skinner and Verhoeven, p.488)> With regard to his match with Bogoljuboff which is commencing early in April and which is guaranteed by the State of Baden, the game will be played mostly in Baden Baden, Munich and Nuremberg. He was hoping to win this match, and if so it is quite likely that Bogoljuboff will not be able to find a backing for a return match. After him the following would come into consideration for further matches-- Dr. Euwe, (page break) Flohr, and Kashdan, since these three are the great masters of the future." -<"British Chess Magazine" (March 1934), pp.97-98> In Edward Winter Chess Note 8868 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ================ The Soviet Chess Federation chose Flohr as a "test opponent" for <Botvinnik> in 1933: "Krylenko authorized Ilyin-Genevsky... to open negotiations with Czech star Salo Flohr for a match with Botvinnik in the Soviet Union. Flohr... was at the peak of his career and a legitimate world-championship challenger. A match between Botvinnik and the brilliant, diminutive positional player would be a cultural showcase for the USSR. Botvinnik claimed that the Muscovite members of Higher Soviet of Physical Culture tried to kill the match on the grounds that <<<Flohr>>> would win easily. But Krylenko was adamant." -"Soviet Chess 1917-1991" Andrew Soltis MacFarland, 2000 p. 76 === ######################## http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Chess Note 5275 Alekhine on Nimzowitsch Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) asks about an article by Alekhine in Skakbladet after Nimzowitsch’s death. C.N. 1931 mentioned the tribute, which was published in the May 1935 issue of the Danish magazine: 1 game, 1934 WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935 ORIGINAL: Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935) <DRAFT EDIT> in progress: <JFQ> ##################### During the Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) Alekhine accepted a title challenge from Max Euwe.<1 "American Chess Bulletin" April 1934, p.66. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.233-234> Jose Raul Capablanca regarded this agreement to be "unjustifiable," insisting that Alekhine first "play the promised return-match with himself."<2 "British Chess Magazine" April 1935, p.189. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234> But Alekhine held Capablanca to the $10,000 purse requirement guaranteed by the London rules of 1922. <3 "American Chess Bulletin" May-June 1934, p.75. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234> The champion felt justified to play Euwe for a lower purse because Euwe never signed the London rules.<4> Capablanca, who had blanked Euwe +2 -0 =8 in a Capablanca - Euwe (1931) match, did not regard him to be a "serious competitor" for the title,<2>. According to Hans Kmoch, in January 1934 he and Euwe were discussing his equal record against Alekhine of "7:7 out of their last 14 games," and Euwe decided that evening to challenge Alekhine.<5> Euwe's record suggests he was a serious competitor for the title. Though he had never beaten Capablanca, he had finished ahead of him at Hastings (1930/31) and Hastings (1934/35). He boasted victories over Mikhail Botvinnik, Efim Bogoljubov, Salomon Flohr, and most importantly Alekhine himself, including their <last encounter>-<insert game link here Euwe vs Alekhine, 1934> at Zuerich (1934)> The match conditions stipulated an initial limit of 30 games to be played in 13 different Dutch cities. The first to 15 1/2 points with 6 wins would triumph, with Alekhine enjoying draw odds.<7> If Euwe led after 30 games without 6 wins, the match would continue until he made 6 wins or Alekhine equaled his score.<4> Alekhine would also receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700) win or lose, and the right to a rematch within one year.<4,8> Hans Kmoch was arbiter and the seconds were Geza Maroczy (Euwe) and Salo Landau (Alekhine). Euwe recalls that "...after the 26th or the 27th game Landau withdrew after a disagreement with Alekhine. In the remaining games [(Ernst Ludwig Klein helped Alekhine, but he had no official status." <9> Alekhine began by surging to a 5-2 lead. Some fans believed Euwe "would crack completely," but he clawed back with a sparkling win in <game 8>-Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 .<10> Alekhine remained sanguine, later recounting that "from the 10th to the 14th games, I was falsely persuaded into a belief that the match was virtually over."<11> It wasn't. With the champion leading by a point, a mishap caused Alekhine to show up late for game 21. Alekhine became angry that the car sent to pick him up was delayed by traffic, and he began drinking hours before the game. The next day "the press became harsh towards Alekhine, claiming that he had come to the game totally intoxicated... to upset his opponent with unsportive behavior."<12> The "Het Volk" appears to have been the first Dutch newspaper to make these charges.<13> Alekhine, Euwe, Kmoch, and FIDE president Alexander Rueb later denied the charges.<11,12,14>. Alekhine lost the game, handing Euwe a momentum he would never relinquish. Euwe struck twice more to lead by 2 points with only 4 games to play. Alekhine responded magnificently by winning <game 27>- Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935, a performance Emanuel Lasker called "a brilliant achievement... It is the more to be acclaimed, as he was obviously getting through a crisis of the soul."<15> Euwe led by a point heading in to the final game, meaning Alekhine had to win to retain his title. After move 40, the game was agreed drawn. Max Euwe had become the 5th world chess champion. At the victory celebration, Alekhine announced "I am proud and happy that the world has as a chess champion, a gentleman.” Euwe replied that "from my birth I've been your friend and admirer... I will always be." Alekhine then interrupted Euwe with a spontaneous remark, "Mister World-Champion, you were always my friend, and will always stay my friend." This triggered a thunderous burst of applause, and Euwe, visibly moved, walked over to Alekhine to shake his hand, as the ex-champion finished by murmuring "I have always respected you."<16> 1 "American Chess Bulletin" April 1934, p.66. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.233-234 2 "British Chess Magazine" April 1935, p.189. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234 3 "American Chess Bulletin" May-June 1934, p.75. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.234 4 Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" (MacFarland 1998), pp.534-535 5 Hans Kmoch, "Max Euwe" (Berlin and Leipzig 1938), p.123. In Edward Winter, "Chess Facts and Fables" (McFarland 2006), p. 298 7 "Wiener Schachzeitung" May 1936, pp.133-139 8 "Het Phohi-Sportpraatje. Schaken en Voetbal." in "Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië" (24 Dec 1935), p.3 In http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... 9 "The Times" 18 February 1978, p.13. In Edward Winter, "Ernst Ludwig Klein" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 10 "Wiener Schachzeitung" October-November 1935, pp.309-310 11 "Chess" 14 Dec. 1935, p.124. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7937 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 12 "Wiener Schachzeitung" Jan 1936, pp.17-20 13 "Het Volk" 20 Nov 1935. Cited in "Limburger koerier" 21 Nov 1935, p.7 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... 14 Munninghoff, p.131 15 "Wiener Schachzeitung" January 1936, pp.8-10 16 "Profilti-News" 15 Dec. 1935. French transl. Sarah Brown, Dutch and German transl. Dakgootje. http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler... ############################ -<On DRAW ODDS> <Alekhine-Euwe 1935> Kmoch describes with the last sentence beginning on that page and ending on the other. Here my rough translation:(concerning game 30) "If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the champion undefeated and everthing remains the same, as it has happened after the match Lasker vs Schlechter." -pp. 133-134 of the May 1936 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (Hans Kmoch, Amsterdam, 15 December 1935). ############################################ <Rematch Clause> <As noted in C.N. 2473, the contract for the 1935 championship match specified that, if defeated, Alekhine would be entitled to a rematch ‘at a time acceptable to Dr Euwe, in view of his profession’. Euwe narrowly won that 1935 contest, and page 393 of the August 1936 BCM reported that when the two players met in Amsterdam on 19 June 1936 ‘the arrangement was then confirmed to begin the return match for the world championship title in October 1937’, in various Dutch cities.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################################# <1> Between April 1 to June 14, 1934 (Alekhine-Bogoljubov match) <"It seems... that the next match for the title will be between Dr. [sic] Alekhine and <<<Dr. Max Euwe>>> of Amsterdam, whose challenge was accepted by the former 'in principle,' pending the outcome of the match with Bogoljubow."> "American Chess Bulletin" April 1934 p. 66 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (MacFarland 1989), p.p. 233-234 ############################################ <2> February-March 1935 <"During the Moscow tournament in February-March 1935 Capablanca gave an interview to the <Moscow Daily News>. 'He considered Dr. [sic] Alekhine's retention of the title without a match against a serious competitor <<<unjustifiable...>>> Alekhine should, in the first instance, play the promised return-match with himself."> British Chess Magazine April 1935 p. 189 In Edward Winter "Capablanca" MacFarland, 1989 p.234 ############################################ <3> May-June 1934 <"Dr. [sic] Alekhine and Dr Max Euwe... have agreed to play the next match for the title the latter part of next year... The champion has also announced that he will be prepared, within four months of the conclusion of this engagement, to play a return match with Jose R. Capablanca under the agreement of 1922, stipulating, however, that the amount of the purse must be guaranteed in <<<gold>>> dollars."> -"American Chess Bulletin May-June 1934 p. 75 In Edward Winter "Capablanca" MacFarland, 1989 p.234) ############################################ <4> June 1934 <"As early as June 1934, even before the world championship match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow had finished, Euwe had cabled Alekhine signifying his agreement to play a match for the world championship on Alekhine's terms.... One important point was that Euwe had not been a signatory to the <<<London Convention of 1922,>>> so Alekhine felt quite justified in stipulating financial conditions that were considerably easier than those he was insisting on from Capablanca."> -Skinner and Verhoeven "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" MacFarland, 1998 pp. 534-535 ############################################ <5> Alexander Munninghoff "Max Euwe, The Biography" New in Chess, 2001 pp. 101-103 ############################################ <6> Chessmetrics http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Mont... ############################################ <7> On DRAW ODDS <Alekhine-Euwe 1935> Kmoch describes with the last sentence beginning on that page and ending on the other. Here my rough translation:(concerning game 30) <"If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the champion undefeated and <<<everything>>> remains the same, as it has happened after the match Lasker vs Schlechter."> <Amsterdam, Bellevue, December 15. Who would have thought at the beginning of the match taht the 30th game would be decisive? Again reiterating: If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the WC not beaten P. 134: and like in Lasker - Schlechter 1910, veverything stays the way it was. The committee rented the biggest hall available, but the capacity of 2,000 people was not enough. a strong platoon of ploicemen on horses had to keep the people seeking entrance at bay. Snow fell, yet the enthusiast stood in the queue for hours. It was Sunday, or else the press would have printed a special for every phase of the game, but this way the resorted to posting the moves with chessplayers explaining them. One newspaper rented a hall for 1,000 people (completely full) wherein an international grandmaster explained the moves, as they didn't want the people to have to wait outside in the cold. The game began at 7 pm, the committee had delayed the game for half an hour to lower the excitement. Euwe arrived at 6:30 pm and was hailed frenetically by the audience. In the last minute, Alekhine arrived. The WC was very elegantly dressed, though pale but glancing like during his lordliest/proudest days and welcomed with applause. he bowed down and said they meant his opponent (<<<Der Weltmeister trug Festkleidung: Frack, weiße Binde, Lackschuhe - eine blendend elegante Erscheinung. Wohl war sein Antlitz bleich, aber er hielt den Kopf hoch und blickte drein wie in seinen stolzesten Tagen. Die Menge klatschte. Da trat er an die Rampe, verneigte sich tief und sagte lächelnd: "Ich weiß, daß der Beifall meinem Gegner gilt". Es war eine wehmütige Ablehnung.>>>). P. 135: Game 30 (last), December 15, Hotel Bellevue, Amsterdam. White 2 h 10 min, Black 1 h 50 min. P. 136: Euwe offered a draw after 25.Rf2 but Alekhine declined, showing signs of earnest regret. P. 137: After move 34, Euwe repeated his draw offer but Alekhine rejected with tortured mien (<<<gequälter miene>>>) <<<"Ich muß, ich muß weiterspielen!">>> (i must, i must to play on). After Euwe had made his 40th move and prepared to sealhis following move, Alekhine understood that everything was over. <"Werden sie ihren nächten Zug abgeben?"> (are you going to seal your next move?) alekhine asked with low voice, Euwe shrugged <<<Wir haben es doch immer so getan.>>> (we always did it that way). The WC lowered his head for the fraction of a second, composed himself immediately and declared to be willing to accept the draw offer. Euwe gladly did, they stood up and Alekhine was the first one to congratulate him. Kmoch has a hard time decribing what happened then as exaltation was breaking out. 40 guards stormed the hall. cohorts of filmmakers appeared (<<<Scharen von Filmoperateuren>>>). Euwe got a huge laurel crown around his neck and flowers, flowers, flowers. Mr and Mrs Alekhine got a lot (<<<wurden reichlich bedacht>>>). Alekhine congratulated chess-holland. Euwe managed to esape outside but he was spotted and carried on shoulders to Hotel Carlton, wherein an improvised victory party took place <<<wobei es derart toll zuging, daß sogar Euwe ein Glas Whisky an die Lippen hob>>> (it was so great/mad a party that even Euwe put a glass of whisky at his lips). The celebrations went on for some days. P. 138: Euwe slept at most 3-4 h per night. This is how his vacancies went by (he was granted 3 additional weeks). last great obeisanc on january 19 in Delft, the <<<Unterrichtsminister>>> awarded him the <<<Offizierskreuz des Oranje-Nassau-Ordens>>>. Now the chess company (most attended the official closing banquette) : Lasker & Mieses had left earlier, then followed Maroczy. Tartakower left, Flohr stayed longer and then left for Hastings. official closing banquette: about 600 people in the hotel carlton. schort note by alekhine: he challenged the WC to a rematch. celebrations ended on january 30. "Alekhine-Euwe committee": van Dam, van Harten, mr. levenbach and liket. euwe surprisingly proved stronger in the field of psychology, which was the main battleground of the match. P. 139: Kmoch thinks that the new WC's strength may be his methodical way of thinking. a "weakness" rests on the fact that he doesn't have that much practice, so he can still improve. He could only beat Alekhine because in the critical time, chess was his only profession.> -pp. 133-139 of the May 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' (Hans Kmoch, Amsterdam, 15 December 1935) ############################################ <8> <Money: Münninghoff in his Euwe biography (English version, p 174): "...the match had yielded Euwe fame but <<<no money.>>> ... Alekhine had stipulated in advance that he would be given the total available 10,000 Dutch guilders, so Euwe, the winner, got nothing."> -Munninghoff, p. 174 === [First talks about Euwe being an amateur player]: "Even so for the latest worldchampionship match he has received nought; whereas Alekhin -as one knows- has gotten 10000 guilders." Header: Het Phohi-Sportpraatje. Schaken en Voetbal. Newspaper: Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië Publication date: 24-12-1935 p.3 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... ================= EDIT <thomastonk>: Money conversion newspaper sources: http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... The Dutch newspapers state that 1 dollar = 1.48 guilders at the beginning of the match. A French Franc was around 9.75, a pound sterling around 7.25. === <thomas tonk> Match conditions newspaper sources: Header: Om het wereldkampioenschap schaken. De a.s. match tusschen Aljechin en Euwe. Newspaper: Soerabaijasch handelsblad Date: 16th August 1935 Page: 3 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Header: Euwe’s spel ligt Aljechin niet. Newspaper: Soerabaijasch handelsblad Date: 17th August 1935 Page: 5 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === EDIT <dakgootje>: Back to monetary issues. I did find an article drifting lightly along that subject, concerning an interview with Euwe just <after> the match. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Dr Euwe furthermore mentioned that if Alekhine wants a rematch, he'll have to gather 10.000 guilders, which according to the ideas of Euwe will have to be yielded* to some fund. And the prizes that one wins? Dr. Euwe mentioned that mainly prizes aren't that big, and secondarily they'll have to be seen as cover for personal expenses.> So it appears the prize-money wasn't really public knowledge. Seems to indicate a donation, but you'd expect a deposition. === EDIT <dakgootje>: Sidenote: There have been some monetary problems. There seems to have been an annulment-clause in the contract, in case at August 28th 1935 not all money had been raised yet. This happened. However, the organizing comite trusted in the chesspublic to raise the remaining money (I think to have read 5000 guilders) before the match started. Bit of financial tightrope-walking that. Title: ANNULEERINGS-CLAUSULE IN HET CONTRACT GEPASSEERD. De wedstrijd Euwe—Aljechine. In: De Telegraaf [evening newspaper] At: Tuesday 28th of August 1935; page 9. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... ############################################ <9> <Match Officials> Arbiter: <Hans Kmoch> Seconds: <Géza Maróczy> (for Euwe) <Salo Landau> (for Alekhine) "The Times" 18 February 1978, p.13 (page 13) Harry Golombek wrote: ‘It looks as though the first world championship match in which there were seconds whose official duty it was to aid their principals in analysis during adjournments was the 1935 Alekhine-Euwe match in the Netherlands. Alekhine’s second was the Dutch master Landau, and Euwe had the Hungarian grandmaster Maróczy as his second.’ "The Times" 18 February 1978, p.13. In Edward Winter, "Ernst Ludwig Klein" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################################ <10> Hans Kmoch: <Game 8, again in Militiezaal (planned was October 19, changed <<<den Zuschauen zuliebe>>> for the spectators but the audience was a bit smaller nonetheless. Euwe's fans were pessimistic, some believed that Euwe would eventually crack completely. Game started at 18:30. Game 8, October 20, Militiezaal, Amsterdam. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 22 min, Black 2 h 5 min. Page 311: Amsterdam, October 21, resumption of the adjourned game. Game began at 16 o'clock (on 1st day 40 moves in 2 h 30 min, then 32 moves in 2 h and 16 moves per h for the rest). Euwe won and the Netherlands gain new courage, except for Euwe who hadn't lost his old one. Page 312: The Dutch do not necessarily expect Euwe to win, they hope for exciting games and Euwe to put up strong resistance. They just don't want him to fail completely. Resumption October 21, Militiezaal, Amsterdam. White 4 h 13 min, Black 4 h 5 min.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung," October-November 1935, pp. 309-310 ############################################ <11> Alekhine's excuses for his loss at Alekhine-Euwe 1935 <"During one period, from the 10th to the 14th games, I was falsely persuaded into a belief that the match was virtually over. In consequence, I treated the openings of these games with a carelessness unpardonable and committed errors which to anybody with a knowledge of my powers seemed incomprehensible." "From about this period, I have been the butt of a campaign of calumniation and misrepresentation organized by a part of the Dutch press and several members of the soi-disant 'Euwe-Alekhine' committee. This campaign reached its climax with the 21st game. This game was played absolutely without any unpleasant incident- contrary to press reports. This is officially confirmed by my adversary, Euwe; the director of the match, Kmoch and both our seconds, Maroczy and Landau. Such a <<<campaign>>> can hardly fail to have an unfortunate effect on a player engaged in a strenuous match, in which his title is at stake. In comparison with the atmosphere of this match, the one at Buenos Ayres in which I gained my title, and those against Bogoljubow in which I succeeded in retaining it, were ideal."> "Chess" vol 1 1935, p.124. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7937 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... #################################### <12> EDIT <Karpova>- new Ermelo material/analysis In C.N. 8538, Silman asks for information on Alekhine allegedly having been found drunk in a field during the 1935 match. Winter announces to turn all actual evidence into a feature article. So there is not much yet, but maybe in the future. Edward Winter "Alekhine and Alcohol" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <"In C.N. 8538 Jeremy Silman (Los Angeles, CA, USA) asked about suggestions that Alekhine was found drunk in a field during his 1935 world championship match against Euwe. Noting that the subject of Alekhine and alcohol had been referred to in a number of C.N. items, we invited further documentation, adding: ‘The word documentation is stressed; frequently elsewhere the subject is treated merely as good for a gossip and a giggle.’ We also promised to gather C.N. material in a single feature article, as is now done here. The feature article A Question of Credibility, written in 1997, commented with regard to Bill Wall: Among Mr Wall’s other effluence is a pitiful feature on ‘eccentric chessplayers’ (www.txdirect.net/users/wall/chess.htm). A couple of sentences about Alekhine will give the flavour: ‘In a few tournaments he was found in a field drunk. He would urinate on the floor in other events.’ For these dainty tidings no documentary source is given, of course, for the Walls of this world expect us to take on trust their attacks on the chosen prey of the day. It can only be guessed that he has gleefully seized and embroidered upon what Reuben Fine (strong master, undependable writer) said on page 54 of The Psychology of the Chess Player, but that really won’t do. Poach from a dubious source some suspect chitchat about a deceased master and whisk it up from an alleged one-off incident into a categorical denunciation of repeated misconduct. Yes, being a chess journalist is that easy. Even today, Wall still allows his words about Alekhine to appear on the Internet, although at a different site. On pages 410-413 of the August 1978 Chess Life & Review Max Euwe was interviewed by Pal Benko. Here is one exchange, regarding the 1935 world championship match: ‘Benko: I have heard many rumors that Alekhine was drinking heavily during the match and was behaving strangely sometimes. Can you comment? Euwe: I don’t think he was drinking more then than he usually did. Of course he could drink as much as he wanted: at his hotel it was all free. The owner of the Carlton Hotel, where he stayed, was a member of the Euwe Committee, but it was a natural courtesy to the illustrious guest that he should not be asked to pay for his drinks. I think it helps to drink a little, but not in the long run. I regretted not having drunk at all during the second match with Alekhine. Actually, Alekhine’s walk was not steady because he did not see well but did not like to wear glasses. So many people thought he was drunk because of the way he walked.’ (3005) Harry Golombek on Alekhine: ‘... even when drunk he could see a great deal further over the board than most chessplayers sober. I remember that, at the Warsaw International Team Tournament of 1935, I was showing a game I had won that day to the fellow members of my team. Alekhine came up, recognized the game and complimented me on it in mellow, if somewhat thickly intoxicated, tones and, in a flash, indicated a vital, winning variation we all had missed.’ Source: ‘Recollections of Alekhine’ by Harry Golombek, Chess Review, May 1951, pages 140-141. See too C.N. 1313. Golombek’s article can also be found on pages 191-196 of The Treasury of Chess Lore by Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1951). The relevant game from the 1935 Olympiad was not identified, but one possibility is Golombek v Horowitz. The former’s annotations on pages 480-481 of the October 1935 BCM referred to 24 h4 as a possible improvement suggested by Alekhine; at moves 28 and 33, shorter wins were pointed out by Golombek (without, however, any mention Alekhine). (7205) From Chess and Alcohol: Alexander Alekhine’s heavy drinking is not in doubt, and Pablo Morán’s monograph on him has a chapter entitled ‘Exhibitions Under the Influence’. There are, though, inferior writers (which is certainly not a description of Morán) who enjoy pouncing on and blowing up any great master’s adversities. See, for instance, the examples quoted at the start of our article The Games of Alekhine. A person who writes that a champion played a world title match ‘more or less in a perpetual stupor’ is capable of writing any old thing about anyone. A contribution from Martin Weissenberg (Savyon, Israel): ‘In his article on Alekhine in the series “Grandmasters I Have Known” Hans Kmoch wrote: “It was also at Bled [1931] that Alekhine started to indulge openly in unrestrained drinking. One day, when he joined our wives and me at afternoon tea, his behavior was erratic and he had difficulty speaking. When he snuffed out his cigarette in my wife’s cake, Nadasha [Alekhine’s wife] rose and led him away. Returning alone after a few minutes, she said to my wife, in grammatically broken German, ‘Excuse me, dear, Alekhine – Russian pig. Now sleeping like child.’ At the closing ceremony of that tournament, Kostić, that inveterate enfant terrible, caused some further painful embarrassment by calling from his end of the table to the other end, where the world champion was sitting next to a few high officials, “Herr Alekhine!”. He always called him “Herr.” “What was it that made you so drunk yesterday, cognac or klekovača?” (Klekovača is the Slovene equivalent of gin.) Alekhine mumbled some denial, but Kostić persisted. “Of course you were drunk! How else could I have beaten you seven to one? I’m very good at skittles, that’s true, but seven to one is too much!” Kmoch also relates: “One night when I was out dancing with my wife, Alekhine entered the place just as the band was beginning a Viennese waltz. Alekhine never danced, but on this occasion, though for obvious reasons he was unsteady on his feet, he asked my wife to join him in the waltz. The result was that they both had to be helped up from the floor. We left immediately and I took Alekhine home. There was a moment of anxiety when the world champion, in the process of entering the taxi, almost propelled himself out the other side.” Elsewhere in his article, Kmoch wrote: “It is incredible how long Alekhine remained on top despite his pernicious addiction to alcohol.” A large trunk containing “nothing but liquor bottles – a traveling bar” in Alekhine’s hotel room during his 1934 match against Bogoljubow was also mentioned.’" Latest update: 14 March 2014> ############################# I've had a look at Kmoch's report on Ermelo again (January 1936 WSZ, p. 18), which is probably the candidate. Where Alekhine was found is left out (the decisive parts are <Es herrschte große Nervosität, denn Alekhine war nicht zu finden.> and <Schließlich wurde Aljechin gefunden. Er stand zweifellos unter dem Einfluß von Alkohol, was bei ihm keine Seltenheit ist.>). The whole scene plays in the lounge and it is only said that Alekhine couldn't be found, and, in the end, that he was found, not where. So it is possible that he was still somewhere in the hotel the whole time. === Hans Kmoch: Ermelo, November 19 <P. 17: Kmoch wants to report in all conscience, without drawing conclusions. The small Ermelo prepared the day well (<<<rührige Vorsorge getroffen>>>), among other things sending 3 cars to Amsterdam P. 18: to pick the whole company up. The cars drove in a single file. But their file was divided by a Amsterdam traffic policeman (<<<Verkehrsschutzmann>>>) and one car lost connection to the others. The driver was non-local and didn't know about chess (<<<orts- und schachfremd>>>) and didn't know the specific address. He arrived at the Hotel Carlton to pick up Alekhine with a delay of almost a whole hour. All the others had already gathered here. There was great nervousness as Alekhine was nowhere to be found. His wife was there and explained in excited tone that her husband considered the delay an insult and would not play today. This dispute took place in the public, in the hall of the Hotel. The <<<Reisemarschall>>> of the committee (<<<Reise>>> means journey/voyage, so he was probably the committee member organizing the travel) did not accept that. He explained that they would arrive 2 hours (<reichlich zwei Stunden>) before the start of the game in Ermelo. Apart from that, he only wanted to negotiate with Alekhine personally. Finally they found Alekhine. There was no doubt that he stood under the influence of alcohol which was not uncommon for him (<<<Er stand zweifellos unter dem Einfluß von Alkohol, was bei ihm keine Seltenheit ist.>>>). In earlier years, Alekhine had been observed in such a state. Then, he is will-less and calm. When he is drunk, you can hardly argue with him and today also, he didn't cause any trouble, agreeing to play. They asked him whether he wanted to travel to Ermelo by car or train and he chose train. His second Landau was entrusted to bring him to Ermelo. Furthermore, the committee decided to start the game half an hour later because of the delay in picking them up. The others left, while Alekhine went to sleep. He was supposed to come to Ermelo about <<<fünfviertel>>> hours (unusual expression, taken literally it's 5 times 15 min, so 1 h 15 min) prior to the game but didn't show up. It was told by telephone that he had missed the train and had to wait for the next one. This would suffice to reach the playing hall in time, i. e. at 7 pm. In the meantime, Alekhine had slept well and also in the train he appeared well-rested. Now he claimed that he would only play under moral protest. The committee refused to register this statement and suggested to let a physician decide whether Alekhine was capable of playing or not. Alekhine refused. The game began. Kmoch says that Alekhine's appearance did not make a good, but also not an unsual impression on him. He played calmly and his behaviour during the game gave no reason for complaint to opponent and officials (committee, <<<Kampfleiter>>>, second).> Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, Jan 1936, pp. 17-20 ################################################## <13> <Dakgootje Primary sources on ERMELO "Alekhine was Drunk and Disrespectful"> <the <<<primary source>>> seems to have been newspaper Het Volk of the 20th. Given that http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... is of the 20th, and mentions Het Volk published that morning.> "Het Volk" 20 Nov 1935. In "De Gooi- en Eemlander" 20 Nov 1935, p.10 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... <Which mentions that Alekhine was warned for being in a doubtful state by mr Levenbach of the comite, to which apparently the response came that it was none of his business. And then goes on telling that OTHER newspapers mentioned Alekhine was drunk. Plural sounds promising.> === http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... is even more useful. Header 'Was Alekhine drunk?', and then goes on to quote a newspaper Het Volk [The People], which apparently reported that YES he was drunk, and that it is a shame due to the Dutch hospitality yadda yadda. But I couldn't quickly find this Het Volk newspaper article. Article of the last link was published the 20th, so if the Het Volk article is around, it will be either publish on 19 or 20. Hopefully there are multiple sources though. === Well, the positive news is that the primary source seems to have been newspaper Het Volk of the 20th. Given that http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... is of the 20th, and mentions Het Volk published that morning. The Major negative news is that the archives at the Royal Library for Het Volk stops February 1934. Not completely clear whether other archives do contain those editions - but if so it seems very likely only in hardcopy-form. Other newspapers consistently write that Het Volk wrote Alekhine was drunk - taking no responsibility for themselves. Rather on the contrary, one newspaper http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... literally goes on saying they would've have written anything about this sad turn of events if another newspaper [only identified by morning paper from Amsterdam] hadn't reported about it, driven by the opportunity of sensation. Related to that, this article http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... s very explicit in being very implicit. The first paragraph translates roughly 'During the 21st game of Euwe - Alekhine yesterday, an incident has happened - to which we referred to with half a word, with the thought that this is enough for a careful reader'. The rest of the article deals with a reaction of Levenbach [whether there are rules for this (no, though there are sickdays, which is not valid here); and whether Euwe's win was due to these conditions (no)]. However, during the full article, no further clarification concerning the condition is given. Interesting chances next day [21] however. The match is halted due to Alekhine's health reasons. The following article is published: http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... It includes further [rough] commentary, presumbly from Levenbach: It has been known widely that the World Champion takes strong alcoholic drinks. This is no cause of problems for him, but rather helps him - and causes him to be at his most dangerous for his opponents. It's logical he needs to be at his most dangerous versus Euwe. This was known before. For many this information might seem strange, but they are well-established facts. It then continues noting that the Russian and Dutch mentality are significantly different; and that masters such as Flohr could not yet find any mistake in play by Alekhine - calling the 21ste game potentially one of the best. === The plot thickens! http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... starts with 'as we mentioned yesterday that Alekhine was under influence of strong alcoholic beverages'. Goes on telling about how Alekhine is stronger that way, previously beat Bogoljubow [16th apparently] in Bayreuth that way; and (!) includes a decleration by comite-member G van Dam, who had spoken Euwe. He said, according to Euwe there were 4 reasons for the drinking: 1 playing stronger, 2 hoping Euwe will underestimate him, 3 hopes to influence public opinion against Euwe 4 due to this third reason, the interest by Euwe for the title is starting to dwindle. Unclear whether the last reason was the feeling of Euwe, or a thought Euwe had as reason for Alekhines drunkness. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... reiterates many of the same points. Yes, Alekhine was presumably drunk, but he plays better, has multiple reasons etcetera. Main differences with previous article: it starts at length with the place of the press in society (no, really, it does). Apparently the comity called a meeting with the press, moreorless telling them they shouldn't have reported about it. Second difference: they say they didn't actually have a reporter over at Ermelo. However several reliable persons confirmed that Alekhine was drunk. Third, it ends with a German letter by a German physician written to Euwe - thay they both know Alekhine needs alcohol to play at his top, and noting the chess community should thank Euwe twice for not only being the most able but also the morally better person. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... again much of the same - though in this case Alekhine was dead drunk [/utterly drunk]. It actually quotes a paragraph of the original Het Volk-article. Which, as per usual now, notes that Alekhine plays better when drunk, but public opinion won't take note of this. The actual article reiterates these points by itself as well. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Besides same-old-same-old this mentions that no incident has actually occured the 21st game or earlier [in public life]. Think I've read this before - seems that aside of drunkly playing brilliantly nothing really happened. -> There are several more articles. However they all mention 1) Alekhine was drunk; 2) he plays best that way. If not all, then they almost all mention 3) this is mainly a shame because it might decrease the worth of the title in the eyes the general public I think that's all there is to it. === <>Think it may be better to use http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... as a source. This is the only newspaper I could find that has a direct quote from Het Volk [rather than a paraphrase]. <>I find it very hard to join articles and opinions found in the press' articles, with the views expressed later about the press. Almost all articles were apologetic in tone (rather than harsh); many initially avoiding writing about the subject. Even the quote from Het Volk shows they wrote 'beschonken' (viz. inebriated). Later articles (when the match was paused) tended to use drunk more often. I think I've read 2 articles which may be classified as more harsh, which indeed used terms like 'dead drunk'. However that's on a sample of.. 25-30 articles I looked over concerning the situation. <>Suppose claims that the drinking may be to upset Euwe are trueish. True because many papers indeed report such sentiments. The problem is that it's hearsay. Initial reports say Euwe expressed those sentiments to comite-member Van Dam, who shared them with the press. Problem is of course that we can't be sure whether Euwe actually said and meant it - and even if so presumably wouldn't have wanted it to leak to the press. <>Was the intoxication denied, or the presumed unsportive intentions? The former would be rather odd. === <thomastonk> NEW INFORMATION: When I begun yesterday, I observed that the evening issues of the provincial newspapers had the 'story', and some of them refered to "Het volk", which is unavailable. I also observed what happened in the evening issues of the other major newspapers, but then I went to their morning issues ("ochtend"), in hope for an unbiased view. There is almost nothing but http://kranten.kb.nl/view/paper/id/... has a short paragraph that is maybe worth a look. This paragraph begins with "Dr. Aljechin maakte ..." My rough translation: 'Alekhine seemed not only to be tired, but also mentally absent. This was for Euwe to such a discomfort that he declared at the 15th move to be unwilling to continue the game under these circumstances. Some efforts were needed to convince him to proceed the game.' This came as a surprise to me, because I knew Münninghoff's description, who wrote that nothing special happened after the game had begun, except "that Euwe left the hall after his 15th move to catch his breath and compose himself in the fresh forest air". (Some newspapers reported this, too, though they named the 14th move.) ############################################ <14> Max Euwe: "The story that he was drunk is utter nonsense..." Munninghoff, p.131 ######################################## <15> <Dr. Lasker annotates (he got help from the Russian master Grigoriew) the 27th match game exclusively for the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' on pages 8-10 (January 1936 issue). This is just chess analysis, but his final comment on page 10: <<<Diese Partie ist eine glänzende Leistung Aljechins. Sie ist umso mehr anzuerkennen, als er offenbar eine seelische Krise durchzustehen hatte.>>> (this game is abrilliant achievement by Alekhine. It is the more to be acclaimed, as he was obviously getting through a mental/psychological crisis.)> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" January 1936, pp. 8-10 ############### <16> DUTCH NEWSREEL 15 Dec. 1935 ALJECHIN'S SPEECH IN FRENCH: <“So, I am proud and happy that the world has as a chess champion, a gentleman. I am proud and happy that this gentleman is so ornamented. I take his occasion to revoke my competition officially. <<<I am happy,>>> without being hypocritical, that if it's not me who is champion, then it is Euwe who is champion.”> --Translation by Sarah Brown EUWE'S SPEECH IN DUTCH,ALEKHINE IN GERMAN <3:52 – Euwe: Mister Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am already World Champion for 2 days. And I have already had my ups and downs. To tell you the truth, there have been moments when I thought by myself: Such a fuss for only a single point of difference. However, currently I am in another mood. I am as enthusiastic as you are, though I do find it a pity I can’t take part when ‘Long shall he live’ will be sung. 4:30 – Euwe: I am very grateful at mister Aljechin for his words. I think it’s pleasant he did not say that he hoped he would die as Chess-champion as, considering my own prognosis and those of others, I would not live for much longer in that case. I would now like to address Dr. Aljechin. 4:58 – Euwe [German]: Dear mister docter, You know that so-to-say, from my birth <<<I am your friend and admirer>>>. [Applause] will always be. I very much hope that we, as we said, in two years, within two years, will have played our duel. It is always for me a very big pleasure to play with You. 5:29 – Aljechin [German]: Mister World-Champion, you were always my friend, and will always stay my friend. [applause, handshaking – can’t make out Aljechins exact next remark, something along the lines that he has always respected Euwe]> --Translation by dakgootje Carlton Hotel victory celebration "Profilti-News" Newsreel 15 Dec. 1935 French transl. Sarah Brown Dutch and German transl. Dakgootje http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler... ###################### NEW EDIT INFORMATION from <Karpova>; Fine's observations from p. 200 of the November 1941 'Chess Review', e. g. <Nothing could be further from the truth. Alekhine’s chess in the first match was no worse than the quality of chess he had been producing in the four or five years preceding the 1935 debacle, while Euwe’s play in the return encounter was considerably below his best form.> -Edward Winter C.N. 8326 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################# 3 Oct. - 15 Dec. 1935 <Amsterdam> (1-3; 8-9; 12-13; 18; 20; 23; 25; 28-30) <The Hague> (4; 11; 22; 27) <Delft> (5; 24) <Rotterdam> (6) <Utrecht> (7) <Gouda> (10) <Groningen> (14) <Baarn> (15) <s'Hertogenbosch> (16) <Eindhoven> (17) <Zeist> (19) <Ermelo> (21) <Zandvoort> (26). ############################# <BEFORE THE MATCH> <Euwe the Challenger> ================ <Budapest (1921> 5-19 Sept. 1921 (5th behind Alekhine) Budapest (1921) Euwe vs Bogoljubov, 1921 <1-0> === <Alekhine-Euwe Training Match (1926)> 22 Dec. - 8 Jan. 1927 (Lost the match +2 -3 = 5) Alekhine - Euwe Training Match (1926) Round 7 Alekhine vs Euwe, 1927 <0-1> Round 8 Euwe vs Alekhine, 1927 <1-0> Alekhine: <"After a stay of four months in South America, I returned home in December 1926, and had to face <<<Dr. Euwe>>> in Holland straight afterwards, a week later. This arrangement had already been agreed upon a year beforehand, and was for ten training games. I played for the first time under the new time control of 40 moves in 2 and a half hours ... unfamiliar, and because of this I ended up suffering very badly from time-trouble. "The result (+3-2=5 in my favour) gave a reasonable indication of both sides' achievements. Dr. Euwe played much more soundly, but on the other hand I was tactically superior to him. I committed, however, a large number of mistakes in time trouble. Thus, for instance, in the 1st, 7th and 9th games I had clearly winning positions, but I gained only a single point (!) from these three games."> A. Aljechin, "Auf dem Weg zur Weltmeisterschaft, 1923-1927", de Gruyter, 4th edition, 1978, p. 132 === <Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928)> 4 April - 5 May 1926 (Lost the match +2 -3 =5) Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928) =================== <The Hague 1928> World Amateur Championship July-Aug 1928 (1st over Dawid Przepiórka, Karel Treybal, Hermanis Matisons) === <Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928)> 23 Dec. 1928 to 6 Jan. 1929 (Lost the match +1 -2 =7) Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928) === <Hastings (1930/31)> 29 Dec. 1930 - 7 Jan. 1931 (1st over José Raúl Capablanca and Mir Sultan Khan) Hastings (1930/31) S Khan vs Euwe, 1931 <0-1> === <Capablanca - Euwe (1931)> 1-10 July 1931 (Lost the match -0 +2 =8) Capablanca - Euwe (1931) === <Euwe-Flohr Match 1932> June-Aug 1932 (Drew the match +3 -3 =13) Euwe vs Flohr, 1932 <1-0> Euwe vs Flohr, 1932 <1-0> ================= <Berne 1932> 16-30 July 1932 (Shared 2d with Flohr behind Alekhine, over Mir Sultan Khan, Ossip Bernstein, Efim Bogoljubov) Bern (1932) Euwe vs Bogoljubov, 1932 <1-0> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1932 <Drawn in 70 moves> === <Zurich 1934> July 14 - 28th, 1934. (Shared 2d with Flohr behind Alekhine, over Bogoljubov, Emanuel Lasker and Aaron Nimzowitsch) Zuerich (1934) Euwe vs Alekhine, 1934 <1-0> <Alekhine's only loss in the tournament> === <Leningrad 1934> 17 Aug. - 1 Sept. 1934 (6th, behind Botvinnik, Riumin, Romanovsky, Rabinovich and Kan) Leningrad (1934) Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1934 <1/2> === <Hastings 1934/35> 27 Dec. 1934 - 5 Jan. 1935 (Shared 1st with Thomas and Flohr, over Capablanca, Botvinnik and Lilienthal) Hastings (1934/35) Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1934 <0-1> === #################### <Negotiations> Summer 1933 <"Euwe... stayed at home during the summer of 1933... Invitations for all kinds of tournaments and simultaneous displays kept arriving... but all were... refused. Inexplicably, one of these letters does not get an immediate reply. It is an invitation from... Alekhine: he wants to play a match against Euwe, similar to their 1927 encounter- but this time on a big passenger ship to the Dutch Indies and back... Five games on the way there, five during the return voyage. The stake: the world championship if need be... Euwe puts the offer from the World Champion aside for the moment and then forgets about it... One evening in 1934... Euwe suddenly remembered Alekhine's letter of some months earlier...> Summer 1934: <Euwe himself says of this occasion: <<<'(...) at that point the decision had in fact been made: I would challenge Alekhine to a match for the world championship! This decision didn't happen by chance, it was preordained>>>.'> Alexander Munninghoff "Max Euwe, The Biography" New in Chess, 2001 p. 101-103 ================== Between April 1 to June 14, 1934 (Alekhine-Bogoljubov match) <"It seems... that the next match for the title will be between Dr. [sic] Alekhine and <<<Dr. Max Euwe>>> of Amsterdam, whose challenge was accepted by the former 'in principle,' pending the outcome of the match with Bogoljubow."> "American Chess Bulletin" April 1934 p. 66 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (MacFarland 1989), p.p. 233-234 ============== May-June 1934 <"Dr. [sic] Alekhine and Dr Max Euwe... have agreed to play the next match for the title the latter part of next year... The champion has also announced that he will be prepared, within four months of the conclusion of this engagement, to play a return match with Jose R. Capablanca under the agreement of 1922, stipulating, however, that the amount of the purse must be guaranteed in <<<gold>>> dollars."> -"American Chess Bulletin May-June 1934 p. 75 In Edward Winter "Capablanca" MacFarland, 1989 p.234) ============== June 1934 <"As early as June 1934, even before the world championship match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow had finished, Euwe had cabled Alekhine signifying his agreement to play a match for the world championship on Alekhine's terms.... One important point was that Euwe had not been a signatory to the <<<London Convention of 1922,>>> so Alekhine felt quite justified in stipulating financial conditions that were considerably easier than those he was insisting on from Capablanca."> -Skinner and Verhoeven "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" MacFarland, 1998 p. 534 ================== July 27-29, 1934 <FIDE officially recognized Dr. Euwe as Alekhine's challenger at the 11th <<<FIDE>>> Congress (1934.07.27-29), this was item Nr. 7. Match to be played in autumn 1935.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 1934, p.305 ================ <Dr. Hannak comments on the result of Zürich 1934: <<<Es kann keinem Zweifel unterliegen, daß Euwe heute der reellste Kandidat für den nächsten Weltmeisterschaftskampf gegen Aljechin ist.>>> (It cannot be subject to doubt that today Euwe is the most realistic candidate for the next WC fight against Alekhine)> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 1934, p.210 === Hans Kmoch reports the financial difficulties the organizers of the WC match faced. The funding was secure, but the <<<Zahlmeister>>> (paymaster) complained about the money coming from non-chessplayers mainly, pleading for more financial support from the chessplayers. Furthermore, the WC match was also the reason for the lack of prestigious tournaments in the Netherlands in 1934 (<<<konnten hier im letzten Jahr keine internationalen Treffen von Belang veranstaltet werden>>> couldn't host international meetings of importance/matter/interest in the last year).> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 1935, p.281 (on page 280, it says Amstardam, August 1935) ================== Edward Winter "World Championship Disorder" (2002) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <(Alekhine) was involved with <<<FIDE,>>> attending their congresses for example, at the end of the 20ties at least.> <In the meantime, <<<FIDE>>> was still trying to introduce rules on the selection of the challenger, applicable to subsequent matches. Its congress in Warsaw on 28-31 August 1935 had passed the following resolution:> <‘Each year the above-mentioned Committee [comprising Oskam, Alekhine, Louma, Przepiórka and Vidmar] shall draw up a list of masters who have the <<<right to challenge>>> the world champion. Those who in the past six years have three times won or divided the first prize in international tournaments with a minimum of 14 competitors, of which at least 70% are international masters, shall automatically be included on this list.’> <'CHESS', 14 October 1937 (pages 45-46) quoted from 'Šachový Týden' Alekhine’s reaction to the Stockholm congress: [...] <<<I shall not hold myself bound by the decisions of the FIDE>>> and I am under no obligations towards it. I shall act, should I beat Euwe, according to my own judgment, reckoning with the FIDE as a moral factor only insofar as I find their decisions correct and of benefit to chess at large. [...]> ================= Beginning of August 1934 <"The September <British Chess Magazine> (pages 383-384) noted that in New York at the beginning of August Capablanca described 'Dr. [sic] Alekhine's latest statement, that the fund of $10,000 for a return match must be guaranteed in gold, as <<<'another deliberate stumbling-block'>>> in the way of a match, not justified by the London agreement of 1922."> Just to clarify- this is the only part of the quote that is direct speech from Capa: <<<'another deliberate stumbling-block'>>> "British Chess Magazine" Sept. 1934, pp. 383-384. In Edward Winter "Capablanca" MacFarland, 1989 p.234 ============ February-March 1935 <"During the Moscow tournament in February-March 1935 Capablanca gave an interview to the <Moscow Daily News>. 'He considered Dr. [sic] Alekhine's retention of the title without a match against a serious competitor <<<unjustifiable...>>> Alekhine should, in the first instance, play the promised return-match with himself."> British Chess Magazine April 1935 p. 189 In Edward Winter "Capablanca" MacFarland, 1989 p.234 === May 1935 Contract is signed. <Alekhine visited the Netherlands at the end of March 1935 for final negotiations. The basic rules are printed here: http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Two months later, he visited the Netherlands again and signed the<<< contract.>>> http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i...> ######################## <THE MATCH> 3 Oct. - 15 Dec. 1935 <Venues> Amsterdam (1-3; 8-9; 12-13; 18; 20; 23; 25; 28-30), The Hague (4; 11; 22; 27), Delft (5; 24), Rotterdam (6), Utrecht (7), Gouda (10), Groningen (14), Baarn (15), s'Hertogenbosch (16), Eindhoven (17), Zeist (19), Ermelo (21), Zandvoort (26). <Match Conditions> EDIT <thomastonk> MATCH CONDITIONS: <The 30 games/6wins rule is also <<<explained>>> in WSZ 1935, p 284. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...> ============= <Money: Münninghoff in his Euwe biography (English version, p 174): "...the match had yielded Euwe fame but <<<no money.>>> ... Alekhine had stipulated in advance that he would be given the total available 10,000 Dutch guilders, so Euwe, the winner, got nothing."> -Munninghoff, p. 174 =================== <Alekhine visited the Netherlands at the end of March 1935 for final negotiations. The <<<basic rules>>> are printed here: http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Two months later, he visited the Netherlands again and signed the contract. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i...> <The following two articles give detailed information on the work of the <<<"Euwe-Aljechin-Comité",>>> which prepared the match over the period of one and a half year. The single most useful information are the costs of the whole match: 19,000 guilders http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i...> ================= DRAW ODDS <"...according to the <<<rules,>>> a 15-15 score would... suffice for the World Champion to retain his title."> Munninghoff, p. 137 ============== EDIT <thomastonk> and <Karpova> On DRAW ODDS <Alekhine-Euwe 1935> Kmoch describes with the last sentence beginning on that page and ending on the other. Here my rough translation:(concerning game 30) <"If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the champion undefeated and <<<everything>>> remains the same, as it has happened after the match Lasker vs Schlechter."> -pp. 133-134 of the May 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' (Hans Kmoch, Amsterdam, 15 December 1935). ============== On page 284 of the September 1935 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung', there is a short note in the news section: <The <<<conditions were the same as in the last two WC matches.>>> At least 30 games, winner is the one with more points, if he won at least 6 games or else the match goes on until he reached 6 wins> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" September 1935, p.284 === <Match Officials> Arbiter: <Hans Kmoch> Seconds: <Géza Maróczy> (for Euwe) <Salo Landau> (for Alekhine) "CHESS" 14 Dec. 1935, p.124. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7937 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ################ <GENERAL OBSERVATIONS during the Match> <Chessnote 8301. Alekhine and cats (C.N.s 4794 & 5575) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <José Fernando Blanco (Madrid) enquires about reports that Alekhine had feline company at the board during his 1935 world championship match against Euwe. The most direct evidence that we can quote is Euwe’s comment in an interview with Pal Benko on page 411 of the August 1978 Chess Life & Review:> <‘Alekhine was very superstitious. He had a Siamese cat, and sometimes before a game he would put the cat on the chessboard to smell it. He could not play with the <<<cat in his lap,>>> so he wore a sweater with the cat’s picture on it. These things did not disturb me in the first match in 1935. Either Alekhine was not normal or the rest of us are not normal. Anyway, the fact that such a great player as Alekhine needed little tricks like that gave me encouragement.’>> ================ December 1935 Edward Winter, Chessnote 4577. Capablanca’s views on his rivals http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> <At a dinner organized by the Spanish Chess Federation at the Casino de Madrid in December 1935 Capablanca was questioned about his rivals. The Alekhine v Euwe world championship match was then being played in the Netherlands, and the Cuban was guarded on that subject. As for the future, he believed that he himself had the greatest right to challenge for the world title, followed by Flohr (who had enjoyed much success in recent years) and Lasker (regarded by Capablanca as still in the first rank of champions, despite his age). The <<<Cuban>>> had very high praise for Botvinnik, whom he considered more likely to become world champion than such other young players as Lilienthal and Reshevsky. Finally, Capablanca spoke highly of Tartakower, saying that he was, when on form, one of the most redoubtable masters.> The report, published on pages 491-492 of the December 1935 issue of El Ajedrez Español 1 game, 1935 WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935 part 2 <Match OPENING CEREMONY> http://kickass.to/adobe-acrobat-xi-... 2 Oct. 1935 (Amsterdam) Hans Kmoch: <Opening ceremony headed by Slotemaker de Bruine (dutch <<<<Unterrichtsminister>>>>, something like minister of education), mayor of Amsterdam, members of the committee which prepared the match (head was Meester Levenbach), Meester Rueb the president of FIDE who gave his blessing for the event (<<<die der Veranstaltung ihren Segen gab>>>), the players, media, etc. Rueb draws the lot and Alekhine gets White in game 1 and after the drawing of lot, the ceremony ends. (a footnote explains that Meester means lawyer).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, p. 289 ############################# <Match ROUND by ROUND> 3 Oct. 1935 (Amsterdam) <1st game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Same location as yesterday, a small room is connected to the large hall and in this small room, the players are seated, two glassdoors were removed so that they are visible. In order to not disturb the players, there is a deaf zone (<<<taube Zone>>>) in between playing room and spectator's room. There are <<<Wandbretter>>> (wand = wall, brett = board) to show the moves to the audience. Playing time between 17:30 and 22:30 and the first game begins shortly after 17:30 (small delay). Ring of the bell, dead silence, 500 spectators. 1st match game, October 3, Hotel Carlton, Amsterdam. After conclusion: White 1 h 35 min, Black 2 h 25 min. According to the game description, Euwe used up a lot of time following move 11 (problem is not which moves, but sequence of moves).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, pp. 289-290 ############################# 6 Oct. (Amsterdam) <2d game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Two days per game, so October 4 was free. The committee did not want to pass over the opportunity to start game 2 on a Sunday, so October 5 was also a free day. <<<Game 2>>> now in Militiezaal, Amsterdam, October 6. Adjourned after 40...Qe7, resumed October 7 in Militiezaal, 19-23 pm. Time: White 2 h 43 min, Black 1 h 58 min. After move 26, Alekhine erroneously thought Euwe had only 1 min left and offered a draw (in game one, the clock was set on 12, in game 2 on 11:30 so it could be checked if the flag fell). Euwe explained it and they played on.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, pp. 291-292 ############################# 8-9 Oct. (Amsterdam) <3d game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Play back again in Hotel Carlton. The game began on time. Game 3 played on October 8 (adjourned after 40...Qxd4) - White 1 h 45 min, Black 2 h 28 min - and <<<resumed>>> on October 9 with 41.Qxd4 and Black resigned.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, p. 293 ############################# 10-11 Oct. (The Hague) <4th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <0-1> Hans Kmoch: <Of the 30 match games, Amsterdam took 19, 's Gravenhave 4, Delft, Rotterdam, Gonda, Utrecht, Groningen, Ermelo and Eindhoven 1 game each. Kmoch calls this arrangement very strange (<<<höchst eigenartig>>>), assuming financial reasons. (btw, 's Gravenhave = The Hague) Game 4, October 10, Hotel "De Witte Brug", The Hague> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, p. 294 === The Hague, October 11 <Game 4 was adjourned after Euwe had sealed his 41st move and he soon found out that his game was lost. He wanted to resign without resumption but this would have troubled <<<die Regie>>> (probably the people organizing the match), so he made 4 additional moves.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung," October 1935, p. 295 ############################# 12 Oct. (Delft) <5th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Game 5 played in the <<<Studentengesellschaft>>> Phönix (possibly a fraternity). There was a short welcoming, the <<<Unterrichtsminister>>> (probably again Slotemaker de Bruine), an <<<Altminister>>> (old minister, possibly retired?)and a <<<Kommissar der Königin>>> (königin = queen) were also present. But Alekhine's wife was absent because of an illness (<<<leichte Erkrankung>>>) and his cat <<<Chess>>> - his <<<Glückskater>>> (cat bringing him luck, like a lucky charm) was also absent (Siamese, not white). Game 5, October 12, "Studenten Societeit Phönix", Delft. White 1 h 55 min, Black 2 h 17 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October 1935, p. 296 -Page 297: <Game 5 was followed by <<<2>>> rest days, game 6 ended drawn.> ############################# 15-16 Oct. (Rotterdam) <6th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Hotel Coomans. No welcoming this time. Game 6, October 15, Hotel Bristol, Rotterdam. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 52 min, Black 2 h 18 min. Rotterdam, October 16 This time, they resumed the game already at 2 pm (6 hours playing time is set for <<<Hängetage>>> with 2 hours rest between play hours 4 and 5 so they have to start earlier. I guess <<<Hängetage>>> means the days reserved for resumption of adjourned games (also called in German <<<Hängepartie>>>, think also of the english expression hung jury).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" October-November 1935, pp. 305-306 -Page 307: <Resumption on October 16, Hotel Bristol, Rotterdam. Complete time consumption: White 4 h 15 min, Black 4 h 30 min. Dr. Lasker came from Moscow as correspondent for Russian press and <<<Chess>>> got a lovely bride (cost 20 Gulden, but Kmoch says that <<<Chess>>> didn't have to pay them himself).> ############################# 17-18 Oct. (Utrecht) <7th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Meeting in the great concert hall (<<<Konzertsaal>>>) and official welcoming. The mayor of Utrecht executed the first move for Alekhine. Game 7, October 17, Groote Concertzaal, Utrecht. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 15 min, Black 2 h 29 min. Page 309: Euwe wanted half an hour to look at the game after adjournment and decide if he resigns at once. He was too excited and could not come to a conclusion - adjournment followed. The reporters could not enter the <<<Telegraphenamt>>> (to send their telegrams) as the door was locked. The committee provided them with cars to travel to Amsterdam, The Hague or Rotterdam. Amsterdam, October 18: Euwe saw that the adjourned position was lost and resigned by telephone (Alekhine's sealed move was 41.Rb4).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Oct.-Nov. 1935, pp. 307-308 ############################# 20-21 Oct. (Amsterdam) <8th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Game 8, again in Militiezaal (planned was October 19, changed <<<den Zuschauen zuliebe>>> for the spectators but the audience was a bit smaller nonetheless. Euwe's fans were pessimistic, some believed that Euwe would eventually crack completely. Game started at 18:30. Game 8, October 20, Militiezaal, Amsterdam. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 22 min, Black 2 h 5 min. Page 311: Amsterdam, October 21, resumption of the adjourned game. Game began at 16 o'clock (on 1st day 40 moves in 2 h 30 min, then 32 moves in 2 h and 16 moves per h for the rest). Euwe won and the Netherlands gain new courage, except for Euwe who hadn't lost his old one. Page 312: The Dutch do not necessarily expect Euwe to win, they hope for exciting games and Euwe to put up strong resistance. They just don't want him to fail completely. Resumption October 21, Militiezaal, Amsterdam. White 4 h 13 min, Black 4 h 5 min.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung," October-November 1935, pp. 309-310 ############################# 22 Oct. (Amsterdam) <9th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <The playing venue was this time the school (<<<Mädchen-Mittelschule>>>, middle school for girls) where Euwe works as a teacher. The audience was mostly young people, especially female youth. Game 9, October 22, Amsterdam. The atmosphere had become hostile to 3...Bb4 in the French.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung," October-November 1935, pp. 312-313 ############################# 24 Oct. (Gouda) <10th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <In spite of his terrible loss in game 9, Euwe acted as if nothing had happened. He came to the game fresh and brisk, full of impertubable hope (<<<Er kam frisch und munter zur Partie, voll unerschütterlicher Hoffnungsfreude>>>). The biggest moral surprise in this match. Alekhine arrived with all signs of a cold (so far, Euwe had lead in this "projecting/protruding" point (<<<bisher hatte Euwe in diesem "vorspringenden" Punkt geführt>>> - this may be meant to indicate that Euwe had appeared sickly before but it is not obviously said)). They played in the large hall of the Societeit "Ons Genvegen" (German <<<unser Vergnügen>>> - our pleasure/delight). Game 10, October 24, Gouda Page 338: After 41.Rxc6 the game was adjourned and Alekhine had sealed 41...Ne7, yet he resigned that evening. There was a misunderstanding in the auditorium after Euwe's 41st move, as some spectators thought that Alekhine had resigned. Alekhine protested silently against it (<<<erhob dagegen stillen Protest>>>) by demanding adjournement and sealed his next move. Nonetheless, he resigned later that evening.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" November 1935, p. 337 ############################# 27 Oct. (The Hague) <11th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <played in <<<Hotel Wittebrug>>>. White 1 h 37 min, Black 1 h 27 min.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" November 1935, p. 339 ############################# 29 Oct. (Amsterdam) <12th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <played in the Amsterdam stock market. Three rooms - a big auditorium, the players behind glass and the press in a separate room. Short welcoming, the ladies got small presents and, of course, an exchange market joke was told at the end. Game began 18:30. Game 12, October 29, building of Amsterdam stock market (<<<Gebäude derAmsterdamer Effektenbörse>>>). White 1 h 30 min, Black 1 h 52 min.> Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, November 1935, pp. 339-340 Amsterdam, ############################# 31 Oct.-1 Nov. (Amsterdam) <13th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Amsterdam-Watergraafsmeer, Suburb Watergraafsmeer is Euwe's birthplace (back then, it was still independent) and here, Alekhine celebrated his <<<43rd birthday>>> on November 1, 1935. Game 13, October 31, Msterdam (Watergraafsmeer). Adjourned after 40 moves.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" November 1935, p. 341 p. 343: 1 November <Amsterdam-Watergraafsmeer, November 1. <<<Alekhine's birthday,>>> he came with a short delay and good-homoured. Everyone congratulated him. Play was resumed and Euwe offered a draw on move 59, White 3 h 33 min, Black 3 h 58 min.> ############################# 2 Nov. (Groningen) <14th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Groningen is about 4 h by train away from Amsterdam, Euwe travelled there the eveneing before, Alekhine apparently on the day of their game (<<<Aljechin zog es vor am selben Tag zu reisen,>>> - I'm not sure if <selbe> (same) is same as Euwe or same as the start of the game). Alekhine took a wrong train and got into difficulties. The other ones travelled by a special bus (<<<Sonder-Autobus>>>, he probably means a bus specially chartered for them). They arrived in Groningen at about half past four (probably 16:30 as they started to play soon). Game 14, November 2, Groningen. White 2 h 26 min, Black 2 h 29 min. Page 345: The dutch chess circles were delighted. Now Euwe seemed like the slight favorite. Alekhine was downcast afetr game 14 and unrecognizable (? <<<nicht zu kennen>>> is a bit unusual). Kmoch emphasizes that Alekhine did nothing to narrow Euwe's achievement. But he was also alienated by Alekhine's calmness as in earlier days he observed him to become upset after a loss and play with ten-fold power. Where does this fatalism come from? Did he change or did his opponent change him? So far, we only knew how he reacts towards 1-2 losses, not 5.> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" November 1935, p. 343-344 -p. 345 <It has to be accentuated laudingly, that <<<Alekhine behaved exemplarily>>> in sportive aspect and especially did not undertake anything to denigrate his opponent's accomplishment.> ############################# 5-6 Nov. (Baarn) <15th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2 > Hans Kmoch: <In this location are many mansions (<<<Villenort>>>) and they played in the exclusive Badhotel. It's reiterated that 15 1/2 points are sufficient if 6 games were won and that it was clear that they wouldn't play 30 games as both had already scored 5 wins. Game 15, November 5, Baarn, Badhotel. White 2 h 16 min, Black 2 h 27 min. Game adjourned after 40 moves. > "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" December 1935, pp. 356-357 November 6 Page 358: <Baarn, November 6. Resumed game should have been played between 18 and 22 o'clock but at 18:30, <<<Alekhine>>> still wasn't there. The car broke down on the way from Amsterdam to Baarn, costing him about 40 min. White 4 h 5 min, Black 4 h 8 min.> Page 353: <Sidenote: that their <<<rematch>>> would take place in early spring of 1936 in Austria, H W Zimdin, main stock holder of the Panhans Hotels, was willing to finance it and Euwe and Alekhine agreed to the invitation> ############################# 8 Nov. ('s Hertogenbosch) <16th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <0-1> Hans Kmoch: <'s Hertogenbosch, November 8. They gathered in the newly erected <<<Casino>>> and the players were seated on the stage of a huge theatre hall. Playing time scheduled for 18:40 to 23:40. The mayor welcomed them. Game 16, November 7, ' Hertogenbosch, Casino. Game adjourned after 40 moves, White 2 h 30 min, Black 1 h 38 min. Page 360: 's Hertogenbosch, November 8. Resumption of play on November 8, White 3 h 58 min, Black 3 h 28 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" December 1935, p. 359 ############################# 9 Nov. (Eindhoven) <17th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Eindhoven, November 9. Antemeridian, they travelled from 's Hertogenbosch to Eindhoven by car. The Philips-Werke took over game 17. For a change, they played in the afternoon, 14:30 to 19:30. Low entrance fee led to a large audience. Game 17, November 9, Eindhoven, Philips-Ontspanningsgebouw (<<<Erfrischungsraum der Philipswerke>>> refreshment room). White 1 h 23, Black 1 h 39 min. Page 362: The Colle opening is said to possess more poison than strength (<<<mehr Gift als Kraft>>>). After 23. Rd1, Alekhine offered a draw but this was against FIDE rules of 30 moves and they played on until perpetual. In the following, the 30 move rule wasn't upheld any longer, in agreement with Rueb (Kmoch was happy about this decision).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" December 1935, p. 361 ############################# 12 Nov. (Amsterdam) <18th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> <Amsterdam, <<<Militiezaal.>>> White 40 min, Black 53 min.> Article by J.H. Hannak: <"Aljechins Niederlage - Aspern oder Waterloo" by j. h. <<<(I presume Hannak)>>> on pages 363-364. It is said that prior to the match 90% would have expected an easy win for Alekhine, after the 1st third of the match even 100%. The loss was deserved. Alekhine compared to Napoleon (hence the title).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" December 1935, p. 362 ############################# 14 Nov. (Zeist) <19th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <Zeist, Hotel Figi Adjourned after 40 moves. White 2 h 3 min, Black 2 h 28 min. Page 5: Zeist, November 15. Resumption of game 19 in Zeist, Hotel Figi. Kmoch mentions the draw odds (<<<Da der Weltmeister nur gleichen Endstand nötig hatte um seinen Titel zu behalten, brauchte er aus den letzten 11 Partien nur 4 1/2 Punkte ziehen>>> - in short, the WC needs the same final standing to keep his title, so from the last 11 games just 4.5 points (after game 19, he was leading by 10.5 points -> 15 points needed)). Dr. Lasker travelled back to Russia. Alekhine was now believed to be close to defending his title. White 2 h 23 min, Black 3 h 2 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" January 1936, p. 4 ############################# 16 Nov. 1935 (Amsterdam) <20th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> <Amsterdam, Militiezaal, Although Euwe's fans were in gloom, Euwe had no worries and played with exquisite freshness (<<<köstlicher Frische>>>). Game 20, November 16, Amsterdam, Militiezaal. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 32 min, Black 2 h 3 min. Resumed on November 17 and resigned after 41.Bc8. Page 8: Amsterdam, November 17. 41.Bc8 was Euwe's sealed move and told to Alekhine who resigned by telephone on today's evening.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" January 1936, p. 6 ############################# 19-20 Nov. 1935 (Ermelo) <21st game> "Alekhine drunk" controversy Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <0-1> Alekhine: <"I have been the butt of a campaign of calumniation and misrepresentation organized by a part of the Dutch press and several members of the soi-disant 'Euwe-Alekhine' committee. This campaign reached its climax with the 21st game. This game was played absolutely without any <<<unpleasant incident>>>- contrary to press reports. This is officially confirmed by my adversary, Euwe; the director of the match, Kmoch and both our seconds, Maroczy and Landau."> -"CHESS" 14 Dec. 1935, p.124. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7937 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ------------------ Munninghoff: <"According to the reports, Alekhine arrived in the playing hall dead drunk and very late, caused a dreadful row, refused to play, threatened Euwe and, when finally forced to play, just banged out some <<<drunken moves...>>> and so Alekhine eventually lost the game."> Munninghoff, p. 129 --- Euwe: <"The story that he was drunk is <<<utter nonsense...>>> the press did write something along those lines at the time, because they couldn't write about other things.... if, like Alekhine, you don't overdo it, then alcohol is an excellent remedy to help you get through certain down periods. Alekhine was just back from several tours with lots of simultaneous displays before he started this match... and you tend to get a bit chess-weary after such things; this is a well-known phenomenon. Then the combinations refuse to come and you have to really rack your brain to come up with ideas. This was Alekhine's problem, so I can well imagine that he drank to get back that creativity and that inspiration."> Munninghoff, p.131 === Hans Kmoch: Ermelo, November 19 <P. 17: Kmoch wants to report in all conscience, without drawing conclusions. The small Ermelo prepared the day well (<<<rührige Vorsorge getroffen>>>), among other things sending 3 cars to Amsterdam P. 18: to pick the whole company up. The cars drove in a single file. But their file was divided by a Amsterdam traffic policeman (<<<Verkehrsschutzmann>>>) and one car lost connection to the others. The driver was non-local and didn't know about chess (<<<orts- und schachfremd>>>) and didn't know the specific address. He arrived at the Hotel Carlton to pick up Alekhine with a delay of almost a whole hour. All the others had already gathered here. There was great nervousness as Alekhine was nowhere to be found. His wife was there and explained in excited tone that her husband considered the delay an insult and would not play today. This dispute took place in the public, in the hall of the Hotel. The <<<Reisemarschall>>> of the committee (<<<Reise>>> means journey/voyage, so he was probably the committee member organizing the travel) did not accept that. He explained that they would arrive 2 hours (<reichlich zwei Stunden>) before the start of the game in Ermelo. Apart from that, he only wanted to negotiate with Alekhine personally. Finally they found Alekhine. There was no doubt that he stood under the influence of alcohol which was not uncommon for him (<<<Er stand zweifellos unter dem Einfluß von Alkohol, was bei ihm keine Seltenheit ist.>>>). In earlier years, Alekhine had been observed in such a state. Then, he is will-less and calm. When he is drunk, you can hardly argue with him and today also, he didn't cause any trouble, agreeing to play. They asked him whether he wanted to travel to Ermelo by car or train and he chose train. His second Landau was entrusted to bring him to Ermelo. Furthermore, the committee decided to start the game half an hour later because of the delay in picking them up. The others left, while Alekhine went to sleep. He was supposed to come to Ermelo about <<<fünfviertel>>> hours (unusual expression, taken literally it's 5 times 15 min, so 1 h 15 min) prior to the game but didn't show up. It was told by telephone that he had missed the train and had to wait for the next one. This would suffice to reach the playing hall in time, i. e. at 7 pm. In the meantime, Alekhine had slept well and also in the train he appeared well-rested. Now he claimed that he would only play under moral protest. The committee refused to register this statement and suggested to let a physician decide whether Alekhine was capable of playing or not. Alekhine refused. The game began. Kmoch says that Alekhine's appearance did not make a good, but also not an unsual impression on him. He played calmly and his behaviour during the game gave no reason for complaint to opponent and officials (committee, <<<Kampfleiter>>>, second). During the opening, after about 10-15 moves, Euwe disappeared together with his wife without attracting attention and remained absent for about 15 min. He said later that he needed fresh air to fight his inner unrest. The audience hadn't noticed his disappearance, but the organizers and reporters had. There were different speculations, e. g. that he wanted to resign the game and end the match. This was told Amsterdam. Kmoch's wife P. 19: had stayed in Amsterdam and phoned the editors of an Amsterdam newspaper to inquire about the game standing. She was told that Alekhine had caused outrageous scandals in Ermelo and Euwe was close to resigning the won game. The matter was unclear and there was no overview of it possible at the moment. Game 21, November 19, Ermelo. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 38 min, Black 2 h 28 min. Page 20: Ermelo, November 20. They had spent the night in Ermelo and while the company met for breakfast, Alekhine had already resigned the game and travelled back to Amsterdam. His sealed move from yesterday was 41.Bb3. Now, the press became harsh towards Alekhine, claiming that he had come to the game totally intoxicated and he had done that out of expedience - a) to play better b) to upset his opponent with unsportive behaviour c) to denigrate his opponent's successes. The foreign press even claimed that Alekhine couldn't even move his pieces during the game and his second had to do that for him. Kmoch said that no one took into consideration that he may have drunk because he liked to. Alekhine reported a sickness that day and the medical report said affected heart (<<<angegriffenes herz>>>). Prescribed were a few days of absolute rest (<<<absolute ruhe>>>). In the afternoon, the committee held a press conference without a clear result. It was said that a drunken player should not be allowed to play and countered that thereby the players would have the means to overthrow the programme at will. Some eyewitnesses disputed that Alekhine was drunk during yesterday's game. You can argue about the condition of someone used to alcohol, especially if the alcohol consumption had taken place some hours before. Several experts reported that they hadn't observed something unusual about Alekhine's play yesterday. The debate ran dry and people left.> <Karpova's observation>: It was said that while drunk, Alekhine doesn't argue and he had no objections to play. Yet once they had arrived, he filed a protest - so maybe this indicates that the effect of alcohol had worn down. Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, Jan 1936, pp. 17-20 ############################# 24 Nov. (The Hague) <22d game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Hotel Witteburg (like in games 4 and 11). It became silent again pretty fast (<war sehr rasch Ruhe eingetreten>) after the great agitation on the 20th. The <<<"Incident">>> was discussed for not even one day in the press and then it was quiet (<<<Der "Incident" wurde kaum noch einen Tag lang in der Presse besprochen,...>>>). Alekhine had stayed in bed for 4 days and now came in company with his physician. Dr. Bernstein was among the kibitzers. Game 22, November 24, The Hague, Hotel Wittebrug. White 1 h 15 min, Black 50 min. (p. 34: Alekhine offered a draw after 17...Qh4).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Feb 1936, p. 33 ############################# 26-27 Nov. (Amsterdam) <23d game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Back again in the Amsterdam stock market (like game 12). About 1,000 spectators. It was said before that 26 was <<<Alekhine's lucky number>>>. Game 23, November 26, Amsterdam, Effektenbörse. Adjourned after 40 moves, White 2 h 11 min, Black 2 h 18 min. P. 35: Resumption on November 27, Amsterdam, Effektenbörse. White 3 h 4 min, Black 3 h 12 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Feb 1936, pp. 34-35 ############################# 28 Nov. (Delft) <24th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Unlike game 5, playing venue was today the <<<Societeis Eensgezindheit.>>> Game 24, November 28, Delft, Societeit Eensgezindheit. White 1 h 56 min, Black 2 h 13 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" Feb 1936, p. 36 ############################# 1-2 Dec. (Amsterdam) <25th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <0-1> Hans Kmoch: <Back again in the Militiezaal (like games 2, 8, 18 and 20). Game 25, December 1, Amsterdam, Militiezaal. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 37 min, Black 2 h 3 min. P. 41: Amsterdam, Militiezaal, December 2. Good atmosphere in holland, as Euwe was about to take the lead. Even non-chessplayers were drawn into it. The gmae was resumed but lasted only a few minutes. P. 42: Resumption, December 2, Amsterdam, Militiezaal. White 2 h 38 min, Black 2 h 4 min (compare with time after adjournment). Alekhine's goal for the match cannot be a win any longer but retaining his title with 15:15 score (<<<Der weitere Kampf kann für ihn kaum noch um den Sieg gehen, sondern um die Rettung des Titels bei einem Schlußstand 15:15.>>>). Alekhine said to feel comfortable so far, but he suffers from the psychological effect of unexpected losses (<<<Aljechin erklärte, er fühle sich soweit ganz wohl, leide jedoch unter dem seelischen Eindruck unerwarteter Niederlagen.>>>). He said that it should be considered that this could happen to the strongest man. Kmoch was estranged by Alekhine's quiet disheartenment as an Alekhine who doesn't fume after losses was no Alekhine. This is to be explained by attrition through the opponent (<<<Zermürbung durch den Gegner>>>).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung," Feb 1936, pp. 38-40 ############################# 3-4 Dec. 1935 (Zandvoort) <26th game> "The Pearl of Zandvoort" Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <The large hall of the Hotel Metropole was densely filled. Game 26, December 3, Zandvoort. Adjourned after move 40, White 2 h 40 min, Black 2 h 28 min. P. 70: Amsterdam, Militiezaal, December 4. The Zandvoort playing venue was not available, so the 2nd part of game 26 was relocated to Amsterdam. Although nobody expected the game to last long, there was terrible affluxion/crush (<<<fürchterlicher Andrang>>>, much too many people)). Resumption, December 4, Amsterdam, Militiezaal. White 2 h 45 min, Black 2 h 40 min. It lasted only 17 min. As compensation, Euwe explained the game on the <<<Wandschach>>> (kind of chess board on the wall). Page 71: Kmoch explains that Alekhine can hardly catch Euwe who leads +2 with 4 games to play. Reiterating that a draw means that Alekhine would retain his title (<<<Wohl genügt dem Weltmeister gleicher Schlußstand um den Titel zu retten, aber selbst um sich mit 15:15 aus der Affaire zu ziehen, müßte er im Endspurt eine übermenschliche Leistung vollbringen.>>>). Euwe's overall condition is still improving, while the World Champion is in gloom. Great chess enthusiasm in the whole of holland.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" March 1936, pp. 67-68 ############################# 6 Dec. 1935 (The Hague) <27th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1-0> Hans Kmoch: <P. 83: After a rest day, the match was continued in Hotel Wittebrug (like games 4, 11 and 22) but today's game almost became a catastrophe for the hotel - the audience was soon overcrowded, about 600 people who couldn't gain access were in the public rooms and hallway, hundreds had to be repelled at the hotel entrance. the telephone rang without a pause for long until late night and again from early morning on as the the game was adjourned and only when the broadcasting company reported the next day that euwe had resigned, it stopped. Page 84: Game 27, December 6, The Hague. White 2 h, Black 2 h 5 min. P. 85: The game was adjourned after with 41.b6 being the sealed move, and Euwe called Alekhine the next day and resigned (<<<nächsten Tages nach Tisch>>> which may mean after lunch).> (on a sidenote: <Jess>, it's interesting that skinner & verhoeven don't mention the Lasker/Grigoriew anaylsis as it is mentioned by Kmoch in his anlysis on p. 85). "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" March 1936, pp. 83-85 ============== <Dr. Lasker annotates (he got help from the Russian master Grigoriew) the 27th match game exclusively for the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' on pages 8-10 (January 1936 issue). This is just chess analysis, but his final comment on page 10: <<<Diese Partie ist eine glänzende Leistung Aljechins. Sie ist umso mehr anzuerkennen, als er offenbar eine seelische Krise durchzustehen hatte.>>> (this game is abrilliant achievement by Alekhine. It is the more to be acclaimed, as he was obviously getting through a mental/psychological crisis.)> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" January 1936, pp. 8-10 === <<<In Friday’s game in this city (The Hague – the 27th match-game) Alekhine played, at Klein’s instigation, the Vienna Opening. This he is fully entitled to do. Euwe consults with Flohr and Maróczy. However, that happens outside the playing-room and not while a game is being played. It seems that yesterday evening Alekhine consulted with Klein, who had just previously told other press representatives that the world champion was playing a variation analysed with him.>>> "Het Vaderland" 9 December 1935, page A. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 5326. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################# 8-9 Dec. (Amsterdam) <28th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <P. 101: Hans Kmoch, Amsterdam-Militiezaal, December 8. P. 102: About 1,000 spectators, more couldn't be permitted. Game 28, December 8, Militiezaal, Amsterdam. Adjourned after 40 moves, White 2 h 28 min, Black 1 h 29 min. P. 104: There was an unfortunate incident, there was a young man - a foreigner and chessplayer with incipient kudos (<beginnendem renommee>) who attended the game with a <<<Pressekarte>>> (probably a special pass to show that he was a member of the press) who refused to follow orders of the committee, although obligation and sanction (loss of <<<Pressekarte>>>) were mentioned on the <Pressekarte>. A member of the committee ordered him to hand his <Pressekarte> and leave the building, but in return the young man hit the member of the committee with his fist in the face. The police took care of the <<<rasende Reporter>>> (<<<rasender Reporter>>>, something like roving reporter, is in a way a play on words as <<<rasend>>> can also mean raging/frenzied). This incident occurred not in public, yet the press found out about it. Amsterdam, Hotel Carlton, December 9. Resumption of the game had to be relocated as the Militiezaaal was occupied. White 3 h 48 min, Black 3 h 53 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" April 1936, pp. 101-105. === Chessnote 5326. Ernst Klein: <‘An unpleasant incident during the 28th game of the Euwe-Alekhine match During this very important (given the current situation of the match) game an unpleasant incident occurred. It is known that the world champion has been analysing lately with the young Viennese master Ernest Klein, who is representing several foreign papers as a journalist and is therefore attending the match. <<<In Friday’s game in this city (The Hague – the 27th match-game) Alekhine played, at Klein’s instigation, the Vienna Opening. This he is fully entitled to do. Euwe consults with Flohr and Maróczy. However, that happens outside the playing-room and not while a game is being played. It seems that yesterday evening Alekhine consulted with Klein, who had just previously told other press representatives that the world champion was playing a variation analysed with him.>>> Klein was not sitting at the press-table; he had taken his seat in the area reserved for officials. During play, Alekhine, who became more and more excited – he smiled several times – went to Klein on more than one occasion and talked to him, and when he had entered the middle-game with a good position he shook hands warmly with Klein. One of the Committee members pointed out to the Viennese master that it is improper to talk to a player during the game. If Klein would not stop doing so, the Committee member added, the Committee would have no option but to expel him from the playing-hall and forbid him access to the other games. Klein protested that he could not stop the world champion talking to him. As a result, <<<he was told to leave the room and to hand in his press-card. This request he answered by slapping the official’s face, after which the police became involved.>>> Mr Klein’s conduct is clearly not correct, so we can – as far as we are able to judge from the facts – understand the Committee’s reaction. However, there is one matter that we do not understand. Should not the Committee have first informed the world champion of his incorrect behaviour? Even if not a word was spoken about the game, Dr Alekhine should have prevented anyone from thinking otherwise.’> "Het Vaderland" 9 December 1935, page A. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 5326. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################# 12-13 Dec. (Amsterdam) <29th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Amsterdam, Militiezaal, December 12. As the committee wants the players to be well-rested for the last 2 games, 2 rest days were inserted (December 10 and 11). Additionally, a rest day between game 29 and 30 (December 14). Should Euwe win game 29, he would be WC with 15 1/2 points. Yet the 30th game would still have to be played, as an informal/friendly game though. P. 106: Reiterated that, if Alekhine won game 29, he would only need a draw in game 30 to retain his title. Great surprise when Euwe played 1...Nf6 and most people criticised that choice. Game 29, December 12, Militiezaal. Adjourned afetr 41.Ra3. White 1 h 47 min, Black 2 h 29 min. P. 108: Another incident occurred, but it was merely a misunderstanding. Alekhine made his 41st move and left it his opponent to adjourn the game or not, i. e. to seal his next move or not. Playing time was not over yet and according to oral agreement, White had the right but not the duty to seal a move. In games 10 and 14, White (both times Euwe) had also executed his 41st move and not sealed it without any objection. But this time, a superfluous debate ensued, the game was adjourned and to a layman it must have looked as if Alekhine was being victimised. Euwe remained passive, and when his second Maroczy advised him to seal his move, he followed immediately. This ended the incident. Kmoch calls the incident not worth mentioning (<<<nicht der rede wert>>>) but the press reacted negatively towards Alekhine. So Kmoch feels that it is his duty as to say that Alekhine was merely asserting on his right. (Kmoch explains this with his own <<<in rücksichtsloser Objektivität bestehenden Kampfleiterpflicht>>>, which would men that he was the <<<Kampfleiter>>>, something like the match director?). P. 109: Amsterdam, Militiezaal, December 13. The game was resumed that evening. White 1 h 54 min, Black 2 h 38 min.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" April 1936, pp. 105-109. ############################# 15 Dec. 1935 (Amsterdam) <30th game- Last Round> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 <1/2> Hans Kmoch: <Amsterdam, Bellevue, December 15. Who would have thought at the beginning of the match taht the 30th game would be decisive? Again reiterating: If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the WC not beaten P. 134: and like in Lasker - Schlechter 1910, veverything stays the way it was. The committee rented the biggest hall available, but the capacity of 2,000 people was not enough. a strong platoon of ploicemen on horses had to keep the people seeking entrance at bay. Snow fell, yet the enthusiast stood in the queue for hours. It was Sunday, or else the press would have printed a special for every phase of the game, but this way the resorted to posting the moves with chessplayers explaining them. One newspaper rented a hall for 1,000 people (completely full) wherein an international grandmaster explained the moves, as they didn't want the people to have to wait outside in the cold. The game began at 7 pm, the committee had delayed the game for half an hour to lower the excitement. Euwe arrived at 6:30 pm and was hailed frenetically by the audience. In the last minute, Alekhine arrived. The WC was very elegantly dressed, though pale but glancing like during his lordliest/proudest days and welcomed with applause. he bowed down and said they meant his opponent (<<<Der Weltmeister trug Festkleidung: Frack, weiße Binde, Lackschuhe - eine blendend elegante Erscheinung. Wohl war sein Antlitz bleich, aber er hielt den Kopf hoch und blickte drein wie in seinen stolzesten Tagen. Die Menge klatschte. Da trat er an die Rampe, verneigte sich tief und sagte lächelnd: "Ich weiß, daß der Beifall meinem Gegner gilt". Es war eine wehmütige Ablehnung.>>>). P. 135: Game 30 (last), December 15, Hotel Bellevue, Amsterdam. White 2 h 10 min, Black 1 h 50 min. P. 136: Euwe offered a draw after 25.Rf2 but Alekhine declined, showing signs of earnest regret. P. 137: After move 34, Euwe repeated his draw offer but Alekhine rejected with tortured mien (<<<gequälter miene>>>) <<<"Ich muß, ich muß weiterspielen!">>> (i must, i must to play on). After Euwe had made his 40th move and prepared to sealhis following move, Alekhine understood that everything was over. <"Werden sie ihren nächten Zug abgeben?"> (are you going to seal your next move?) alekhine asked with low voice, Euwe shrugged <<<Wir haben es doch immer so getan.>>> (we always did it that way). The WC lowered his head for the fraction of a second, composed himself immediately and declared to be willing to accept the draw offer. Euwe gladly did, they stood up and Alekhine was the first one to congratulate him. Kmoch has a hard time decribing what happened then as exaltation was breaking out. 40 guards stormed the hall. cohorts of filmmakers appeared (<<<Scharen von Filmoperateuren>>>). Euwe got a huge laurel crown around his neck and flowers, flowers, flowers. Mr and Mrs Alekhine got a lot (<<<wurden reichlich bedacht>>>). Alekhine congratulated chess-holland. Euwe managed to esape outside but he was spotted and carried on shoulders to Hotel Carlton, wherein an improvised victory party took place <<<wobei es derart toll zuging, daß sogar Euwe ein Glas Whisky an die Lippen hob>>> (it was so great/mad a party that even Euwe put a glass of whisky at his lips). The celebrations went on for some days. P. 138: Euwe slept at most 3-4 h per night. This is how his vacancies went by (he was granted 3 additional weeks). last great obeisanc on january 19 in Delft, the <<<Unterrichtsminister>>> awarded him the <<<Offizierskreuz des Oranje-Nassau-Ordens>>>. Now the chess company (most attended the official closing banquette) : Lasker & Mieses had left earlier, then followed Maroczy. Tartakower left, Flohr stayed longer and then left for Hastings. official closing banquette: about 600 people in the hotel carlton. schort note by alekhine: he challenged the WC to a rematch. celebrations ended on january 30. "Alekhine-Euwe committee": van Dam, van Harten, mr. levenbach and liket. euwe surprisingly proved stronger in the field of psychology, which was the main battleground of the match. P. 139: Kmoch thinks that the new WC's strength may be his methodical way of thinking. a "weakness" rests on the fact that he doesn't have that much practice, so he can still improve. He could only beat Alekhine because in the critical time, chess was his only profession.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" May 1936, pp. 133-139 #################### <AFTER THE MATCH> Alekhine's excuses for his loss at Alekhine-Euwe 1935 <"During one period, from the 10th to the 14th games, I was falsely persuaded into a belief that the match was virtually over. In consequence, I treated the openings of these games with a carelessness unpardonable and committed errors which to anybody with a knowledge of my powers seemed incomprehensible." "From about this period, I have been the butt of a campaign of calumniation and misrepresentation organized by a part of the Dutch press and several members of the soi-disant 'Euwe-Alekhine' committee. This campaign reached its climax with the 21st game. This game was played absolutely without any unpleasant incident- contrary to press reports. This is officially confirmed by my adversary, Euwe; the director of the match, Kmoch and both our seconds, Maroczy and Landau. Such a <<<campaign>>> can hardly fail to have an unfortunate effect on a player engaged in a strenuous match, in which his title is at stake. In comparison with the atmosphere of this match, the one at Buenos Ayres in which I gained my title, and those against Bogoljubow in which I succeeded in retaining it, were ideal."> "Chess" vol 1 1935, p.124. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7937 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 1 game, 1935 WCC: Anand -Gelfand 2012 http://en.chessbase.com/post/jayala... 1 game, 2012 WCC: Anand vs Carlsen, 2013 http://en.chessbase.com/post/jayala... 1 game, 2013 WCC: Anand-Kramnik 2008 1 game, 2008 WCC: Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951 ORIGINAL: Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match (1951) <16 March - 11 May 1951> <DRAFT> David Bronstein was born in Bila Tserkva, Ukraine in 1924.<1> He showed early promise, debuting in the 1939 Ukrainian Championship at age 15.<2> A year later, his strong 2nd behind Isaac Boleslavsky in the 1940 Ukrainian Championship earned him the Soviet national master title.<1,3> Four years later he qualified for the USSR Championship (1944), where he finished 15th and notched his first <career victory> - <insert game link here>-Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944 over Mikhail Botvinnik. He improved to 3rd in the USSR Championship (1945), which garnered him a spot on the lower boards in Soviet team events, where he performed well.<4> He further progressed in smaller events with good results, such as winning two Moscow championships in a row.<5> But his performance against the best opposition was not yet strong enough to achieve the Soviet grandmaster title.<6> FIDE still invited him with six other Soviets to the Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948).<7> Bronstein won, and was immediately awarded the Soviet grandmaster title.<6> He carried this excellent form forward, sharing 1st in both the USSR Championship (1948) and the USSR Championship (1949). He went on to tie Boleslavsky for 1st in the Budapest Candidates (1950), and won the subsequent playoff match. Bronstein had earned the right to face title holder Mikhail Botvinnik in a world championship match. Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he had won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), but he studied thoroughly by annotating every game Bronstein had played since the start of the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal.<8> Beginning in January 1951, Botvinnik also began compiling a notebook filled with his latest ideas in all the openings he thought might figure prominently in the match.<9> Bronstein claimed that Botvinnik hadn't played since 1948 "because he did not want to reveal his opening secrets."<10> Botvinnik finalized his preparation just days before the match with two secret training games against Viacheslav Ragozin.<11> Bronstein also played two training games, against Semyon Furman and Paul Keres.<12> Match conditions had been decided at the Paris 1949 FIDE congress.<13> The winner would be the first to score 12 1/2 points from a maximum of 24 games, with the champion enjoying draw odds. The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, and 16 moves an hour thereafter, with an adjournment to the following day after five hours of play.<13,14> According to FIDE rules, the winner would receive $5,000 and the loser $3,000,<13> but Andrew Soltis maintains that Botvinnik and Bronstein actually got considerably less than this.<15> If the champion lost, he had the right to play the new champion and the winner of the next three year candidates cycle in a three player match tournament for the title. <13,16> The games were played in Moscow's Tchaikovsky Concert Hall under the direction of arbiter Karel Opocensky and controller Gideon Stahlberg. The seconds were Ragozin and Salomon Flohr for Botvinnik, and Alexander Konstantinopolsky for Bronstein.<17> Bronstein <opened the match>-<insert game link here> Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 with the Dutch Defense. Botvinnik considered himself an expert on both sides of the Dutch, and had not prepared for this system.<9,18> Botvinnik suspected that Bronstein meant to "force me to fight against my 'own' systems," a ploy he dismissed as "naive."<18> After scoring +0 -1 =2 in three attempts with the Dutch, Bronstein abandoned it after <game 9.>-<insert game link here>Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 By <game 22>-<insert game link here> Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951, Bronstein led by a point and needed only win once more, or draw twice in the last two games, in order to unseat the champion. Botvinnik responded with one of his best games of the match. He describes the final move of the <23rd game> -<insert game here> Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951, 57. Bg5: "Zugzwang... Bronstein needed forty minutes to convince himself of the inevitability of defeat."<19> Bronstein could still have become champion by winning the <final game>-<insert game link here> Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951, but after pressing with the white pieces for 22 moves, he appeared to be without winning chances and accepted Botvinnik's draw offer.<20> By tying the match score 12-12, Botvinnik retained his title. After the match, Botvinnik was complimentary to his opponent, noting that Bronstein "presses the attack with remarkable power, he has an excellent command of openings and is frequently able to wrest the initiative from the start."<21> Years later, Botvinnik and Bronstein spoke in less friendly terms about the match. Bronstein complained that "When the 24th game was finished, many journalists came to the stage and asked Botvinnik to hold a press conference. The Champion agreed but 'forgot' to invite me to attend."<22> Botvinnik accused Bronstein of "outrageous" behavior: "He would make a move and quickly go behind the stage, then... suddenly dart out and disappear again. In the auditorium there was laughter, and this hindered my playing."<23> Bronstein has controversially hinted that there was government pressure on him to lose the match. In a 1993 interview he explained that "There was no direct pressure... But... there was the psychological pressure of the environment..." in part caused by his father's "several years in prison" and what he labeled "the marked preference for the institutional Botvinnik." Bronstein concluded that "it seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost."<24> NOTES <1> David Bronstein and Tom Fürstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Cadogan 1995), pp.263-264 <2> Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... <3> Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... <4> After his 3d place at the USSR Championship (1945), Bronstein joined the Soviet team in the following international events: 10th board in the USSR-USA Radio Match (1945) Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/matches/... 1st board in the Prague-Moscow Match (1946) http://www.olimpbase.org/other/resu... 7th board in the USSR-Great Britain Radio Match (1946) Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/matches/... 10th board in the USSR-USA Match (1946) Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/matches/... and 9th board in the USSR-Great Britain Match (1947) Harry Golombek, "Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess" (Crown Publishers, Inc. 1977), p.45 <5> Alexey Popovsky, "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... <6> "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.8-9 (Aug-Sept 1948), pp.180-181 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... User: Tabanus transl. <7> Kotov and Yudovich, "Soviet Chess School" (Raduga Publishers 1982), pp.77-78 <8> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed. Ken Neat transl. (Edition Olms 2004), pp.103-113 <9> Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," pp.114-119 <10> Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.16-17 <11> Jan Timman, "Secret Matches- the Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises, Inc., 2000), p.9 <12> Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.300 <13> "Tidskrift för schack" nr. 7-8 (July-Aug 1949), pp.153-157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... User: Tabanus transl. <14> "Chess Life" (10 Feb 1951), p.1 <15> Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 2000), p.188 <16> Yuri Averbakh, "Centre-Stage and Behind The Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend" Steve Giddins, transl. (New in Chess 2011), p.112 <17> Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.11 <18> Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.16 <19> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Half a Century of Chess" E. Strauss transl. (Cadogan 1996), pp.163-164 <20> Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.102 <21> "Chess Review" (Sept 1951), p.279 <22> Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.17 <23> Genna Sosonko, "Russian Silhouettes, 3d Edition" (New in Chess 2001), p.39 <24> "Revista Internacional de Ajedrez" (Mar 1993), pp.38-42. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 4753 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ######################### ############################## DAVID BRONSTEIN (born Feb-19-1924, died Dec-05-2006) Ukraine === <Bronstein> pre-match highlights: === 12-31 Dec, 1939 <11th Ukrainian Championship in Dnepropetrovsk> 8th, behind Boleslavsky, Poliak, Konstantinovsky, Kaem, Kotlerman, Kirillov and Lipnitsky, with +6 -6 =3 === 1940 <12 Ukrainian Championship in Kiev 1940> 2d, behind Boleslavsky, ahead of Kirillov, Rudakovsky, Zhukhovitsky, Goldenov and Poliak, with +7 -1 =9 Awarded the Soviet Master title. ================= Feb-March, 1944 <USSR Championship Semifinal in Baku> 4th, behind Lilienthal, Makogonov and Mikenas, with +5 -4 =2 ================= 21 May - 17 June, 1944 USSR Championship (1944) 15th, behind Botvinnik, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Flohr, Mikenas, Makogonov, Tolush, Lilienthal, Sokolsky, Veresov, Ragozin, Kotov, Khavin and Lisitsin, with +4 -7 =5 ================ Sept-Oct, 1944 <Championship of "Club Bolshevik" in Kiev> Shared 5th with Makogonov, behind Sokolsky, Flohr, Boleslavsky and Tolush, with +4 -3 =4 ================ 1945 <USSR Championship Semifinal in Moscow> 1st over Kan, Alatortsev and Romanovsky, with +9 -2 =4 === 1 June - 1 July, 1945 USSR Championship (1945) 3d, behind Botvinnik and Boleslavsky, with +7 -4 =6 ================= 1-4 Sept, 1945 USSR - USA Radio Match (1945) 10th board vs. Santasiere, with +2 -0 =0 ================= 25 Jan - 17 Feb, 1946 <25th Moscow Championship> 1st, over Simagin, Alatortsev, Kotov, Panov and Smyslov, with +10 -2 =3 ================= 2-20 March, 1946 (Prague) - 2-15 May 1946 (Moscow) <Prague-Moscow Match 1946> 1st board, with +10 -1 =1. 2d through 7th boards for Moscow: Kotov, Smyslov, Lilienthal, Alatortsev, Bondarevsky and Simagin. ================= 19-22 June, 1946 <USSR-Great Britain Radio Match 1946> 7th board vs. Winter, with +1 -1 =0 ================== 12-15 Sept, 1946 Game Collection: 0 10th board vs. Ulvestad, with +1 -1 =0 ================= Date ??? <26th Moscow Championship 1947> 1st, over Ravinsky, Simagin and Panov with +7 -3 =4 ================== 2 Feb - 8 March, 1947 USSR Championship (1947) 6th, behind Keres, Boleslavsky, Smyslov, Bondarevsky and Tolush, with +5 -2 =12 ================ 14 July - 4 Aug, 1947 <Parnu National Training Tournament 1947> Shared 5th with Smyslov and Boleslavsky, behind Keres, Kotov and Lilienthal, with +5 -2 =6 === 21-23 Sept, 1947 <USSR-Great Britain Match 1947> 9th board vs. Abrahams, scoring +2-0=0. 1st through 8th boards: Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Kotov, Bondarevsky, Lilienthal, Flohr and Ragozin. ================= 11 Oct - 5 Nov, 1947 <USSR Championship Semifinal> Shared 3d with Lisitsyn, behind Aronin and Taimanov, with +7 -2 =6 ================= 16 July - 14 Aug, 1948 Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948) 1st place, over Szabo, Boleslavsky, Kotov, Lilienthal, Bondarvesky, Najdorf and Flohr, with +8 -0 =11 Game Collection: Bronstein at the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948) Awarded the Soviet Grandmaster title. ================ 10 Nov - 13 Dec, 1948 USSR Championship (1948) Shared 1st with Kotov, over Furman, Flohr, Tolush, Bondarevsky and Keres, with +7 -1 =10 ================= 5-17 March, 1949 (Budapest) and 2-15 April, 1949 (Moscow) <Moscow-Budapest Match 1949> 4th board, with +8 -1 =7. 1st through 3d boards for Moscow: Kotov, Smyslov and Simagin. Awarded the FIDE International Grandmaster title (July). ================== 16 Oct - 20 Nov, 1949 USSR Championship (1949) Shared 1st with Smyslov, over Geller, Taimanov and Furman, with +8 -1 =10 ================= 9 April - 16 May, 1950 Budapest Candidates (1950) Shared 1st with Boleslavsky, over Smyslov, Keres, Najdorf and Kotov, with +8 -2 =8. Game Collection: Bronstein at the Budapest Candidates 1950 July-Aug, 1950 <Candidates playoff vs. Boleslavsky> 1st, with +3 -2 =9 Game Collection: 0 ================ 16 March - 11 May, 1951 Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match (1951) ############################## Chess Review 1951 p. 172 Kmoch game report <"57.Bg5" Is there a possibility to use also the {} in the Intros, to make the move look like Bg5?> ##################################### -<1a> Kotov and Yudovich, "Soviet Chess School" (Raduga Publishers 1982), pp.77-78 "(The interzonal) was distinguished from all the rest because its competitors were not the winners of zonal tournaments, but chess players put on the list by votes of specialists. Seven Soviet chess players were among those invited..." #################################### Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948) There was no Soviet zonal for this event,<1a> so FIDE directly chose all seven Soviets, including Bronstein, by a vote.<2a> The chosen Soviets were Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Kotov, Lilienthal, Flohr, Bondarevsky and Ragozin. The top 9 finishers in the interzonal tournament would advance to the Budapest Candidates (1950). The unsuccessful invitees to the 1948 Championship were seeded directly into the <Budapest Candidates 1950>, but only Vasily Smyslov and Paul Keres decided to compete in that event.<3a> Since Smyslov and Keres were the only two Soviets besides Botvinnik who played in the <1948 WCC tourament>, and they were seeded directly into <Budapest 1950>, that means that FIDE's choice of the 7 Soviet Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948) invitees indicates that they considered Bronstein among the top 11 Soviet players, even though he was not in fact yet a grandmaster. This makes sense, given that from his excellent 3d place in the USSR Championship (1945), Bronstein had joined the Soviet team in international matches. In chronological order, in international team events preceding the Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948), he played 10th board in the USSR - USA Radio Match (1945), 1st board in the <Prague-Moscow Match 1946>, 7th board in the <USSR-Great Britain Radio Match 1946>, 10th board in the Game Collection: 0, and 9th board in the <USSR-Great Britain Match 1947>. On the other hand, Bronstein had generally been relegated to the lower boards in Soviet team events, and he had scored rather indifferent results in all four of the events he played running up to the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal. He had yet to achieve the title of Soviet Grandmaster.<4a> After winning the interzonal, however, Bronstein really began to play like a world championship challenger, posting back to back shared firsts in the <USSR Championships>. -<1a> Kotov and Yudovich, "Soviet Chess School" (Raduga Publishers 1982), pp.77-78; "Rusbase" http://al20102007.narod.ru/zont.html -<2a> "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.6-7 (June-July 1948), p.139 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... -<3a> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid... -<4a> "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.8-9 (Aug-Sept 1948), p.18 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... === At the time of Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948), Bronstein held the Soviet Master title, and was awarded the Soviet Grandmaster title after winning the event.<4a> -<4a>"Tidskrift för Schack" nr.8-9 (Aug-Sept 1948), p.18o http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... === Bronstein was awarded the FIDE International Grandmaster title in July 1949. From the FIDE congress of that year: "1) The title of international grandmaster goes to the following players... Players who are qualified to participate in FIDE's Candidates tournament, for now the 14 who are qualified for Budapest..."<5a> -<5a> "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.7-8 (July-Aug 1949), p.159 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... ################### ================ <"The only thing I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various sources and <<<it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not.>>> Let's leave it at that. I had reasons not to become the World Champion as in those times such a title meant that you were entering an official world of chess bureaucracy with many formal obligations. Such a position is not compatible with my character. Since my childhood I have enjoyed freedom and despite the country that I grew up in, I have tried to live all my years in this spirit and I am very happy that today I feel the same and can enjoy my freedom."> -David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Cadogan 1995), p.16 ################## Edward Winter, Chessnote 4753: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <The late David Bronstein seldom gave interviews, but a substantial one with Antonio Gude appeared on pages 38-42 of the March 1993 Revista Internacional de Ajedrez. Bronstein expressed irritation that he was remembered for his world championship match with Botvinnik and his book on the 1953 Candidates’ tournament. Asked whether he had been under pressure to lose the former event, he stated that, although there had not been direct pressure, circumstances related to his father, the fact that he was a Jew, and a clear institutional preference for Botvinnik had resulted in psychological pressure; Bronstein considered that winning the match could have been very damaging for him, although that did not mean that he had <<<lost intentionally.>>> For the record we quote the full exchange on this matter: ‘Gude: ¿Qué me dice del match con Botvinnik? ¿Le presionaron para que usted perdiera? Bronstein: No hubo presión directa, naturalmente. Pero existían circunstancias, como mi padre, un manifiesto opositor al régimen, que había estado varios años en prisión, mi condición de judío, la marcada preferencia institucional por Botvinnik, a quien se le veía como un modelo soviético de campeón ... Había la presión psicológica del entorno, y a mí me parecía que ganar podría perjudicarme seriamente, lo cual no significa que yo perdiera de forma deliberada ...’ Google Translation: <'Gude: What about the match with Botvinnik? Would you pressured to lose? Bronstein: There was no direct pressure naturally. But there are circumstances, like my father, an opposition manifesto regime, who had been several years in prison, my Jewishness, the marked preference for institutional Botvinnik, whom he saw as a Soviet champion model ... There was the psychological pressure of the environment, and <<<it seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost>>> ... '> Bronstein spoke of the influence of his father, a rebellious defender of democracy. ‘From him I inherited that trait: when I am forbidden to do something, I rebel.’> ################# #################### <Game 23> <23d game> King's Indian Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1-0> Botvinnik: <"(Bronstein) <<<behaved outrageously.>>> In the auditorium, directly opposite the stage, was the box of the KGB, where all his supporters from his Dinamo club were sitting. So when he sacrificed something or won a pawn, they all applauded. He would make a move and quickly go behind the stage, then he would suddenly dart out and disapperar again. In the auditorium there was laughter, and this hindered my playing. And regarding the fact that he claimed during the 23d game he was thinking more about the fate of his father, he was prompted to say this by Weinstein, his evil genius. Weinstein was a dreadful man, simply dreadful. He hated me, and he did not want me to become World Champion."> -Genna Sosonko "Russian Silhouettes" (New in Chess, 3d Edition, 2001), p.39 ============ Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 3000), pp.192-94 Lev Khariton, "Love and Bitterness" "Chesscafe.com" (Sept 1988) http://www.chesscafe.com/text/botbr... === ############################## <GAme 24> Botvinnik: "Draw agreed on the proposal of Black" -Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" p.102 ################################## <"Botvinnik praised Bronstein's play. He stated particularly that Bronstein <<<"presses the attack with remarkable power, he has an excellent command of openings and is frequently able to wrest the initiative from the start.>>> Bronstein plays less successfully in the end-game and patently has to improve in this respect... I have to admit that the match revealed a number of faults in my own play. Likely this happened because I had not played for a considerable time... "> -"Chess Review" (Sept 1951), p.279 ####################### <Conditions> -<Match Length>: FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : -<Punkt 11> <11 World Cup Match up to 24 games. When one of the players reaches <<<12 ½ score,>>> he shall be declared the winner, and the match will terminate.> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... === -<Time Control> FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : -<Punkt 12> <12. At World contest should generally played three games a week. All unfinished games from each round continued the following day. The first <<<forty moves>>> in two and a half hours, and the game is to be adjourned after five hours of total play time. Cancelled portions school played with sixteen moves . A further interruption shall be made only after six hour total playing time, then then, at least eighty-eight moves.> More and BETTER on <punkt12>, courtesy <Tabanus>: TOP secret decoding: <12. At a World championship contest* there should in general be played three games a week, so that unfinished games from each round are continued the following day. The first 40 moves shall be made in two and a half hours, and the game will be interrupted after five hours of total playing time. Adjourned games shall be played with 16 moves an hour. Further adjournments will happen only after six hours total playing time, i. e. when at least 88 moves have been made.> Not sure if this makes sense, but the decoding should be fairly accurate. The "six hours" are counted from the time of the 1st adjournment: 40 moves (max 5 hours) + 3 x 16 moves (max 6 hours) = 88 moves (max 11 hours). *Whether tournament or match (my interpret.) Or to put it differently: Adjournment after 5 hours (min. 40 moves) + after 6 more hours (min. 3 x 16 moves) = second adjournment after min. 88 moves. Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... =============== -<Draw odds> for the champion: FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : -<Punkt 9> <9."If a world champion in a world championship match achieves a <<<draw>>>, or ties for first place with one or more participants in a world championship tournament, he retains his title."> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... -<Botvinnik,> writing about the time just before he was about to begin the match against <Bronstein> in 1951: <"By that time the recently confirmed rules for world championship matches had come into force. In the winter of 1949 I had published a draft for these rules. As a preparation I studied everything that had been published on the topic earlier. In drawing up the draft I took great care to ensure that the two players in the match had equal rights. The champion had just one advantage- in the event of a drawn match he kept his title. To take the title the challenger had to... (win the match). In July 1949 the twenty-fifth anniversary of FIDE was celebrated at the Congress in Paris... and <<<points to do with the rules of the world championship were allotted to me.>>> The founder President of FIDE, A. Rueb... was opposed to the acceptance of the rules at this Congress... but finally he withdrew his objections. The incoming President, F. Rogard... also had no objections- he needed the support of the Soviet delegation."> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), pp. 127-128 === 3 games, 1951 WCC: Botvinnik-Petrosian 1963 Original: Botvinnik - Petrosian World Championship Match (1963) ############################################# <Candidates Cycle> -<Change to a Candidates Match format> Averbakh: <"At the 1962 Congress at Varna, the Candidates' tournament format was <<<changed>>> to matches..."> --Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p.114 *This change was not enacted until the 1963-1966 cycle Curacao Candidates Tournament: Curacao Candidates (1962) === Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962) Petrosian: <"...after beating Tal in the return match, Botvinnik had said something to the effect that, if a Soviet player won the next Candidates' event, he might decide not to defend his title. Under the rules of the International Chess Federation, the conditions for the world championship match must be ratified by the FIDE President, not less than four months before the start of the match. Given that the matches in Moscow usually began around the middle of March, Botvinnik still had quite a long time in which to consider whether to defend his title. <<<There were some outward signs that the chess federation of the USSR was preparing for the possibility of Botvinnik refusing to play the match.>>> This explained the <<<hastily-arranged match between grandmasters Keres and Geller,>>> who had shared 2nd-3d places in the Candidates' tournament. The match was needed to determine outright 2nd place, the player concerned thereby gaining the right to play in the next Candidates' tournament, but also, what is more important, the right to participate in a match for the world championship itself, if Botvinnik did not play."> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.93 ########################################## <Preparation> -<Botvinnik> <"It is well known that <<<S.A. Furman worked as an openings consultant to Botvinnik, in his world championship matches of 1961 and 1963.>>> This happened after Botvinnik was forced to manage without the help of his old comrade Grigory Goldberg."> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), pp.123-24 -<Training Matches> In January-February 1963 <Botvinnik> played 8 secret training games with Furman. None of the scores were recorded, except for a draw in game 5. -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), pp.123-132 === -<Petrosian> Petrosian: <"1) Seeking out, analysing and, if possible, finding new possibilities in quiet openings. This was in case the match took on a quiet character, without any great difference in the scores. 2) If, on the other hand, my opponent managed to seize and maintain the lead, then in order to be able to effect a sharp change in the character of the struggle, it would be essential to have at the ready some systems that lead to double-edged, even if risky, play. ...Nor did I forget the need for physical preparation.... the necessity of spending a lot of time in the fresh air forced me to invest in a fur coat... The skills of Petrosian the skier increased notably over this period... The endless climbs and descents were especially difficult for me... By the time the skiing season had ended, I had come to love this splendid form of sport... ...<<<About three weeks before the start of the match, I completely stopped all chess work.>>> Skiing, billiards, reading, walking in teh evening, and conversations around a blazing fire- these became the means by which I got myself in the mood for the battle to come."> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), pp.99-100 "After the Candidates' tournament, Petrosian stated, in interviews with correspondents, that he had begun preparations for his match with Botvinnik even in Curacao. Or perhaps even earlier? Petrosian had minutely commented Botvinnik's last four world championship matches... in the columns of "Sovietsky Sport." - Vik L. Vasiliev, "Tigran Petrosian- His Life and Games" Michael Basman transl. (Batsford 1974), p.126 ######################################### <Predictions> ######################################## <Conditions> -<Return Match> "Under FIDE rules, the right to a return match was withdrawn at the congress in Luxembourg... in 1959, but this rule only came into effect beginning with the 1963 match. Botvinnik did not protest against this, although he considered it an unjustifiable breach with long-established tradition" -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.10 === 1. Canceling the Champion's right to a rematch. Averbakh: <"...the FIDE Congress in Luxembourg in 1959 voted to <<<cancel>>> the champion's right to a return match. The delegates to the Congress acknowledged that allowing the champion to retain the title in the event of a drawn match, and to have a return match if he lost, gave him too many advantages... It meant that in order to keep the title, the challenger had to play the world champion not once, but twice- he had to beat him the first time, and not lose the second."> --Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p.114 === EDIT <Whiteshark> <"...Rogard nevertheless did not change the <<<rules>>> laid down for the three-year cycle 1958-1960, and for this period the right to a return match was retained."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim." Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.160 === EDIT <Whiteshark>, <tabanus> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265-26 Reports about FIDE-kongressen in Luxemburg. Transl. by <tabanus>: <"A significant news concerning the end phase of the competition system is, that the right for a dethroned World Champion to claim a return match is <<<abolished in principal,>>> though shall the current World Champion keep his right to such a match if he in 1960 should lose his title."> -Tidskrift för Schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265 === -<Arbiters>: Harry Golombek and Gideon Stahlberg -<FIDE Representative>: Max Euwe -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.100 -<Seconds>: Boleslavsky (Petrosian) - Vik L. Vasiliev, "Tigran Petrosian- His Life and Games" Michael Basman transl. (Batsford 1974), pp. 140-141 Igor Botvinnik: <"It is well known that <<<S.A. Furman worked as an openings consultant to Botvinnik, in his world championship matches of 1961 and 1963.>>> This happened after Botvinnik was forced to manage without the help of his old comrade Grigory Goldberg. Mikhail Moiseevich told how, after his first match with Tal, he sensed Goldberg's admiration for the young champion, but even so, in the summer of 1960, he sent his old comrade a letter... with an invitation to be his second for the return match. He received a 9-page reply, setting out numerous conditions necessary for him to have any hope of revenge, all of which, Botvinnik laughed, were impossible to fulfill! And now it is time to dispose of one legend, which has made the rounds of the chess world. In the Russian book on Furman there is a story about Furman's time as Botvinnik's second. It is claimed that Furman once advised Botvinnik to play for a draw in an adjourned game, but that Botvinnik did not agree and went on to lose the game, after which Furman was sent off to read a lecture to junior players of the Trud chess club, to get him out of the way. When I once drew Mikhail Moiseevich's attention to this episode, I received a brusque answer: 'In this match, as in the earlier ones, Furman was just an openings consultant, not a second, and I did not analyse adjourned positions with him.'"> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), pp.123-24 === -<Venue> Estrada Theatre. Adjourned games finished at the Central Chess Club. -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.100 === Igor Botvinnik: <"The match, and indeed the whole cycle, took place under the rules adopted by the FIDE Congress of 1959, although as far as the final match is concerned, these rules hardly differed from those applying previously. Once again, there would be <<<up to 24 games, ending when one player reached 12.5 or 13 points. Once again, too, the World Champion needed only a draw to retain his title,>>> whilst the challenger had to win the match to take the world championship. <<<Each player had 2.5 hours for 40 moves. Adjourned sessions would last a maximum of 6 hours, at a time-control of 16 moves per hour.>>> The player could postpone up to three playing days on grounds of illness, without any penalty. Any further postponements would cost him one point each (i.e., loss of the relevant game). <<<In analysing adjourned positions, each player was entitled to employ the assistance of only one of his seconds.>>> This second could be nominated at any time, but could only take up his duties two weeks after nomination. Spectators should not that no disturbance of the playing conditions (for example the lighting, use of flash photography, etc....) was permitted during play. The judges were equally strict with regard to noise. In extreme cases, if the noise reached an unacceptable level, play could be moved to a private room. The World Champion would receive a medal and a diploma from the world chess federation. The main difference from the rules used for previous contests was that, in the event of defeat, the World Champion would not have the right to a return match."> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.14 ================= -<Game start time> 4:30pm -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.100 ################################ <Course of the Match> <1st game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <0-1> ################################ <2d game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <3d game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <4th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <5th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1-0> ################################ <6th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <7th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1-0> ################################ <8th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <9th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <10th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <11th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <12th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <13th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <14th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1-0> ################################ <15th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1-0> ################################ <16th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <17th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <18th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <0-1> ################################ <19th game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1-0> ################################ <20th game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <21st game> Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963 <1/2> ################################ <22d game> Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 <1/2> ######################################### <ChessNote 8397> Botvinnik on the world championship http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Stuart Rachels (Tuscaloosa, AL, USA) asks whether Hans Ree was right to state on page 128 of the 7/2013 New in Chess: ‘Botvinnik has said that a world championship match, with everything that it involves, would take one year off one’s life.’ The best supporting quote that we can offer is a paragraph by Harry Golombek about the 1963 Botvinnik v Petrosian match, on page 115 of Chess Life, May 1963: Golombek: <‘Both contestants have shown, on and off, undoubted signs of strain and both have given utterance to their thoughts on the matter. <<<Botvinnik has said that each world championship match has cost him a year of his life.>>> He may have meant by this that the necessary preparation for such a match took a year, but it is still more likely that he meant the anguish and the pain caused by the whole contest shortened his life expectation by one year.’> -Harry Golombek, "The World Championship: Second Phase" "Chess Life" Vol.18 No.5 May 1963, pp.115-16 3 games, 1963 WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1957 ORIGINAL: Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match (1957) Game Collection: Smyslov vs World Champions Decisive Games ################################# <5 March - 27 April 1957> ######################## <Chess events 13 May 1954- 5 March 1957> (Smyslov's results) === <USSR-USA Team Match 1954> in New York (19-23 June) 1st board vs. <Reshevsky> +0 -0 =4 === <USSR-Great Britain Team Match 1954> in London (3-5 July) 1st board vs. <C.H.O.D. Alexander>: +1 -0 =1 . === <Amsterdam Olympiad> (4-25 Sept 1954) Bronze medal on 2d board with 75% +6 -0 =6 === <Hastings 1954-55> (29 Dec 1954 - 7 Jan 1955) Hastings (1954/55) Shared 1st with <Keres> === <22d USSR Championship 1955> (11 Feb - 15 March) USSR Championship (1955) 2d to <Geller> after a 7 game playoff, over <Botvinnik>, <Spassky>, <Petrosian> and <Keres> === <USSR-USA Team Match 1955> in Moscow (21 June - 8 July) 2d board vs. <Bisguier>: +4 -0 =0 === <USSR-Sweden Team Match 1955> in Stockholm (9-12 July) 1st board vs. <Stahlberg>: +1 -0 =1 === <USSR-Poland Team Match 1955> (First European Team Championship semi-final) in Lodz (25-28 July) 1st board vs. <Sliwa>: +2 -0 =0 === <Zagreb 1955> (1-25 Nov) 1st over <Matanovic>, <Ivkov>, <Gligoric> and <Geller> === <Amsterdam Candidates 1956> (27 March - 30 April) Amsterdam Candidates (1956) 1st over <Keres>, <Szabo>, <Spassky>, <Petrosian>, and <Bronstein> === <USSR-Yugoslavia Team Match 1956> in Belgrade (17-28 June) <Smyslov> scored 5.5 from 8 rounds: vs. <Karaklajic> +1 vs. <Gligoric =1> vs. <Matanovic> =1 vs. <Ivkov> =1 vs. <Pirc> +1 vs. <Milic> =1) vs. <Djurasevic> +1 =1 === <Moscow Olympiad 1956> (31 Aug - 25 Sept) +5 -1 =7 === <Alekhine Memorial 1956> in Moscow (9 Oct - 2 Nov) Alekhine Memorial (1956) Shared 1st with <Botvinnik> over <Taimanov>, <Gligoric> ############################## Smyslov was seeded directly into the <Amsterdam Candidates 1956> (27 March - 30 April) Amsterdam Candidates (1956) 1st over <Keres>, <Szabo>, <Spassky>, <Petrosian>, and <Bronstein>> because he had participated in a WCC Match in the previous cycle. ######################## <Match preparation> Botvinnik: <"Collect all Smyslov games played since 1 March 1954; Make a card index of openings; Draw up overall characteristics, after studying games and card index; Look at Olympiad, Alekhine Memorial, theoretical bulletins, semifinals and finals (of Soviet Championships- translator's note), etc, and pick out anything valuable; prepare openings for 12 Black and 12 White games; Test these in two sets of training games- 1-15 January, 6 games, 1-15 February, 6 games. Total 12 games. Check the rest in home analysis; <<<Physical preparation:>>> Spend not less than 4 days each week at the dacha, except for the periods 1-15 January and 1-15 February, when no. of days at the dacha should be no less than 6 per week. Skiing, showers, salt-baths, ice-skating, walking, sleeping with window ajar, see dentist, exercises."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" I.Y. Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2009), p.92 === -<Training match with Averbakh> Averbakh: <"The final stage of Botvinnik's preparations for the second match with Smyslov was supposed to be a match between us of twelve games. We were due to start straight after the 1957 new year, but suddenly I went down with a cold and was ill for a week. As a result, we only played ten games, although the adjourned ninth game was never resumed. The score in the match was +3 -2 -4 in Botvinnik's favour, but in the unfinished game, I had an extra exchange and good winning chances. I remember that this match was extremely hard. We fought unusually hard for a training match. Several games ended in extreme time trouble, which often resulted in serious blunders. Now looking back at these games after half a century, and as it were re-living these battles anew, it occurred tome that these battles may have cost Botvinnik too much strength and nervous energy. <<<I cannot rule out the possibility that when he sat down at the board a month later with Smyslov, Botvinnik had not fully recovered,>>> and that this somehow influenced the course of the match."> -Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes" Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2011), p.101 Timman: <Between <<<25 Dec 1956- 30 Jan 1957>>>, at Botvinnik's dacha in Nikolina gora, he played 9 training games against Averbakh.> -Jan Timman, "Secret Matches: The Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises Inc. 2000), pp.79-83 ============= ########################## <Conditions> -<Match length> First to 12 1/2 points from a maximum of 24 games. --Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Hardinge Simpole, 1958), p.8 === -<Time control> 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves per additional hour. Golombek: <"Sessions of play were from five to ten in the evening three times a week and adjourned games were played at the <<<Central Chess Club>>> on the day following the first session of play from four till ten in the evening."> -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" p.2 === -<Draw odds> for the champion: FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : Translation by <Tabanus> -<Punkt 9> <9."If a world champion in a world championship match achieves a <<<draw>>>, or ties for first place with one or more participants in a world championship tournament, he retains his title."> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 === -<Arbiter> Harry Golombek -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" p.1 -G.H. Diggle, article in "Newsflash" (June 1981). In Edward Winter, Chessnote 8091. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... -<Umpire> Gideon Stahlberg -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" p.8 === -<Seconds> Averbakh and Grigory Goldberg Grigory Goldberg (for Botvinnik) Bondarevsky and Vladimir Makogonov (for Smyslov) One second was allowed to help analyze adjourned games. In this case, it was Averbakh and Makogonov who had the rights to these particular duties. -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Harding Simpole 2002 -original copyright Golombek 1957), p. 8 -<Smyslov> testifies to the value of <Makogonov's> aid: <"During the match against Botvinnik, Makogonov was one of my coaches <<<And the fact that I became world champion>>> is due in large part to his work. He expounded his ideas clearly and persuasively. I remember his excellent analysis, which he summed up with the help of diagrams. This method is best to fix in memory the most important opening positions."> (translation by Google. I adjusted some of the punctuation, diction and phrasing for clearer English idiom and sense) -http://sultanov.azeriland.com/chess... === -<venue> Tchaikovsky Concert Hall -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" p.1 === -<Right to a Rematch> FIDE Congress Moscow 1956 "FIDE has increased the number of zones from 7 to 9, through making an Asian zone and increasing the zones in Europe from 2 to 3" "The Candidate tournament in 1959 to select the challenger to the World Champion will be organised with 7 participants and quadruple rounds, and the final will be played in 1960. The right for dethroned World champions to step in as third participant in a final competition has been annulled and replaced by the right for him to have a return match against the new World champion before the Candidate tournament under certain conditions." -<Tidskrift för Schack> Nov-Dec 1956, p.234 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19..., p.234 -<Averbakh>: <"At the Moscow FIDE Congress in 1956, the point about the three-player match-tournament was <<<removed>>>, and instead of this, the world champion was given the right to a return match."> -Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p. 112 -<Botvinnik>: <"According to the rules of 1949 the ex-champion could be the third party in an event. Rogard was opposed to such a three-man match tournament, <<<fearing a conspiracy>>> between two of the contestants... The right of a defeated champion to a return match was maintained by laying down that this match should take place the year after his defeat."> Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.146 ###################### <Course of the match> Golombek: "The Tchaikovsky Concert Hall... holds some 2,000 spectators, and, though at the beginning of the match not more than 1,000 were present, those numbers continually increased as the match progressed." -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" p.8 === <1st game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (0-1) ###################### <2d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <3d game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <4th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (0-1) ###################### <5th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <6th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <7th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <8th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <9th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <10th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <11th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <12th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <13th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <14th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <15th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <16th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <17th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (0-1) "Tied after seven games, the match swung in Smyslov's favor after this game... -Adjourned position after <42.Ne1> click for larger view "...The general consensus about the adjourned position was a likely draw, but White can make Black sweat. Botvinnik studied the position extensively but found no strong line of play. He called the match arbiter and offered a draw- and was stunned when Smyslov refused. It had never occured to him that Black could try to win... After <48...Kh4!> click for larger view ...Goldberg acknowledged later that Botvinnik had underestimated this maneuver. The king threatens to reach <f1> after which White finds himself in Zugzwang." Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), pp.257-38 === -<Karpova> Vasily Smyslov: <The game was adjourned, and the following morning Goldberg, Botvinnik's second, sent me an offer of a draw.>* Source: Page 173 of Vasily Smyslov, 'Endgame Virtuoso', Everyman Chess, 1997 (reprinted 2003). *On move 41.Ne1 (41...Kh6 was the sealed move), annotating Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 ###################### <18th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <19th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <20th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1-0) ###################### <21st game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <22d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1957 (1/2) ###################### <Evaluations> Botvinnik: <"I had 'firmly' resolved not to write anything about this match, but the decision of a judge is law, and at the request of the arbiter, chess-master Golombek, I have to say a few words. If a match for the World Championship is an examination for a candidate, then it is now clear that the examination has been passed, and that the examiner himself was not sufficiently prepared for the examination. Now the question arises: <<<Is it necessary to play a return match? Is it necessary for the chess world that the same two chess-players should play the same match (at the same time of year and at the same place)?>>> I am most interested to hear the opinion about this, not only of British chess-players, but of chess circles all over the world. Anyhow, I hope that the chess-players of Great Britain will not refuse to accept the sincere wishes and greetings of a Soviet chess-player who, though he has lost a match for the World Championship, has still tried not to lose the sense of humor that is so essential both for the struggle and for the victory in this field. Moscow, May 3, 1957.> --Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Hardinge Simpole, 1958), p.139 ######################################## EDITs <OhioChessFan> <OhioChessFan Edits> <<At the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament, a ten player double round robin, Vasily Smyslov again emerged victorious +6 -1 =11, 1.5 points ahead of Keres. This earned Smyslov the right to challenge Mikhail Botvinnik for a second time. The title match was held at Moscow, March 1957. > "again" needs some context. While the next sentence sort of clarifies that the "again" has some reference to playing Botvinnik, I think there must be a more explicit explanation of what Smyslov won for the second time. The sentence is already a bit long, so adding anything almost demands it be broken up, eg, Following his victory in the 1954 Candidates Tournament, Vasily Smyslov won the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament, a ten player double round robin. Smyslov won with a score of +6 -1 =11, 1.5 points ahead of Keres> <<Vasily Smyslov again emerged victorious +6 -1 =11, > "with" or "at" after "victorious".> EDIT <Ohio> <<This earned Smyslov the right to challenge Mikhail Botvinnik for a second time. The title match was held at Moscow, March 1957. > I don't quite like this sentence. "This earned Smyslov" is a pretty weak/awkward construction.> EDIT <Ohio> <<In this match, and again in 1958, Botvinnik played without the use of a second. > I don't like the 1958 reference. Not a big deal, but why get ahead of the game when pursuing a historical matter? <During the 1954 match, Botvinnik felt that Smyslov was too ready for prepared variations that he (Botvinnik) had never played before. Believing that his second was leaking information, and unwilling to trust anyone else, Botvinnik played the next two matches alone.1> Need to go ahead and name the second, even if the other info is in the footnote.> This absolutely needs to be fixed with proper resarch. 3 games, 1957 WCC: Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954 ORIGINAL: Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match (1954) ########################## <Smyslov events up to 16 March 1954> -<Moskvoretsky House of Pioneers Championship 1935> (Fall) 1st, with +11 -0 =0. Smyslov was later awarded the 1st category rank in the fall of 1936. [Romanovsky, p.xi. In Vasily Smyslov, "My Best Games of Chess (1935-1957)" P.H. Clarke ed., transl. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958 ; Genna Sosonko, "The World Champions I Knew" (New in Chess 2013), pp.126-27 ] ================== -<18th Moscow Championship 1938> (October) Shared 1st with Belevenets, with +10 -2 =5. Awarded the Soviet master title. [Smyslov, "125 Games," p.9; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... Winter, p.149; Di Felice, "Chess Results, 1936-1940," p.191] === USSR Championship (1940) <12th USSR Championship> In Moscow (5 Sept - 3 Oct) 3d behind Lilienthal and Bondarevsky, ahead of Keres, Boleslavsky and Botvinnik, with +8 -1 =10. [Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, "The Soviet Championships" (Cadogen 1998), p.48; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... Winter, pp.149 ] === USSR Absolute Championship (1941) In Leningrad and Moscow (23 March - 29 April). 3d behind Botvinnik and Keres, ahead of Boleslavsky, Lilienthal, and Bondarevsky, with +4 -4 =12. Awarded the Soviet grandmaster title based on 3d place finishes in both the <12th USSR Championship> and the <USSR Absolute Championship>. [Smyslov, "125 Games" pp.9-10; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... Winter, p.149 ] === -<23d Moscow Championship 1943-1944?> (5 Dec 1943 - 12 Jan 1944?) Botvinnik dates this event as occurring only in Dec 1943. Smyslov 2d behind Botvinnik, ahead of Alatortsev, Lisitsin, Yudovich, and Averbakh, with +7 -0 =9 (1 win was a default). Because Botvinnik was from Leningrad, Smyslov was actually declared Moscow champion. [Winter, p.149; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub..., Di Felice, "Chess Results 1941-1946," p.131; Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), p.148; Botwinnik, "Schach in Russland 1941-45 mit sämtlichen Partien Swerdlowsk 1943," p.20 ] Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1943 (1-0) This was Smyslov's first career victory over Botvinnik, and Botvinnik's only loss in the tournament. ================== Groningen (1946) (13 Aug - 7 Sept) 3d, behind Botvinnik and Euwe, ahead of Najdorf, Szabó, Boleslavsky and Flohr, with +7 -1 =11. [http://thechesslibrary.com/files/19... Winter, p.149 ] === FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948) In the Hague and Moscow (2 March - 17 May) 2d behind Botvinnik, ahead of Reshevsky, Keres and Euwe. [http://thechesslibrary.com/files/19... Winter, p.149; Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Hardinge Simpole 1949), pp. 39-219 ] =================== Budapest Candidates (1950) (9 April - 16 May) 3d behind Bronstein and Boleslavsky, ahead of Keres, Najdorf, Kotov, and Stahlberg, with +5 -3 =10. [http://thechesslibrary.com/files/19... Winter, p.149 ] Smyslov: <"3d place in the <<<Budapest Candidates 1950>>> gave me the automatic right to a place in the next Candidates Tournament."> [Vasily Smyslov, "Smyslov's 125 Selected Games" Ken Neat transl. (Cadogen 1983), p.125 ] === Zuerich Candidates (1953) In Neuhausen am Rhein and Zürich (28 Aug - 24 Oct) 1st over Bronstein, Reshevsky, Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Geller and Kotov, with +9 -1 =18. [Winter, p.150; Di Felice "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.268; Miguel Najdorf, "Zürich 1953" Taylor Kingsford transl. (Russell Enterprises 2012), p.42 ] ########################### <Draft EDIT> Vasily Smyslov was born in Moscow in 1921. ############################ <Match preparation> -<Botvinnik> Training games with Smyslov, before Botvinnik knew he would be facing Smyslov in a championship match: Smyslov-Botvinnik, October 25, 1951 Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1951 Botvinnik-Smyslov, October 31, 1951 Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1951 Botvinnik-Smyslov, February 13, 1952 Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1952 Smyslov-Botvinnik, February 14, 1952 Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1952 -Jan Timman, "Secret Matches: The Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises Inc. 2000), pp.58-59 === At his dacha in <Nikolina gora> from 17 Oct. 1952 up until 13 Feb. 1954, on the eve of this match, <Botvinnik> played no fewer than 27 training games with <Kan> -Jan Timman, "Secret Matches: The Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises Inc. 2000), pp.59-78 === <The Wrath of Kan> Well I have yet to find any corroboration of Soltis' claim that <Botvinnik> directly accused Ilia Kan of revealing his opening preparation to <Smyslov>. But I did find this item- Yuri Averbakh: <"Before me, apart from Ragozin, it was I.A. Kan who had played training games with Botvinnik. And also at the dacha. He too, had to listen to the world champion's monologues, in the intervals of play. <<<'You cannot imagine what a strange chap he is,'>>> Kan once told me, regarding Botvinnik. <<<'Once, we were discussing something quite peacefully, when suddenly, for no reason, he went into a sulk, stalked off into the woods, and very demonstratively refused to come to lunch!'>>> Later, I risked asking Ilya Abramovich about this incident. He remarked sarcastically: <<<'Botvinnik thinks that he is world champion not only at chess, but in everything else. He- a totally ordinary person!'>>>> -Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes" Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2011), p.102 ############################ <Conditions> -<Match Length>: FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : Translation by <Tabanus> -<Punkt 11> <11 World Cup Match up to 24 games. When one of the players reaches <<<12 ½ score,>>> he shall be declared the winner, and the match will terminate.> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 19 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... === -<Time Control> Translation by <Tabanus> <2. At a World championship contest* there should in general be played three games a week, so that unfinished games from each round are continued the following day. The first 40 moves shall be made in <<<two and a half hours,>>> and the game will be interrupted after five hours of total playing time. Adjourned games shall be played with 16 moves an hour. Further adjournments will happen only after six hours total playing time, i. e. when at least 88 moves have been made.> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.157 === -<Draw odds> for the champion: -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" p.29 FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : Translation by <Tabanus> -<Punkt 9> <9."If a world champion in a world championship match achieves a <<<draw>>>, or ties for first place with one or more participants in a world championship tournament, he retains his title."> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 === -<FIDE Representative> President Folke Rogard -<Umpire> Karel Opocensky -<Arbiters> Golombek, Szabo -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.2 Golombek: <Szabo <<<arrived>>> at the event after the second round.> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), pp.15-16 === Botvinnik: <"...the control team of Opocensky and Golombek was approved (by FIDE). Then I suggested that another arbiter should be invited- as an exception to the rules which state that there should definitely be a <<<grandmaster in the control team...>>> and the FIDE President approved Szabo as one of the match arbiters."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" Kean Neat ed., transl. (Olomouc 2012), pp. 26-27. -Originally published in Mikhail Botvinnik, "Match Botvinnik-Smyslov" (Fizkultura i sport, Moscow, 1955). -<Seconds> Ilya Kan for (Botvinnik), Vladimir Simagin and Vladimir Makogonov for (Smyslov) -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" p.27,31 Smyslov on Vladimir Makogonov: <"During the match against Botvinnik, <<<Makogonov was one of my coaches.>>> And in fact, that I became world champion, there is a large proportion of his work. He expounded his ideas clearly and persuasively. I remember his excellent analysis, which he summed up with the help of diagrams. This method is best to fix in memory the most important debut position."> http://sultanov.azeriland.com/chess... -<Venues> Tchaikovsky Hall and the Central Army Club Concert Hall. -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" p.30 === -<Prize fund shared equally if match drawn> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1924-1941) and Selected Writings (Part I)" Ken Neat ed., transl. (Olomouc 2010), pp.102-103 -<Prize Fund> FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress -<Punkt 15>: "In a world championship match the prize fund awards the winner 5,000 dollars and the defeated 3,000 dollars. In a world Championship tournament, prize money should be given to all three or four participants- 5,000 3,000 2,000 and 1000 dollars." Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p. 157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... Interestingly, it seems doubtful that <Botvinnik> actually got $5,000 or <Bronstein> actually got $3,000 after their 1951 match. Andrew Soltis: <"The 1949 FIDE General Assembly at Paris had decided <<<'The right to organize a world championship competition is, in the first instance the right of the federation of the champion's country.'>>> This had the effect of turning over control of FIDE's most important event to the Soviet Sports Committee for 20 years. An official 'honorarium' of $5,000 for the winner and $3,000 for the loser was decided by FIDE but implementing such details was left to the match organizers. In fact, the prizes were paid in rubles and were worth a fraction of what FIDE announced."> -Andrew Soltis "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 2000), p. 188 === -<Champion's right to a "3-way rematch"> confirmed again at the FIDE 1953 congress. 21st FIDE Congress (23-30 Aug 1953) -"Tidskrift för Schack" Nr. 9-10 (Sep/Oct 1953. Arg.59), pp.204-206 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... -Translation by <Tabanus>: Seven zones, 4 players from 1, 2, 3 and 7, 2 from 4, 1 from 5 and 6 (= 20 players), plus one from the hosting country, plus the last place goes to the one next after the qualified in the 1953 Candidates, = 22 players in the Interzonal 1955. Candidate tournament 1956 shall have only 7 players: the winner of 1953 Candidates (or no. 2 if no. 1 gets to be WC later) + 6 best in 1955 Interzonal. <"On the other hand it is not the meaning that Botvinnik should participate in the Candidates 1956 in case he loses the title next year. FIDE has, however, made sure that he shall have the possibility to reclaim the WC title, in case he should lose it because of bad form, sickness or other circumstances. In such a case will be arranged a <<<3-man competition between the World Champion, the Ex-World Champion and the winner of the Candidates, with 16 games vs each other>>> as compared to 24 games with 2 competitors. FIDE's purpose by this is to get the strongest player on the throne."> -"Tidskrift för Schack" Nr. 9-10 (Sep/Oct 1953. Arg.59), p.204 ################################# <Course of the match> <1st game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (0-1) ################################# <2d game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1-0) <Botvinnik> on a "surprise move" and the benefits of home preparation: -<10.g4!> click for larger view <An improvement found in the quiet of my study. <<<For my opponent, of course, it was a surprise.>>> After 10.Qf3 c6 11.g4 0-0 Fine obtained a good position [Shainswit vs Fine, 1951 ]. But now Black does not manage to castle, since White carries out the entire plan without wasting a tempo on Qf3... This game is a clear example of how useful home preparation can be.> Mikhail Botvinnik "Half a Century of Chess" Ken Neat ed., E. Strauss transl. (Cadogan 1984), pp.185-87 === Golombek: <"Shortly after resigning, (Smyslov)... came up to me and said quietly, rather as though he was appraising somebody else's game from the point of view of the opening theorist, <<<'Yes; the opening variation is bad for Black and should lead to a loss for him.'>>>"> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.11 ################################# <3d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1/2) ################################# <4th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1-0) Golombek: <"Smyslov, though, as was only natural, he must have felt his bad start deeply enough, <<<could still joke about it with me,>>> and during the interval of free time before the game commenced he was quite happily discussing with me musical topics, opera, ballet and the like... The game was not finished in one day's play, but went to a second session. When Smyslov resigned it on the 24th, he was doing so on what should have been an auspicious occasion, for it was... his birthday."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), pp.20-21 ################################# <5th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1/2) Golombek: <"For (this)... game <<<the venue was changed from the Tchaikovsky Hall to the Concert Hall of the Soviet Army;>>> but this hall being considerably smaller, it was soon full and, in order to avoid overcrowding, no more tickets were sold, much to the disgust of many latecomers who were unable to obtain admission."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.28 ################################# <6th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1/2) Golombek: <"The (sixth) game <<<was again played>>> in the Concert Hall of the Soviet Army..."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.35 ################################# <7th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1-0) Golombek: <"For the <<<seventh game...>>> we were back again in the beautiful Tchaikovsky Hall..."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.40 === Botvinnik: <"On this occasion <<<it was I who carelessly analysed the adjourned position>>> and, after still on the 48th move having a certain draw, I was forced on the 50th move to lay down my arms."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" pp.27-28 Adjourned position: click for larger view 41...Ra7 click for larger view Botvinnik: <"The <<<rook is excellently placed on the 7th rank,>>> holding up the h-pawn and supporting the advance of the queenside pawns."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" I.Y. Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2009), p.37 Position after 48.a4- click for larger view Botvinnik: <"Now Black has another good drawing possibility- the manoeuvre ...Kd6-d5-c4 bxa4. <<<After obtaining two connected passed pawns on the queenside,>>> Black gives up his rook for the h-pawn (after the exhange of the g3 and f5 pawns) and draws.> -"Three World Chess Championship Matches" p.37 === After 48...Ke7 click for larger view Botvinnik: <"Incredible! Black finally plays his king to the 7th rank voluntarily, and loses. <<<I was so disappointed not to be able to find a satisfactory defence after 48.g4, that I forgot about the second drawing possibility.>>> The reader may be interested to know that when I came home, after the game, and picked up my pocket set, I found on the board a position in which a black knight and two connected passed a- and b-pawns were battling White's rook and bishop!"> -"Three World Chess Championship Matches" p.37 ################################# <8th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1/2) Golombek: <"...it should be remembered that the <<<psychological effect on Botvinnik in not winning such a won game>>> must have been very great indeed, and that the half-point he lost in the eighth game was not all the quantity of points that he was going to lose in consequence."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.47 ################################# <9th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1-0) Botvinnik: <"...in the 9th I suffered a heavy defeat after inaccurate play in the opening. This game was undoubtedly <<<Smyslov's best achievement>>> in the match."> -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956)" p.28 === Golombek: <"Botvinnik embarked on an interesting and complicated combination in which victory or defeat depended on a margin as narrow as a single hair's breadth. Unfortunately for the World Champion, he inadvertently transposed his moves and allowed Smyslov to obtain a won position by <<<a brilliant if fairly obvious Queen sacrifice.>>> The burst of applause this evoked from the spectators was somewhat difficult to quell."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.53 ################################# <10th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (0-1) ################################# <11th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1-0) ################################# <12th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1-0) Golombek: <"Today <<<television made its first appearance in the history of World Chess Championship matches,>>> the twelfth game being televised from 8 till 8:30 pm."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.68 ################################# <13th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (0-1) Golombek: "The thirteenth game... took place in the Concert Hall of the Soviet Army..." -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.73 === Soltis: "...Botvinnik revealed one of his new weapons, 5...b6, and it prompted Smyslov to launch an unsound attack (6.Nge2 d6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.f4 f5 9.g4?! fxg4 10.f5 Qd7) that lost in 41 moves." Position after <5...b6> click for larger view Position after <9.g4?!> click for larger view Position after <10...Qd7> click for larger view -Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997),p.220 === here is the full text from <Botvinnik's> notebook concerning the move <5...b6> in game 13, also from p.52: <"5...b7-b6 <<<I wanted to surprise my opponent>>>. Of course, he expected the continuation 5...e6, followed by ...Ng8-e7, which I played long ago as my game against Alexander at the Nottingham tournament of 1936. It later turned out that it was against this very system that Smyslov had prepared an unpleasant response: 5...e6 6.Be3 Nd4 7.Nce2!, although even here, theory now considers that Black can equalise by means of 7...b6 8.c3 Nxe2. However, as will become clear, the move 5...b6 cannot be considered very good. I found the correct plan for Black only in Game 15."> <Botvinnik's> notebook entry for Game 15: <"1.e2-e4 c7 c5 2.Nb1-c3 Once again, the Closed Variation. <<<Smyslov had evidently come to the conclusion that the system with 5...b6 is not sufficient for equality, and quite rightly so.>>> However, a surprise awaited him... 2... Nb8-c6 3.g2-g3 g7-g6 4.Bf1-g2 Bf8-g7 6.d2-d3 d7-d6 Black prepares to implement a different plan. 6.Ng1-e2..... 6...e7-e5! Now the bishop on g2 is shut in, the advance d3-d4 becomes hard to achieve, and the advance f2-f4 can be met by ...f7-f5."> -"Three World Chess Championship Matches" pp.57-58 the first 5 moves of game 13 and game 15 are identical, except that in game 15, instead of playing <5...b6>, Botvinnik now plays the move his analysis suggests is superior, <5...d6>. === EDIT <thomastonk> "Botvinnik said that he wanted to surprise Smyslov, but he didn't state that he had prepared it. And since the line is not in the notebook, it is definitely possible that he decided to play 5.. b6 at the board." EDIT <thomastonk> Yesterday I found the German edition of Botvinnik's match book for the WC match of 1954 (published in 1957). The original text of the game comments is the same as for the 2007 edition, I would say, but the translations differ. The comment on 5.. b6, which is discussed above, does not use the German word for '(to) surprise' (Überraschung/überraschen), but the German word for 'change' or 'alternation' (Abwechslung). So, I had to consult the Russian original. The word Botvinnik used is 'разнообразие', and according to my dictonary the old translation is better. This is is only a small detail, and in fact it would be necessary that a Russian speaker would read the whole paragraph, but maybe even this single word supports the possibilty that 5.. b6 was no home-preparation. A book can win or lose in translation, the truth always loses. ;-) ################################# <14th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (0-1) Soltis: <"Smyslov later said the game that gave him the greatest esthetic pleasure in his entire career was the 14th of the match. But Botvinnik later saw treachery, since in the 14th game Smyslov quickly innovated in an opening Botvinnik had never tried before. <<<He accused his second, Kan, of disclosing his opening preparation to the enemy camp.>>> Even though Smyslov publicly denied this, Botvinnik never took back his accusation."> -Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997),p.220 === The following is not confirmation for <Soltis'> claims but it hints strongly at the notion <Botvinnik> did suspect <Kan> had given away secret preparations in this game. This is what <Smyslov> writes, from this position, Black to move: click for larger view And now, <"11...exd4! A highly unpleasant <<<surprise>>>, leading to great tactical complications..."> click for larger view <"...This continuation made such a strong impression on my opponent, that in his notes to this game Botvinnik wrote: <<<'It is surprising that Smyslov was able to make highly detailed preparations for a variation which I had never before adopted, except in training games...'>>>"> I suppose the rest of the passage might serve as something like a "public denial" by Smyslov that he was gifted with this analysis by somebody else. Smyslov: <"As we know, the move 9.Be3 had been played earlier, and so, <<<in my theoretical analysis>>> of this opening system, this move was also examined, along with 9.d5 and 9.h3. And I succeeded in discovering an improvement for the defence with 11...exd4! Such is the history of the innovation which brought me success in the present game."> -Vasily Smyslov, "Smyslov's 125 Selected Games" Ken Neat transl. (Cadogen 1983), pp.86-87 Here is <Botvinnik> speaking for himself about the nasty <11...exd4!> surprise: <"My opponent played the last three moves (Botvinnik means moves 9-11) immediately, about which <<<I could not hide my surprise>>>. It is certainly rather surprising that Smyslov should have been so well prepared in all the subtleties of a variation that I had never played before, except in training games..."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" I.Y. Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2009), p.55 The ellipses (...) are added by <Botvinnik>. In this context, they seem intended to connote something "implied but not said." At <Nikolina gora> from 17 Oct. 1952 up until 13 Feb. 1954, on the eve of this match, <Botvinnik> played no fewer than 27 training games with <Kan>, so there can perhaps be little doubt "which training games" he is referring to here. -Jan Timman, "Secret Matches: The Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises Inc. 2000), pp.59-78 === Golombek: <"...back in the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall... <<<(on) move 10... Smyslov launched an innovation with the most exciting consequences...>>> (Smyslov) had clearly prepared the opening variation, as was evident from the time he took for the first eleven moves-- only twelve minutes. Botvinnik, though realising this, made no attempt to avoid the variation or transpose into one of the numerous other lines against the King's Indian. He would have been wiser had he done so, even if less courageous."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.78 === Botvinnik on games 13 and 14: "Smyslov's reckless play in the initial stage of the 13th game provided me with a new success. True, the same tactics enabled Smyslov to gain a spectacular win in the next tame, the 14th, but I think that this win contributed to the match subsequently tking a course unfavourable for my opponent." -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956)" p.28 ################################# <15th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (0-1) ################################# <16th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1-0) ################################# <17th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1/2) ################################# <18th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1/2) Botvinnik: <"...on one occasion in our match the arbiter Opocensky had to intervene; this occurred during the 18th game. Soon after the opening Smyslov's clock stopped, which was noticed by the demonstrator only some fifteen minutes later! More precisely, the clock did not stop- it continued going, and only the minute hand stopped, and so neither I nor my opponent noticed this, since the clock continued ticking... During play a second, electric chess clock was in use, enabling th spectators to observe the situation on our clocks. This electric clock was operated by the demonstrator, and it was he (with a delay of fifteen minutes) who drew the arbiter's attention to the fault in Smyslov's clock. Of course, Opecensky ordered that the faulty clock should be replaced. <<<In so doing, however, he set my opponent's clock to the same time as had been shown by the faulty clock! To my bewildered question, the arbiter replied that there was no mention in the match regulations about supervisory electric clocks, and therfore he couldn't put Smyslov's clock forward, although, essentially, it was clear how long the clock had stood still.>>> I immediately accepted the arbiter's decision, although I considered it incorrect. I decided not to approach Smyslov directly; he was so engrossed in the position that he did not notice either our discussions, which took place at the other end of the stage, or the change of clocks itself, otherwise he would undoubtedly have asked that his clock be put forward..."> -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956)" pp.29-30 === Golombek: <"On move 15 <<<Smyslov's clock stopped>>> (for no good reason that could afterwards be proved) and this was not noticed for some time. When it was noticed, a new clock was substituted, but it was deemed impossible to adjust Smyslov's time accordingly."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), pp.97-98 ################################# <19th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1/2) ################################# <20th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (0-1) Golombek: <"When Botvinnik resigned on the seventy-third move there was a <<<great burst of clapping and cheering from the audience,>>> and this applause was indeed well merited by Smyslov, who in this game had shown himself to be the world's best end-game player."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.110 ################################# <21st game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1/2) ################################# <22d game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1/2) ################################# <23d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1954 (1-0) Golombek: <"...on the twenty-third move... <<<(Botvinnik) committed a terrible blunder>>> that lost two pawns and left him with a wrecked position. In another five moves he had resigned and the score was level at 11 1/2 all."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.126 ################################# <24th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 (1/2) Botvinnik: <"Since the first twenty-three games had ended with the result 11 1/2 - 11 1/2, and thus I had not succeeded in outplaying my opponent- we had both demonstrated roughly equal strength, the last, 24th game had a restricted competitive importance. And when Smyslov, after considering his 22nd move, decided, to my great surprise, to offer a draw, thus giving up any last hope in this match of winning the title of world champion, what was I to do? <<<'Your offer is so tempting',>>> I replied, <<<'that it is impossible to refuse...'>>> To the credit of both players it should be added that this game was the only one where there was a premature end to the struggle."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" Kean Neat ed., transl. (Olomouc 2012), p.29 === Golombek: <"Since a draw was enough for the Champion to retain his title, he had every inducement to play safe and hold on to equality rather than go all out for the win, and, whereas <<<Smyslov should have been prompted by more aggressive feelings,>>> he seemed loth to risk too much himself and so lose the match."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.130 === Golombek: <"The former World Champion, Dr. Max Euwe, had been expected to attend the closing stages of the match, and it had been hoped he would place the wreath of victory over the shoulders of whichever player won the Championship. But unfortunately he proved to be busy conducting examinations... and could not come. In compensation, however, <<<he sent his daughter,>>> who acted in the same capacity."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.121 ################################# <Evaluations> Botvinnik: "I think that Smyslov's great creative achievement in the... match was his skilful preparation." -"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956)" p.31 === Smyslov: <"So the match has ended in a draw with the score 12-12 and, according to the conditions of the contest, Botvinnik retains his title of World Champion. <<<I regard this drawn outcome of a struggle that has lasted some two months as honourable enough for me...>>> Never before have I had occasion or opportunity to play a match, and the brief interval of time between this event and the arduous tournament at Zurich made it impossible for me to acquire the necessary experience of match play. Maybe this very circumstance to a certain extent explains my failures in the first part of the match... During the whole match I was lacking in consistency. Intermingled with the creative achievements of the ninth and fourteenth games, which I consider my best games of the match, there were moments of weak play, more especially in those in which the Sicilian Defence was played (the thirteenth and fifteenth games). Botvinnik's best game was the twelfth."> -Harry Golombek, "World Chess Championship 1954" (Macgibbon & Kee 1954), p.145 === -<Collusion controversy> Courtesy of <Edward Winter>, here is an interesting, albeit second hand, report by <Kotov> on this round 21 game from the Zuerich Candidates (1953) Kotov vs Smyslov, 1953 <3639. An admission From page 242 of Official Chess Handbook by K. Harkness (New York, 1967): ‘So far as the complaints of collusion among Soviet players are concerned, it is undoubtedly true that the Soviet contestants in FIDE tournaments, especially in the early competitions, have played as a team and not as individuals. Alexander Kotov admits this in his Memoirs of a Chessplayer, published in the USSR in 1960. He apologizes for his victories over Smyslov in 1933 [sic] and Botvinnik at Groningen in 1946, and hopes he will be forgiven, since he made up for these lapses by defeating Reshevsky and Euwe respectively in these tournaments.’ <<<The reference to Smyslov evidently concerned the 1953 Candidates’ tournament,>>> but can a reader send us the exact text (ideally in both Russian and English) of Kotov’s admission?> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ######################## <OhioChessFan> EDIT Quoting the existing intro to this event: < All the games were full of fight, and many of the games were of theoretical significance. > "All but the final game, maybe. Smyslov's draw offer is inexplicable to me. And I think some mention of the controversy is in order." Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954 === Botvinnik: <"Since the first twenty-three games had ended with the result 11 1/2 - 11 1/2, and thus I had not succeeded in outplaying my opponent- we had both demonstrated roughly equal strength, the last, 24th game had a restricted competitive importance. And when Smyslov, after considering his 22nd move, decided, to my great surprise, to offer a draw, thus giving up any last hope in this match of winning the title of world champion, what was I to do? <<<'Your offer is so tempting',>>> I replied, <<<'that it is impossible to refuse...'>>> To the credit of both players it should be added that this game was the only one where there was a premature end to the struggle."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)" Kean Neat ed., transl. (Olomouc 2012), p.29 ################################## FIDE Congress, Stockholm 1952 FIDE Congress, Switzerland 1953 FIDE Congress, Amsterdam, 1954) 3 games, 1954 WCC: Botvinnik-Tal 1960 ORIGINAL: Botvinnik - Tal World Championship Match (1960) ###################### "Chess Life" Sun. March 20, 1960 Vol XIV no.14, pp.1-2 Tal interview in "Chess Life" May 1957 ######################## <Tal's Chess Record> -<Tournament of Pioneer's Palaces of the 3 Baltic Republics 1948> In Vilnius. 2d board for Riga, with +1 -3 =0. Tal won the "most interesting game" prize for his victory over an Estonian player- a "luxurious edition of Tolstoy's 'Peter the First.'" Riga finished last. [Mikhail Tal, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" (Cadogan 1997), p.20 ] -<Riga Junior Championship Semifinal 1949> Tal won his first 3 games. He had a 4th category rating. ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.19 ] -<Riga Championship Quarterfinal 1950> 1st, with 12.5/13. Tal achieved 1st category rank. ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.23; Hilary Thomas "Complete Games of Mikhail Tal 1936-1959," p.7 ] -<Latvian Championship 1951> In Riga (3 March - 1 April) Shared 9th, behind Pasman, Koblents, Akmentinsh and others, with +5 -6 =8. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.65; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... Edward Winter, ed. ""World Chess Champions" (Pergamon Press 1981), p.153 ] -<Latvian Championship 1953> Game Collection: Tal at the Latvian Championship 1953 In Riga (20 Feb - 22 March) 1st over Koblents, Gipslis, Klovans, Pasman and Zdanovs, with +12 -2 =5. Tal was awarded the title of Candidate Master. [Winter, p.153; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_repub... Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.280; Hilary Thomas "Complete Games of Mikhail Tal 1936-1959," p.22 ] -<USSR Republics Team Championship 1953> In Leningrad (September) 2d board for Latvia, with +3 -1 =3. Latvia finished 4th, behind Leningrad, RSFSR and Moscow, ahead of Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Estonia. Tal achieved his master norm, but so had Kliavin, who had gained more points on 3d board. Kliavin was awarded the master title, but Tal had to play a match against Saigin in order to gain his title. ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.26; http://al20102007.narod.ru/team_ch/... Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," pp.305-307 ] -<Tallinn-Riga Match 1954> In Tallinn. 1st board vs. Keres, with +0 -1 =1. Tal's loss in game one was the first time he played a grandmaster in a tournament. Keres vs Tal, 1954 ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.27; Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.425 ] -<Master Title Qualification Match 1954> Game Collection: Tal-Saigin Master Title Qualification Match 1954 In Riga (summer). Tal beat Saigin +4 -2 =8. Although he should have received the Soviet master title at this point, in his autobiography Tal explains that he was not actually awarded the title until after he played in the <USSR Clubs Team Championship>, which was held 3-17 September in Riga: "The year (1954) was concluded at home, in Riga, by the Team Championship of the Country, only this time for adults. Here for the first time I won against a Grandmaster, the USSR champion Yuri Averbakh. After this, still a candidate master, I drew a couple of games, and then received notification that I was a master." (p.31) "...although formally I took part with the 'rank' of candidate master, the decision was expected to arrive literally any day."(p.55) [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.409; Winter, p.155; http://al20102007.narod.ru/matches/... "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," pp.28-31,55 ] ================ In his autobiography, <Yuri Averbakh> dismisses <Tal's> account of when he got his master title as a "myth": Averbakh: <"...I... was... appointed chiarman of the Qualification Commission. One of the Commission's tasks was to review awards of the master title... We looked at the games of the (Saigin-Tal Qualification match)..., and decided Tal deserved the title, after which the material was sent on to the Sports Committee for confirmation....In the first bulletins of this event (USSR Clubs Team Championship 1954), there is a picture of us (Averbakh and Tal) playing, with the caption <<<'Master m. Tal>>> and Grandmaster Y. Averbakh!'"> -Yuri Averbakh, "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes" Steve Giddins transl. (New In Chess 2011), pp.143-144 ############################# -<USSR Clubs Team Championship 1954> In Riga (3-17 Sept) 4th board for Daugava, with +1 -3 -6. Daugava finished 10th, behind Spartak (Petrosian), Nauka (Korchnoi), Medik (Chistiakov), Lokomotiv (Aronin), Trud (Suetin), Iskra (Taimanov), Dinamo (Lisitsin), Zenit (Averbakh) and Soviet Army (Kan). Tal's win against Averbakh was his first victory over a grandmaster. As stated above, Tal maintains this was when he was awarded the Soviet master title. ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," pp.30-31; http://al20102007.narod.ru/team_ch/... Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," pp.416-418 ] -<USSR Championship Semifinal 1955> In Riga (15 Nov - 13 Dec) 1st over Borisenko, Bannik, Zurakhov, Korchnoi, Boleslavsky, Gregenidze and Furman, with +10 -3 =5. [Winter, p.153; Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.492; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... ] USSR Championship (1956) <23d USSR Championship> In Leningrad (10 Jan - 15 Feb) Shared 5th with Polugaevsky and Kholmov, behind Spassky, Taimanov, Averbakh and Korchnoi, with +6 -2 =9. [Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, "The Soviet Championships" (Cadogen 1998), pp. 88-91; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," pp.60-61 ] -<Uppsala Student Olympiad 1956> (5-15 April) Gold medal on 3d board, with +5 -0 =2. The USSR 1st over Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Romania and the USA. This was Tal's first event outside the Soviet Union. ["The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.62; http://www.olimpbase.org/1956y/1956... http://www.olimpbase.org/1956y/1956... http://www.olimpbase.org/1956y/1956... Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," pp.89-91 ] USSR Championship (1957) <24th USSR Championship> In Moscow (20 Jan - 22 Feb) 1st, over Bronstein, Keres, Spassky, Tolush, Kholmov, Korchnoi, Petrosian and Boleslavsky, with +9 -2 =10. [Cafferty and Taimanov, pp.92-95; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... Winter, p.153 ] -<1st European Team Championship Final 1957> In Baden bei Wien (22-28 Aug) Shared gold medal on 4th board with Trifunović, with +2 -1 =2. The USSR finished 1st over Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and West Germany. During the event FIDE voted to award Tal with the international grandmaster title. [Winter, p.153; Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," pp.185-186; http://www.olimpbase.org/1957e/1957... http://www.olimpbase.org/1957e/1957... "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," pp.66-67 ] USSR Championship (1958) <25th USSR Championship> In Riga (12 Jan - 12 Feb) 1st over Petrosian, Bronstein, Averbakh, Polugaevsky, Spassky, Geller, Gurgenidze, Boleslavsky and Korchnoi, with +9 -3 =7. This was also a FIDE zonal tournament, giving Tal the right to play in the Portoroz interzonal. [Cafferty and Taimanov, pp.96-98; http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... Winter, p.153; "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.67 ] Portoroz Interzonal (1958) (5 Aug - 12 Sept) 1st over Gligoric, Petrosian, Benko, Olafsson, Fischer, Bronstein and Averbakh, with +8 -1 =11. This was Tal's first international tournament in a non-team event. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.250; Winter, p.154; "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal," p.105 ] Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959) (7 Sept - 29 Oct) 1st over Keres, Petrosian, Smyslov, Fischer, Gligoric, Olafsson and Benko, with +16 -4 =8. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.310; Winter, p.153; Harry Golombek, "4th Candidates' Tournament, 1959- Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade- September 7th - October 29th" (Hardinge Simpole 2009), pp.1-272 (originally published in the BCM Quarterly No.3, 1960) ] ######################### <Draft EDIT> Mikhail Tal was born in 1936 in Riga, Latvia. ###################### <Conditions> 1. Canceling the Champion's right to a rematch. Averbakh: <"...the FIDE Congress in Luxembourg in 1959 voted to <<<cancel>>> the champion's right to a return match. The delegates to the Congress acknowledged that allowing the champion to retain the title in the event of a drawn match, and to have a return match if he lost, gave him too many advantages... It meant that in order to keep the title, the challenger had to play the world champion not once, but twice- he had to beat him the first time, and not lose the second."> --Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p.114 === EDIT <Whiteshark> <"...Rogard nevertheless did not change the <<<rules>>> laid down for the three-year cycle 1958-1960, and for this period the right to a return match was retained."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim." Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.160 === EDIT <Whiteshark>, <tabanus> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265-26 Reports about FIDE-kongressen in Luxemburg. Transl. by <tabanus>: <"A significant news concerning the end phase of the competition system is, that the right for a dethroned World Champion to claim a return match is <<<abolished in principal,>>> though shall the current World Champion keep his right to such a match if he in 1960 should lose his title."> -Tidskrift för Schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265 -<Return Match> "Under FIDE rules, the right to a return match was withdrawn at the congress in Luxembourg... in 1959, but this rule only came into effect beginning with the 1963 match. Botvinnik did not protest against this, although he considered it an unjustifiable breach with long-established tradition" -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.10 === World Championship match between chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik and the winner of the Candidates Tournament Mikhail Tal held from March 15 to May 7, 1960 in Moscow . MATCH RULES 24 games at most, with the score 12:12 champion retains title. Chief Arbiter - Gideon Stahlberg (Sweden) and his assistant Harry Golombek (England). Seconds Members: G. Goldberg Botvinnik, A. Koblenz at Tal. -Russian Wikipedia Match for the title of world chess champion in 1960 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C... ############################### <Course of the Match> <1st game> Tal vs Botvinnik, 1960 <1-0> Tal: "The match began very well for me. Koblents and I had guessed which opening variation the World Champion would choose, and although Botvinnik had prepared an innovation, I was well familiar with the character of the position. I won after a short, sharp skirmish." -Mikhail Tal, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" p.161 ################################ <2d game> ################################ <3d game> ################################ <4th game> ################################ <5th game> ################################ <6th game> ################################ <7th game> ################################ <8th game> ################################ <9th game> ################################ <10th game> ################################ <11th game> ################################ <12th game> ################################ <13th game> ################################ <14th game> ################################ <15th game> ################################ <16th game> ################################ <17th game> ################################ <18th game> ################################ <19th game> ################################ <20th game> ################################ <21st game> 3 games, 1960 WCC: Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 ORIGINAL: Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927) ####################### <DRAFT EDIT>: Alexander Alekhine was born in Moscow in 1892.<Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastimil Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" (Olomouc 1992), pp.6-7> He began to take chess seriously at the age of 12. During grammar school classes he would play and analyze games in his head without looking at the chessboard.<Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastimil Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" (Olomouc 1992), pp.24-25> At age 16, a victory in the Moscow Autumn Tournament 1908 led to his appearance in the strong All Russian Amateur (1909). He won, earning the Russian national master title.<Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," (McFarland 1998), p.738; Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastimil Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" (Olomouc 1992), p.48> A shared first with Aron Nimzowitsch at the <All Russian Masters St Petersburg 1914>-<insert tournament link here: http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/...> qualified him for St. Petersburg (1914). He finished third, behind world champion Emanuel Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca, ahead of Siegbert Tarrasch, Frank Marshall, and Akiba Rubinstein. <Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," (McFarland 1998), p.89> Alekhine now conceived a long term plan to become world champion. His strategy was to finish first in every tournament he entered and so earn the right to challenge Capablanca, whom he predicted would soon be champion.<"Shakhmaty v SSSR” No.3 (March 1956), pp.87-89. In Sarah Beth Cohen, "Encounters with Alekhine" http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e... > Capablanca indeed <won the world title>-<insert match link here Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)> on April 20, 1921. His first challenge came from Akiba Rubinstein on September 7, followed by a challenge from Alekhine on November 7, after he won both Budapest (1921) and The Hague (1921).<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.186-187> After The Hague (1921), Dutch chess officials proposed a "Candidates Match" between Alekhine and Rubinstein, to be held in the Netherlands in or after March 1922. Both masters agreed to the idea. <Toni Preziuso, "AMERIKA! AMERIKA!" In "KARL" no.3 2013, pp.34-39.> On December 1921 the "American Chess Bulletin" reported that Capablanca would honor Rubinstein's challenge first, unless the proposed Dutch candidates match should produce a "decisive victory for one or the other." <Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.186-187> When Alekhine arrived in the Netherlands in January 1922, he stated that a candidates match was no longer possible because Rubinstein had suffered a mental breakdown after winning <Triberg-B 1921> <insert tournament link here: http://www.365chess.com/tournaments...>. Shortly afterwards the Dutch press proved this claim to be inaccurate, but Alekhine still never played the match. <Toni Preziuso, "AMERIKA! AMERIKA!" In "KARL" no.3 2013, pp.34-39>. After London (1922), where Alekhine placed second to the champion, the top eight finishers signed "the London rules," Capablanca's proposal for all future title match conditions. The rules stipulated that challengers guarantee a purse of "$10,000 U.S. dollars."<"American Chess Bulletin" Sept-Oct 1922, p.150. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.188> Alekhine continued steady negotiations for a title match, but his inability to raise the $10,000 purse proved a stumbling block. <Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.191-197> A title challenge from Frank Marshall in 1923 also came to nothing after he failed to raise the required purse.<Edward Winter, "Capablanca," p.191> In 1926 Aron Nimzowitsch challenged for the title, followed by a renewed challenge from Alekhine in the same year.<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.193-194> Alkhine had secured a pledge from the Argentine Chess Federation to finance the match.<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.117> William Hartston suggests that the federation did so because "they simply felt it was time to give Capablanca, hero of Latin America, a chance to demonstrate his superiority again somewhere close to home soil."<William Hartston, The Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters (1996), p.82> Capablanca accepted Alekhine's challenge, but also told him that he had given Nimzowitsch until January 1, 1927 to meet the purse requirement. <Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.193-194> Nimzowitsch failed to meet his deadline and Capablanca finally agreed to face Alekhine in a world championship match.<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.193-197;Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.131> The match began in Buenos Aires on September 9, 1927. Conditions followed the London rules: games to be played at 2 1/2 hours per 40 moves, with the match awarded to the first to win 6 games, draws not counting. Capablanca would receive $2,000 of the purse as a fee, with the remainder split $4,800 to the victor and $3,200 to the loser.<Edward Winter, "The London Rules" (2008) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... "La Prensa" (14 Sept 1927). In Edward Winter, "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927" (2003) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> The Buenos Aires Chess Club provided the venue, except for two games played in the Jockey Club.<Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992), p.161> Dr. Carlos Querencio served as referee, and Daniel Deletang was Alekhine's second.<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" G. Feather transl., (Pergamon 1984), p.151.> Alekhine had never won a single game from Capablanca, so it was perhaps understandable that some doubted he could win 6 match games against him. Geza Maroczy predicted victory was bound to go to Capablanca,<"La Nación” (14 Sept. 1927), p.12. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5665 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> and Rudolf Spielmann said he would be surprised if Alekhine "were to win even a single game."<"Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung” (25 June 1927), p.104. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5338 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> Richard Reti, on the other hand, concluded "that there are no fundamental reasons for affirming with such certainty that the Cuban grandmaster must necessarily defeat the talented Slav player."<"La Nación” (14 Sept. 1927), p.12. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5665 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> Alekhine won the <first game>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 with the French Defence. Capablanca ascribed his loss to a "gross error."<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.198> Every subsequent game would be contested with a Queen's pawn opening. After 10 games Capablanca led 2-1, but he dropped two in a row and a long series of draws followed. According to Garry Kasparov, Capablanca let slip "an enormous positional advantage" in <game 17>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927. <Garry Kasparov, "On My Great Predecessors Part I" (Everyman Chess 2003), p. 316> After Alekhine notched his fourth win in <game 21>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927, Capablanca opined that "there can hardly be a stronger player in the world than the Slav master."<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.200> <But Capa saves the 22nd game. According to Kasparov (p. 316 of OMPG I), Capa played now with increasing power until he missed the win in the "completely won" 27th game (game 105, pp. 316-318). In game 28, Capa drew the game instead of playing on being up a pawn (Kaspy claims he thought for 40 min and then offered a draw, but we avoid any problems by simply claiming that he drew, what he did - not saying who offered the draw.). In game 29, Alekhine put up great resistance and Capa "from a practically winning position he had reached one that was drawn" (p. 322 of OMPG I) and won after a blunder. According to Kasparov (p. 322) but then he missed a win in game 31 and agreed to a draw, although he could have played on (game 107, pp. 323-328). With a win, he could have equaled the score (4-4). Capa then lost the 32nd and 34th game and the match.> With adjournments, the final game took four days to complete, ending on 29 November when Capablanca did not show up to resume play. Instead, he sent a congratulatory resignation note.<17> Nor did the ex-champion show up for the closing ceremony on December 8. Alexander Alekhine, the 4th world chess champion, did attend. He thanked the Argentine Chess Club for its work and declared he was against any future changes to the world title match rules- the London rules.<"Magazine Actual” (May 1997), p. 25. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 3428 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> <1> Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastimil Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" (Olomouc 1992), pp.6-7 <2> Kalendovsky and Fiala, pp.24-25 <3> Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," (McFarland 1998), p.738 <4> "Shakhmaty v SSSR” No.3 (March 1956), pp.87-89. In Sarah Beth Cohen, "Encounters with Alekhine" http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e... <5> "Manhattan Chess Club Archives." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.186 <6> "American Chess Bulletin" Sept-Oct 1922, p.150. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.188 <7> Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.2 <8> "The Russell Collection” Item 1569. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.319 <9> Edward Winter, "The London Rules" (2008) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <10> "La Prensa" (14 Sept 1927). In Edward Winter, "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927" (2003) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <11> Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992), p.161 <12> "La Nación” (14 Sept. 1927), p.12. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5665 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <13> "Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung” (25 June 1927), p.104. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 5338 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <14> Emanuel Lasker, "Schachmaty". In "Wiener Schach-Zeitung" (March 1924), p.86. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... <15> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.198 <16> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.200 <17> "Magazine Actual” (May 1997), p. 25. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 3428 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Triberg-A 1921> (7-16 July) Alekhine 1st over E. Bogoljubow, F. Saemisch, A Selezniev, and A. Brinckmann. (Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten 192, n4, p425.) <Triberg-B 1921> Dec 5 <http://www.365chess.com/tournaments...> ############################## Alekhine remained optimistic about his chances against the champion. After finishing 3rd to Lasker and Capablanca at New York (1924), he later recalled a momentous discovery while analyzing <this game>-<insert game link here>: Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1924 "I had finally detected a slight weakness in my future opponent: increasing uncertainty when confronted with stubborn resistance!"<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.2> ############################ <On September 7, 1921, Capablanca accepted Akiva's challenge for the World Championship. [Rubinstein could not meet the deadline of December 31, 1923] Alekhine had also become a serious contender and after Triberg 1921, Dutch chess officials had the idea to arrange a "Candidates Match" in the Netherlands. The winner should have the right to play Capablanca. Oskam approached van Linschoten asking for financial support (for a short time in 1921/1922, van Linschoten was head of the Royal-Dutch Chess Association "KNSB"). Rubinstein and Alekhine were also willing to play under these conditions: The winner receives 1,000 Gulden and the loser 500 Gulden. Travel expenses of 250 Gulden for each player are paid. The winner is the first to win 5 games, in case of a 4-4 tie the match is declared drawn. The match is not to begin prior to March 1922. In January 1922, Alekhine travelled to the Netherlands, declaring to take the ship to Havana and directly negotiate with Capablanca. In this case, a candidates match was unnecessary. After his arrival in the Netherlands, Alekhine spread the news in the 'Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courrant' (NRC) that a match against Akiva would not take place, as Rubinstein was mentally disturbed and had been admitted to a sanatorium after the tournament in Triberg. Two days later, the 'NRC' repudiated Alekhine's claim. The match didn't take place. After Triberg 1921, Rubinstein went to Sankt Blasien in the Black Forest, to recover and prepare for the matches against Alekhine and Capablanca. In St. Blasien was also a well-known hospital for lung- and respiratory diseases. This is the basis of Alekhine's false assertion. Akiva was still in good shape as he demonstrated later that year, at Vienna (1922). ##################### Publication: KARL 3/2013 (3 is the issue number, the magazine is published every 3 months) Author: Toni Preziuso Title: AMERIKA! AMERIKA! Pages 34-39 The possible Candidates match was covered on pages 36-37 Capablanca's accepting the challenge: London 'Times' of September 29, 1921 Conditions of the candidate match: 'Hamburger Fremdenblatt' of December 24, 1921 Alekhine's false assertion: 'NRC' of January 14, 1922 Repudiation and rectification: 'NRC' of January 16, 1922> ############################# <SECONDS> 8409. World championship seconds From Leonard Barden (London): ‘In an interview after his match against Anand, Carlsen said that he had no on-site seconds in Chennai, although he was in contact via Skype with Jon Ludwig Hammer, Norway’s number two player. When was the last time that a player had no strong assistant at a world championship match? I am referring to assistants of master level capable of providing technical help, and not “seconds” who were effectively managers dealing with match rules and similar matters.’ Precise records of players’ seconds are often difficult to trace, and no list of the kind requested by a correspondent in C.N. 5657 has yet been built up. For example, for the 1929 and 1934 Alekhine-Bogoljubow matches and, even, the 1927 Capablanca v Alekhine encounter it seems unclear which other players were involved in any capacity. ################################ New Information on purse payout from <Chessical, Karpova>: <1> <Chessical: The purse for this match was: $10,000 (£2,000). Alekhine received $5,600 (£1,080) and Capablanca $4,600 (£920). <<<Source: Aberdeen Journal - p.8; Saturday 10 December 1927>>>. This would be about a £100,000 purse with prizes of £53,500 and £46,500 in 2013 values.> ============== <2> (Karpova) The September 1927 'Wiener Schach-Zeitung' on page 265 (the first report on the match) also gives $10,000 overall with $2,000 for Capablanca and the rest 3:2 ratio for winner and loser. But this may be again based on the London rules. Winter quotes 'La Prensa' of 14 September 1927 (according to Winter <the day after a meeting between Capablanca, Alekhine and the organizing committee>) the following way <Las condiciones finales para el encuentro quedaron fijadas ayer en una reunión de la comisión directiva y en presencia de Capablanca y Alekhine. Referente a la bolsa, se han tenido en cuenta las condiciones aprobadas por el torneo de Londres. Es de 10.000 dólares, correspondiendo el 20% de premio al campeón. El 80% restante será dividido en la siguiente forma: 60% al ganador y 40% al perdedor.> in http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... So this seems to have been agreed upon by Alekhine and Capablanca. Was it changed at the end? And may your source <Grantham Journal - Saturday 3rd December 1927>, <chessical> closer to the truth with more money for Capablanca than <Aberdeen Journal - p.8; Saturday 10 December 1927>? Then Capablanca would have received about $5,200 and Alekhine $4,800. If not, when did they decide to change it and why? Didn't find info in Winter's Capablanca book, chapter 'Challenges'. ================= <3> <Chessical: I have also found the following regarding the purse, <<<Grantham Journal - Saturday 3rd December 1927, p.3>>> - "On the present occasion the purse was £2,000, and of this Alekhine receives £960 and Capablanca £1,040. (This seems an obvious transpositional mistake but the division of the total purse is slightly - £40 - different). The report also later quotes: "The "Times' chest correspondent writes: —" Alekhine has stated that he will give Capablanca the first chance of a return match for the title, under conditions similar to those of the present match, namely, purse of $10,000 (£2,000); the series of games unlimited, the first player to win six games to take the title, and draws not to count. He added, however, that he would not be ready to defend the title until at least the year 1929".> === <4> <CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. Conditions for Capablanca-Alekhine Match> Jose Capablanca, of Cuba, the chess champion of the world, and the Russian master, Alexander Alekhine, are about to engage a contest for the title at Buenos Aires. The opening match has been fixed for September 10, but before final arrangements are made will be necessary to obtain the consent Alekhine, who is not expected arrive before September 7. The conditions provide for games, and the contestants will play for five hours daily except Sundays with a minimum of moves every two and half hours. Reuter. <Friday 02 September 1927 , Western Daily Press, page 3>. === <5> <SILENT WARRIORS>. (By a Chess Correspondent.) A big, quiet room where the very air seems heavy with deliberation, two men are sitting at a chess-board. The one sits motionless, regarding the game with serene air of aloofness, except when he gets up at long intervals to pace the room while deciding on his next move. The other, in strange contrast, is twisting half-smoked cigarettes nervous fingers while contemplating some dashing move the board. They are Capablanca and Alekhine, and they are playing for the chess championship of the world. In appearance and temperament, these formidable rivals are utterly unlike. One would almost think that if they exchanged characteristics and personalities they would more consistent. For while Capablanca, whose native land Cuba, and whose slim, dark looks are typically Latin in every detail, preserves Sphinx-like calm and stolidity in playing, Alexander the fair-haired, blue-eyed Russian, unmistakably a Slav, is filled with a burning imagination and a fiery courage, and is highly strung in every nerve. The style their play is equally unlike, and both have written books their methods, Alekhine's "Best Games of Chess" being published just before the great match. When Capablanca is at the board hardly a flicker of expression passes across his face, but his cool judgement and calculating accuracy do not suffer through the want of outward show. And, opposite him, Alekhine is bringing all the flames of his imagination and the untiring resources of his daring to his brilliant play. The challenge match brings to mind the old strife between the classic and romantic arts. <Aberdeen Journal - Tuesday 15 November 1927, page 6.> === <6> Alekhine has won another game of the great match for the championship, and, at the time of writing, now leads by five games to three. 25 games have been drawn. Everything now points to Alekhine winning the match, Capablanca seems far back an October 15th. to have made his mind that it would be so, on that date be asked his backers arrange another match, limited to 20 games, in New York early in 1929. is stated that Alekhine agrees to the suggestion and would be willing play on those lines. <Hastings and St Leonards Observer - Saturday 03 December 1927, page 1>. ================ <7> Capablanca arrived in England last week to fulfil a number of simultaneous engagements commencing at Hackney Wick last Tuesday. In interview with the chess correspondent of the "Daily Mail," Capablanca said would welcome the offer of an International board to take control of the championship. Referring to his last contest with Alekhine, he said, <" I made mistake in thinking I could engage in a serious match without interrupting my routine social and business engagements. I know better now.>" but he went on to say that at the present time was playing well enough to entitle him to battle on equal terms with anybody. <Hastings and St Leonards Observer - Saturday 24 November 1928, page 11>. === <8> Did Capablanca actually receive the higher portion of the purse? Different newspaper reports of the time give conflicting accounts: Some say he did and I admit the first time I saw this <Grantham Journal - Saturday 3rd December 1927>, I assumed it was a typographical error), but: "As a result of the meeting, it is stated that Capablanca receives £1,040 and Alekhine £950". Source: <Referee (Sydney, Australia, Wednesday 25 January 1928, page 18)>. ... "Capablanca received a purse of 5,200 dollars and Alekhine 4,000". Source: <Queensland Times (Ipswich) Thursday 1 December 1927, p.4> .... The purse divided, Capablanca received 5,200 dol. and Alekine 4,000 dol. Source: <Sunday Times (Perth, Australia)Sunday 11 December 1927, p.18> ... THE WAGES OF SPORT. Alekhine gets £800 for his trouble, and Capablanca, who, holding the championship title, could command better terms, receives something over £1000. Source: <Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 284, 1 December 1927, p.6.> ... (United Press Association.— Copyright.) BUENOS AIRES, 29th Nov. The conditions provided that the winner of the first six games should secure the title. Capablanca received a purse of 5,200 dollars and Alekhine 4,000 dollars. Source: <Evening Post, New Zealand, Volume CIV, Issue 133, 2 December 1927, p.9> ... === <9> The most detailed report I have found so far is: The match was played under the, rules governing world championship contests that were adopted by the great masters during the London Congress of 1922 (a year after Capablanca won the title from Dr. Emannel Lasker. Among other conditions, they call for a minimum purse of 10,000 dollars. Of this the title-holder receives 20 per cent as a fee, the balance being divided in the proportion of 60 per cent to the winner, and 40 per cent to the loser. In addition the travelling and living expenses of both players must be provided for. It Capablanca's contention that remuneration given to a chess player for an exhibition of his brain power should be commensurate with that: accorded to a prize-fighter for an exhibition of skill. Source: <Evening Post, (New Zealand) Volume CIV, Issue 135, 5 December 1927, p.4>. ############################ <Vidmar on signing the London Rules> Vidmar: "Merkwürdigerweise kam es mir, als ich das Londoner Statut unterschrieb, nicht zum Bewustsein, das nun mien Jugendplan Schiffbruch gelitten, das mein Weltmeisterstraum engültig ausgeträumt war. Es hatte mir doch sofort klar sein mussen, das ich nicht die geringste Aussicht hatte, zehntausend Dolar fur meine Heraus forderung aufzubringen, es sei denn, ich hatte meine Betatigung in der elektrotechnischen Welt sofort liquidiert und mich in die weite Welt auf die Such nach dem sich meiner annehmenden Mäzen begeben." Again, <Karpova> will be able to supply a better translation, but it reads something like this in English: <"Strangely, it came to me when I signed the London Agreement, I had not been fully conscious that I had just definitively shipwrecked the dreams of my youth to become world champion. It was clear that <<<I did not have the slightest chance to raise ten thousand dollars for my challenge>>> unless I gave up my career as an electrical engineer and began a search the world over looking for a patron [who could supply the $10,000 purse]."> -Milan Vidmar, "Golden Schachzeiten (2d auflage)" (Walter de Gruyter 1981), p.176 ############################ NEW EDIT INFORMATION <Karpova> For the sake of completeness: An early prediction by Dr. Lasker from an interview in 'Schachmaty', reprinted on page 86 of the March 1924 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': <In einem Wettstreit Capablanca-Aljechin räume ich letzterem sehr gute Chancen ein, vorausgesetzt, dass der Wettkampf nicht in Havanna stattfindet. Capablanca steht zwar seit dem 14. Lebensjahre ununterbrochen im Training und ist daher höher einzuschätzen, dagegen überragt ihn Aljechin zweifellos durch den Reichtum an Phantasie.> (In a match Capablanca-Alekhine, I concede very good chances to the latter, presupposing that the match does not take place in Havana. Capablanca has been training without interruptions since the age of 14 and therefore has to be considered to be superior, yet Alekhine indubitably outshines him due to his riches in fantasy.) ########################################## From page 362 of the November-December 1926 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung New York 1927 is announced for March. It's made clear that the WC match Capablanca against Alekhine takes place afterwards as Nimzowitsch withdrew his challenge. He could only raise $4,000 instead of the demanded $10,000. =================== The January 1926 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' reports on page 29, that Dr. Lasker held a lecture in the Hamburg Chess Club and also addressed the world championship. The Russians were disposed to arrange a match between Capablanca and Bogoljubov, yet the plan suffered a setback as Capablanca declared that he wanted to play in 1927. Then, Capablanca is cited who said in Berlin that no one had offered him money for a match and neither Bogoljubov nor Dr. Lasker had challenged him. He is ready to defend his title against every player, whomever it may be and "I have no doubts about the outcome of such a match" (<und ich bin nicht im Zweifel über den Ausgang eines solchen Kampfes>). ############################## After an address by Carranza on the significance of the match, Alekhine spoke, thanking the Club for its work and declaring himself against changes to the world title match rules Maróczy, that victory bound to go to Capablanca [Although Alekhine sometimes played brilliantly in New York, I should be surprised if, in this autumn’s world championship match against Capablanca, he were to win even a single game.] ‘Capablanca freilich hält mit seinen eisernen Nerven die fünfstündige Spielzeit glänzend durch. Schon wegen dieses Punktes allein glaube ich, daß Aljechin in seinem bevorstehenden Wettkampf keine ernstliche Chance hat.’ [Capablanca certainly maintains his iron nerve throughout the five hours of play. For that reason alone I believe that in his forthcoming match Alekhine has no serious chance.] -Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung of 25 June 1927, page 104 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 3428. Another Capablanca letter <Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) has sent us a letter written by Capablanca which was presented (and billed as previously unpublished) on page 25 of Magazine Actual, May 1997. Below are the original and our English translation: ‘8 December 1927 Dr Lizardo Molina Carranza President of the Club Argentino de Ajedrez Dear Sir, In my opinion, Dr Alekhine was already proclaimed world champion, not only here but throughout the entire world, from the moment when, through the official match referee, Dr C. Querencio, I sent the letter in which I resigned the final game. Moreover, in similar cases I have always emphatically opposed any act of public ostentation. It is clear that the organizing committee of the match is applying a different criterion. Given our difference of views with respect to these matters, <<<permit me to refrain from attending tonight at the Chess Club.>>> As regards my share of the purse, I am asking Mr Ricardo Illa, the official match treasurer, kindly to retain it for me until I go to his office to collect it. Yours sincerely, J.R. Capablanca.’ The context is that on 29 November 1927 Capablanca had written to Alekhine (in French) to resign the 34th and last match game, adding ‘you are therefore the world champion’. The day the above-quoted letter was written to Lizardo Molina Carranza (8 December 1927) Alekhine was ‘officially proclaimed world champion’ at the Club Argentino de Ajedrez, as reported on page 123 of the January 1928 issue of El Ajedrez Americano. After an address by Carranza on the significance of the match, Alekhine spoke, thanking the Club for its work and declaring himself against changes to the world title match rules.> 1"Shakhmatny v. SSSR #3 March, 1956, pp.87-89." Retrieved from Batgirl article at http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e... 2"Manhattan Chess Club Archives." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." McFarland 1989, p.186 3Milan Vidmar "Golden Schachzeiten (2d auflage)." Walter de Gruyter 1981, p.176 4Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927." Pergamon 1984, p.2 5"The Russell Collection Item 1569." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.319 6Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion " The Voice 1992, p.161 7Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 2, 1921-1924." pp.153-154 8"La Nación 14 September 1927," p. 12 9Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung of 25 June 1927, page 104 10Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.198 11Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.200 11"Magazine Actual May 1997, p. 25." In Edward Winter Chess Note 3428, retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ################################ <The London Rules> Edward Winter (2008) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927> Edward Winter (2003) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <CN 7134. Capablanca explains his defeat by Alekhine> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ############################ [[<BEFORE THE MATCH> Chess Events]] <Alekhine tournament highlights> St. Petersburg (1914) 19th DSB Congress, Mannheim (1914) Budapest (1921) The Hague (1921) New York (1924) Baden-Baden (1925) Alekhine - Euwe Training Match (1926) New York (1927) Kecskemet (1927) ########################## <St. Petersburg 1913 Informal games with Capablanca, cordial relations- quote> (Winter 1913) <"In the winter of 1913, José Raúl Capablanca arrived in Moscow... After his arrival, Capablanca organized several simultaneous exhibitions and accepted B. Suvorin's proposal for him to play against the best chess players of St. Petersburg.... Duz-Khotimrisky, <<<Alekhine>>> and Znosko-Borovsky took part in these matches and was (sic) defeated by Capablanca one to five when Znosko-Borovsky scored the only victory."> -"Moskovskie Vedomosti Dec. 22, 1913, No. 295." In Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921." Olomouc Moravian Chess Publishing 1992, p.109. <"After his first game against Capablanca, Alekhine became <<<enthusiastic>>> about the standard and strategy of the Cuban master's manner of chess playing. Talking to his friends, Sosnitsky and Potemkin, he stated that any rival's performance looked weak in playing against Capablanca as Capablanca played much better than the others."> -"Shakhmaty v SSSR 1959, No. 6, p.181." In Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921." p.109. <"...after meeting Capablanca personally he felt closer to him. Alekhine interpreted the impressions of those years in an interesting manner much later after Capablanca's death: <<<'His real talent that cannot be imitated was first displayed during the St. Petersburg tournament. Never before and never later, did I see- and I cannot even imagine- such astounding rapidity of chess thought as Capablanca possessed. It is enough to say that he offered an advance advantage to all St. Petersburg chess masters in the score 5-1 in blitz games and still won!'>>>"> - Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921." p.123. <EDIT Karpova> <"This was the first game in a series of three two-game matches played for stakes; the other contestants were<<< Alekhine and Duz Hotimirsky>>>. Besides the stake-money there was a gold cup to be awarded for the series, either to Capablanca if he won all six games, or to the player who made the best score against him."> - Hooper & Brandreth, "The Unknown Capablanca." Mineola 1993, pp. 9-10 ############################ EDIT <JFQ> <Alekhine to Pyotr Romanovsky, explaining why he had asked the organizers of Mannheim 1914 if Capablanca would be playing in that event>: <“If Capablanca would have participated, then I would not have played. The fact of the matter is that in the coming years I must prepare for my match with Capablanca for the world’s championship. <<<For this purpose I must take only first prizes.>>> Right now I am still weaker than Capablanca, and, this means, that in the event of his participation I must be content, at best, with second place which does not enter at all into my calculations”.> -"Shakhmatny v. SSSR #3 March, 1956, pp.87-89." In Pyotr Romanovsky, "Encounters with Alekhine." Retrieved from Batgirl article at http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e... ########################### <Alekhine's study of Capa's games after> New York (1924), (April 1924): <"...I did take home with me from this tournament one valuable moral victory, and that was the lesson I learned from my first game with Capablanca, which had the effect of a revelation on me. Having outplayed me in the opening, having reached a won positionin the middle game and having carried over a large part of his advantage into a rook ending, the Cuban then allowed me to neutralize his superiority in that ending and finally had to make do with a draw. That made me think, for Capablanca had certainly been trying very hard in this game, so as to draw nearer to Dr Lasker, who was in the lead, and who had won against me the previous day. I was convinced that if I had been in Capablanca's position I should certainly have won the game. I had finally detected a <<<slight weakness>>> in my future opponent: increasing uncertainty when confronted with stubborn resistance! Of course I had already noticed Capablanca committing occasional slight inaccuracies, but I should not have thought that he would be unable to rid himself of this failing even when he tried his utmost. That was an exceedingly important lesson for the future!"> -Alexander Alekhine "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927." Pergamon 1984, p. 2 ############################ [[<BEFORE THE MATCH> Negotiations and Conditions]] <7th November 1921> <Alekhine's first challenge letter:> <"This success (Hague 1921), following the ones at St. Petersburg, Mannheim, and Budapest, seems to justify my desire for a serious meeting with the <<<world champion.>>> Consequently, I should be grateful if you would consider the present letter as an official challenge to a match for the World Chess Championship."> -"Manhattan Chess Club Archives." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." McFarland 1989, p. 186 <August 10, 1922> after London (1922) <"Señor Capablanca met the masters last evening, and they agreed to accept his conditions for the World's Chess Championship (London Rules). It was also agreed that A. Rubinstein's challenge... should remain open until the end of 1923 to give him time to obtain the necessary funds. If by that period he is unable to obtain the necessary support, his challenge will lapse and <<<A. Alekhine's>>> challenge will materialize."> -"The Times, 10 August 1922," p. 9. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p. 187 <early 1924>, before New York (1924)) Alekhine: <"In 1924 the question of my involvement in competition for the World Championship was still something of an open one... In those days Capablanca was unquestionably superior t me in many respects... and among his rivals Dr Lasker still took firs place. The thought of a return match between these two filled the minds of everyone in the chess world, and this idea took precedence over my plans.> -Alexander Alekhine "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927." p. 1 <August-September 1926> <"I was warmly welcomed in Buenos Aires and in the very first week after my arrival the idea of the World Championship match was mentioned in the influential circles of the city, notably by the President of the Argentinian Republic, Dr Alvear. Negotiations on the subject made rapid progress, and finally I was given a firm commitment that the financial conditions of the <<<London agreement>>> would be met, whereupon I sent off my challenge to Capablanca.... I at first received no definite answer from the World Champion, and the matter thus remained open until the spring of 1927."> -Alexander Alekhine "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927." p.117 <"...Alekhine had arrived in Buenos Aires. Rumors of a challenge from him to José R. Capablanca were soon confirmed by the receipt of a cablegram addressed to the latter and conveying to him the desire of Dr. Alekhine to contest a match for the Cuban's title in Buenos Aires in 1927. It was understood that the <<<Club Argentino de Ajedrez of Buenos Aires>>> was ready to finance such a match and would post a guarantee of $500, as required by the conditions adopted by the masters at London in 1922. Capablanca... let it be known that, while willing to accomodatee Dr. Alekhine, he was in duty bound to give preference to A. Nimzowitsch of Copenhagen, who had also challenged."> -"American Chess Bulletin Sept-Oct 1926, p. 126." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p. 194 <1st January 1927> <<<<Nimzo's deadline for securing funds and his deposit>>> "came and went without Nimzowitsch following up on his challenge."> -In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.194 <According to Alekhine, Some time between 22d December 1926 and 8th January 1927> <Alekhine> writing about events supposedly occurring during Alekhine - Euwe Training Match (1926) <"During the event (match with Euwe) I received a telegram calling into question the <<<justification of my match>>> with Capablanca, because the New York committee had determined that no-one could be considered as the principal challenger for the World Championship unless he took at least the second prize in the coming New York Tournament. I had to interrupt my match with Dr. Euwe and travel to Paris in order to sort out this matter..."> -Alexander Alekhine "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927." p. 130 <Alekhine's memory of events may be incorrect> Alekhine either sent <two> separate cables from Paris to the <New York 1927> organizers, or he sent <one> cable to them and he is misremembering exactly when. Alekhine - Euwe Training Match (1926), ended on 8th January 1927, and the following cable is dated- <14th January 1927>, after the training match with <Euwe> was already over. <14th January 1927> Alekhine's cable to <Norbert Lederer>, sent from Paris: <"Cannot play (in New York (1927)) unless Committee officially cables me they cancel point programme about first and second winner as <<<contradicting actual situation>>>, Capablanca having officially accepted my challenge confirming tournament will have no connection whatsoever our match. Alkehine."> -"The Russel Collection, Item 1385." In Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p. 319 Alekhine seems distrustful here, if he had indeed received the following assurances from both <Lederer> and <Capablanca>: In a letter to Capablanca dated <21st December 1926>, Lederer informs Capa that he is just about to write a letter to <Alekhine> to reassure him: <"From Alekhine enclosed letter came today and I am replying that a letter of yours is on the way and that <<<of course>>> our tournament has nothing whatever to do with his match offically."> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p. 319 <In addition, in a letter to Lederer dated <7th January 1927> Capa informs him that <<<"Yesterday I send Alekhine the following cable: 'N.Y. Tournament has no connection whatsoever with our negotiations. Capablanca.'">>>> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p. 319 ####################### EDIT <Karpova> <Additional sources on Negotiation Timeline> <on page 2 Raymond Keene repeats yet again his mistaken claim that New York, 1927 decided Capablanca’s challenger (although we drew attention to this error in C.N. 586)> in http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... so if you have access to this early Chess Note, you may find out more.> <If it exists, why isn't it in Winter's <Capa>?> He may not have had access to it (Winter's book is more than 20 years old) or perhaps it has been published elsewhere and Winter concentrated more on neglected stuff. And it doesn't have directly to do with Capablanca. The 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' of October 1926 reports on page 289 that Nimzowitsch and Alekhine had challenged Capablanca and he had accepted - now it was a matter of money (Alekhine was backed by Argentina). It is mentioned that at Budapest, Fide had presented another solution (every 4 years a Fide title match, in between a challenger tournament) but this had become less of an issue at the moment (undoubtly because of the challenges. On page 18 of the January 1927 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung', in the article on the Alekhine - Dr. Euwe match, nothing is mentioned about Alekhine travelling to Paris in between, but instead that he could have used as an excuse (for not beating Dr. Euwe more clearly) that the match was preparation for his WC mtach. Furthermore, the WC was said to be firmly agreed upon for October 1927 (<fix vereinbart>). The report on New York 1927 on page 57 ff. of the March 1927 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' nothing is mentioned about it being a tournament to determine the challenger. For sure, it was interesting as Capablanca met his two challengers Alekhine and Nimzowitsch but they weren't regarded as such because of good chances of placing best (besides Capablanca) but because of having challenged him. The biggest issue is again the L-L controversy. ####################### [[<BEFORE THE MATCH> Predictions]] EDIT <Karpova> MATCH PREDICTIONS: <<<<Alfred Brinckmann>>>: Brinckmann is quoted <Der Weltmeister des nächsten Jahrzehnts heißt Capablanca!> (the World Champion of the next decade is called Capablanca!) - page 266 of the 1927 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' ========== <<<Rudolph Spielmann>>>: ‘Trotzdem Aljechin in New York teilweise glänzend spielte, würde es mich wundern, wenn er in dem im Herbst bevorstehenden Kampf um die Weltmeisterschaft gegen Capablanca auch nur eine Partie gewinnen würde.’ [Although Alekhine sometimes played brilliantly in New York, I should be surprised if, in this autumn’s world championship match against Capablanca, he were to win even a single game.] ‘Capablanca freilich hält mit seinen eisernen Nerven die fünfstündige Spielzeit glänzend durch. Schon wegen dieses Punktes allein glaube ich, daß Aljechin in seinem bevorstehenden Wettkampf keine ernstliche Chance hat.’ [Capablanca certainly maintains his iron nerve throughout the five hours of play. For that reason alone I believe that in his forthcoming match Alekhine has no serious chance.] -Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung of 25 June 1927, page 104 =========== <<<Richard Reti>>>: ‘To assert, as does Maróczy, that victory is bound to go to Capablanca ... is to act as a fortune-teller. There will be reasons for saying that Capablanca is an exceptional master in our field, in that his career has no failures of any kind, yet if we make a thorough study of the characteristics of each player, if we consider the psychological factors that will come into play in the match and if, more importantly, we destroy the legend of Capablanca’s invulnerability – which has become a reality among aficionados – we shall conclude that there are no fundamental reasons for affirming with such certainty that the Cuban grandmaster must necessarily defeat the talented Slav player.’ ‘Capablanca has an apathetic temperament, he does not have further ambitions and he is incapable of preparing himself intensely for a match of this kind, since it is annoying for him to have to think. By dint of his natural talent he has arrived where he is, but he does not love chess. He is admirably instinctive but lacks the energy to undertake strict training. Alekhine, in contrast, has an extraordinary wealth of energy. When engaged in battle, he is driven by noble eagerness to excel himself, and he has subjected himself to training commensurate with the importance of the match to be played ...’ From 1921 to 1927, Alexander Alekhine labored to become José Raúl Capablanca's logical challenger, winning or sharing first prize in 12 of 20 tournaments (he also won or shared six second prizes during this period). He also began a minute study of Capablanca's games, searching for weaknesses.1 In the age of luminaries such as Rubinstein, Bogoljubow, and Nimzowitsch, Alekhine was not the only legitimate contender to the crown. He was, however, the only leading player able to secure the necessary finances to allow the match to take place. In 1927 the two giants met over the chessboard in Buenos Aires, with the World Championship title at stake. Capablanca was a heavy favorite in this match. In addition to his own record, his heads-up record against Alekhine was far superior. They had met in four previous tournaments, and in each case Capablanca had placed higher. Their head-to-head record was an exceptional +5 -0 =7 for Capablanca. Grandmaster predictions were heavily in his favor. Rudolf Spielmann predicted that Alekhine would not win a single game, while the optimistic Bogolubov thought that he might perhaps win 2 games.2 -La Nación of 14 September 1927 p. 12 === <<<Savielly Tartakower>>>: In order not to appear influenced by the current situation of it [the fight], I will quote the readers of La Prensa my article published in the April issue of the publication this year of Magyar Sakkvilág, in which, after asking if the 'match' Alekhine-Capablanca still had its rationale, expressed my opinion that then more than ever. -La Prensa 31 October 1927 p. 10 ############################# <<<Hartwig Cassel>>>: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Chess note 5117. Cassel on Capablanca and Alekhine Mr Sánchez also provides an article by Hartwig Cassel (1850-1929) on page 2 of section 3 of the 21 August 1927 issue of La Prensa, although it was written in June (in New York). Cassel reported that in the opinion of the New York chessplayers the Capablanca v Alekhine match would not be of interest, as Capablanca would win easily. He stated that, on the basis of recent tournament results, Lasker and Bogoljubow had a greater right to challenge the Cuban, as Alekhine lacked the requisite stature for the match.> ############################ EDIT <Karpova> <In C.N. 7502, Félix Valderrama Loyola (Barquisimeto, Venezuela) reports that, according to his brother Julio, Jacobo Bolbochan was Alekhine's sparring partner in preparation for : Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 See http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> PHOTO of <Jacobo Bolbochan>: http://www.chessgames.com/portraits... ############################ [[<THE MATCH>]] <Venue> ################################ <Venue- Argentine Chess Club> Шабуров Юрий Николаевич «Александр Алехин. Непобежденный чемпион» Издательство: Москва. «Голос», 1992 г., 256 стр 6На следующий день толпа поклонников осажденном доме под номером 443 на улице Карлос Pellegrani, в котором находился аргентинский шахматный клуб. Он был предоставлен первый этаж, и сами участники сыграли матч в комнате на втором этаже. Потребовалось почти все партии дуэли, за исключением двух, состоявшейся в Жокей-клубе. Но в Жокей-клубе была очень шумной обстановке, по настоянию матча Алехин обратно в шахматном клубе. 161 Shaburov Yuri "Alexander Alekhine. The undefeated champion " Publisher: Moscow. 'The Voice', 1992, 256 pp. The next day a crowd of fans besieged the house at number 443 on the street Carlos Pellegrani, which housed the Argentine Chess Club. The fans were granted the first floor, and the participants themselves played the games in a room on the second floor. This room held nearly all the match games, except for two held in the Jockey Club. But the Jockey Club had a very noisy environment, and at the urging of Alekhine the match was moved back into the chess club. p. 161 <Conditions> The games were played at 2 1/2 hours per forty moves, the match awarded to the first to win 6 games, draws not counting. Capa got $2000 of the purse as a fee, the remaining to be split $4,800 to the victor and $3,200 to the loser.7 -Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 2, 1921-1924." pp.153-154 <Course of the Match> <19th September- 30th November 1927> Series of articles Capa wrote during the match for the Buenos Aires newspaper "Critica": <Capablanca on Game 1 (19th Sept. 1927):> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <"Taking advantage of a gross error on our part, he won a pawn and obtained the better game, but from then on his play became much weaker... <<<However>>>... when we thought that we would get back on our feet, we committed a fresh error and this time Alekhine duly took advantage and scored a victory."> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.198 <On Game 21 (27th Oct. 1927):> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <"With the game he won yesterday Alekhine obtained his fourth victory... This fresh victory provides even more confirmation of our opinion that there can hardly be a <<<stronger player>>> in the world than the Slav master."> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.200 <On Game 34 (30th Nov. 1927):> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <"In our opinion the last game of the match... was his best game up to the last moves of the ending, where he played a series of very weak moves which started to spoil what would otherwise have been a model game. Examining the possible factors contributing to Dr. Alekhine's final victory, we find that his success is chiefly due to the fact that <<<he took advantage of all the winning chances>>> that became available, with the exception of one or two; in the course of the match we, however, missed a great number of chances and if we had taken advantage of them the actual result of the match would have been completely transformed."> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.202 <Capablanca's resignation letter> Translation from French: <20 November 1927 "Dear Mr. Alekhine- I <<<resign>>> the game. You are therefore the world champion and I congratulate you on your success. My regards to Mrs. Alekhine. Yours sincerely, J.R. Capablanca> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca." p.203 ##################### http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 3428. Another Capablanca letter <Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) has sent us a letter written by Capablanca which was presented (and billed as previously unpublished) on page 25 of Magazine Actual, May 1997. Below are the original and our English translation: ‘8 December 1927 Dr Lizardo Molina Carranza President of the Club Argentino de Ajedrez Dear Sir, In my opinion, Dr Alekhine was already proclaimed world champion, not only here but throughout the entire world, from the moment when, through the official match referee, Dr C. Querencio, I sent the letter in which I resigned the final game. Moreover, in similar cases I have always emphatically opposed any act of public ostentation. It is clear that the organizing committee of the match is applying a different criterion. Given our difference of views with respect to these matters, <<<permit me to refrain from attending tonight at the Chess Club.>>> As regards my share of the purse, I am asking Mr Ricardo Illa, the official match treasurer, kindly to retain it for me until I go to his office to collect it. Yours sincerely, J.R. Capablanca.’ The context is that on 29 November 1927 Capablanca had written to Alekhine (in French) to resign the 34th and last match game, adding ‘you are therefore the world champion’. The day the above-quoted letter was written to Lizardo Molina Carranza (8 December 1927) Alekhine was ‘officially proclaimed world champion’ at the Club Argentino de Ajedrez, as reported on page 123 of the January 1928 issue of El Ajedrez Americano. After an address by Carranza on the significance of the match, Alekhine spoke, thanking the Club for its work and declaring himself against changes to the world title match rules.> ############################## [[<AFTER THE MATCH>]] Evaluations, Excuses, Comments ############################# ###################### 3 games, 1927 WCC: Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 ARCHIVE Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927) <DRAFT EDIT>: Alexander Alekhine was born in Moscow, Russia in 1892.<1> He began to take chess seriously at the age of 12. During school classes he would analyze games in his head without looking at the chessboard.<2> At age 16, a victory in the Moscow Autumn Tournament 1908 led to his appearance in the strong All Russian Amateur (1909) tournament. He won, earning the Russian national master title.<3> A shared first with Aron Nimzowitsch at the <All Russian Masters St Petersburg 1914>-<insert tournament link here: http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/...><4> qualified him for the great St. Petersburg (1914) tournament, featuring most of the best players in the world. Alekhine finished third, behind world champion Emanuel Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca, ahead of Siegbert Tarrasch, Frank Marshall, and Akiba Rubinstein. <5> Alekhine now conceived a long term plan to become world champion. His strategy was to finish first in every tournament he entered and so earn the right to challenge Capablanca, whom he predicted would soon be champion.<6> Capablanca indeed <won the world title>-<insert match link here Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)> on April 20, 1921. His first challenge came from Akiba Rubinstein on September 7, 1921. Alekhine challenged two months later, after he won both Budapest (1921) and The Hague (1921).<7> After The Hague (1921), Dutch chess officials proposed a "Candidates Match" between Alekhine and Rubinstein, to be held in the Netherlands on or after March 1922. Both masters agreed to the idea.<8> In December 1921 the "American Chess Bulletin" reported that Capablanca would honor Rubinstein's challenge first, unless the proposed Dutch candidates match should produce a "decisive victory for one or the other."<7> When Alekhine arrived in the Netherlands in January 1922, he stated that a candidates match was no longer possible because Rubinstein had been admitted to a sanitarium after he played <Triberg (1921)>-<insert tournament link here> http://www.365chess.com/tournaments..., due to a mental disturbance. Shortly afterwards the Dutch press demonstrated that Alekhine's claim was false, but the match still didn't take place.<8> After London (1922), where Alekhine placed second to the champion, the top eight finishers signed "the London Rules," Capablanca's proposal for all future title match conditions. The rules stipulated that the world champion "need not defend" his title "for a lower purse than $10,000 U.S. dollars."<9> Capablanca now gave Rubinstein until December 31, 1923 to meet the new financial demands, but Rubinstein couldn't meet the deadline.<8> Alekhine continued steady negotiations for a title match, but he was unable to raise the $10,000 purse.<10> A title challenge from Frank Marshall in 1923 also came to nothing.<10> In 1926 Nimzowitsch challenged for the title, followed by a renewed challenge from Alekhine in the same year.<11> Alekhine had secured a "firm commitment" from the Argentine Chess Federation to finance the match.<12> William Hartston suggests that the federation did so because "they simply felt it was time to give Capablanca, hero of Latin America, a chance to demonstrate his superiority again somewhere close to home soil."<13> Capablanca accepted Alekhine's challenge, but also told him that he had given Nimzowitsch until January 1, 1927 to meet the purse requirement.<11> Nimzowitsch failed to meet his deadline and Capablanca finally agreed to face Alekhine in a world championship match.<14> Prior to the match, Capablanca dominated New York (1927), finishing 2½ points in front of Alekhine, who took second. Alekhine had never won a single game from Capablanca, so it was perhaps understandable that some doubted he could win six match games against him.<15> Geza Maroczy predicted victory was bound to go to Capablanca,<16> and Rudolf Spielmann said he would be surprised if Alekhine "were to win even a single game."<17> Richard Reti, on the other hand, concluded "that there are no fundamental reasons for affirming with such certainty that the Cuban grandmaster must necessarily defeat the talented Slav player."<16> The match began in Buenos Aires on September 9, 1927. Conditions followed the London Rules: games to be played at 2 1/2 hours per 40 moves, with the match awarded to the first to win 6 games, draws not counting. Capablanca would receive $2,000 of the purse as a fee, with the remainder split $4,800 to the victor and $3,200 to the loser.<18> The Argentine Chess Club provided the venue, except for two games played in the Jockey Club.<19> Dr. Carlos A. Querencio served as referee, and Daniel Deletang was Alekhine's second.<20> Alekhine won the <first game>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 on the black side of a French Defence. Every subsequent game would be contested with a Queen's pawn opening. After ten games Capablanca led 2-1, but he dropped two in a row and a long series of draws followed. According to Garry Kasparov, Capablanca let slip "an enormous positional advantage" in <game 17>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927. <21> After Alekhine notched his fourth win in <game 21>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927, Capablanca opined that "there can hardly be a stronger player in the world than the Slav master."<22> Capablanca did well to save the draw in game 22, and Kasparov maintains that the Cuban now played the match with increasing power until he missed the win in the "completely won" <27th game>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927. <23> After winning <game 29>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927, Capablanca trailed the match by just a point, and optimistically remarked that "the match takes on fresh interest..."<24> Kasparov believes that Capablanca missed a win in <game 31>-<insert game link here> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927, and then, later in the game, settled for a draw when he was a pawn up, and could well have played on.<25> A win would have tied the match. Alekhine characterized his win in <game 32>-<insert game link here> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 as "well-contested" and "full of ideas" from both players.<26> Now Alekhine needed just one more win to take the title. With adjournments, the 34th and <final game>-<insert game link here> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 took four days to complete, ending on November 29 when Capablanca did not show up to resume play. Instead, he sent a congratulatory resignation note.<27> Nor did the ex-champion show up for the closing ceremony on December 8. Alexander Alekhine, the fourth world chess champion, did attend. He thanked the Argentine Chess Club for its work and declared he was against any changes to the world title match rules- the London Rules.<27> <1> Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastimil Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" (Olomouc 1992), pp.6-7 <2> Kalendovsky and Fiala, pp.24-25 <3> Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p.738; Kalendovsky and Fiala, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol 1, 1892-1921" p.48 <4> Rod Edwards, <All-Russian Championship, St.Petersburg 1914> http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... <5> Skinner and Verhoeven, p.89 <6> "Shakhmaty v SSSR” No.3 (March 1956), pp.87-89. In Sarah Beth Cohen, <"Encounters with Alekhine"> http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/e... <7> 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), pp.186-187 <8> Toni Preziuso, "AMERIKA! AMERIKA!" In "KARL" no.3 2013, pp.34-39 <9> "American Chess Bulletin" Sept-Oct 1922, p.150. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.188 <10> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.191-197 <11> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" pp.193-194 <12> Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" G. Feather transl., (Pergamon 1984), p.117 <13> William Hartston, "The Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters" (Guinness World Records Limited 1996), p.82 <14> Alekhine, p.131 <15> Skinner and Verhoeven, pp.294-296 <16> "La Nación” (14 Sept. 1927), p.12. In Edward Winter, <Chess Note 5665> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <17> "Sonntagsbeilage der Augsburger Postzeitung” (25 June 1927), p.104. In Edward Winter, <Chess Note 5338> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <18> Edward Winter, <"The London Rules" (2008)> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... "La Prensa" 14 Sept 1927. In Edward Winter, <"Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927"> (2003) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <19> Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992), p.161 <20> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.198 <21> Garry Kasparov, "On My Great Predecessors Part I" (Everyman Chess 2003), p.316 <22> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.200 <23> Kasparov, pp.316-318 <24> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.201 <25> Kasparov, pp.323-328 <26> Alekhine, p.209 <27> "Magazine Actual” (May 1997), p. 25. In Edward Winter, <Chess Note 3428> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ###################### <1st game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <0-1> Alekhine on 10.Nd1: "Capablanca spent 40 minutes considering this move." -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.151> ####################### <2d game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <3d game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1-0> Alekhine: "Apart from the 34th game, towards the end of which I was understandably excited, this is the only game of the match in which I was not completely in control of my nerves... 13...Bc5?? (which loses a piece)" -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.155> ################################ <4th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <5th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <6th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <7th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1-0> Alekhine: "In my view the concluding attack is among his best tactical achievements." -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.162> ################################ <8th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <9th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <10th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <11th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <0-1> 47...Qc5 gets a ! from Kasparov <<CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. Check to Capablanca>. When the eleventh game in the match at Buenos Aires between Capablanca and Alekhine for the world's chess championship was adjourned on Friday evening Capablanca remained in the hall for two hours studying the board. He then decided make use his right to postpone the play for one day. The game will therefore resumed, tonight, so far it is considered one the most notable ever played. What appeared at first to Capablanca triumph was turned into a fairly even game through Alekhine's masterly style. Capablanca opened with the Queen's Pawn, while Alekhine used the Cambridge Springs variation. Both later disregarded accepted forms and engaged in very unusual combinations. —Press Association Foreign Special. -<Western Daily Press - Monday 10 October 1927, page 8> ################################ <12th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1-0> overlook 35. Nc5 ################################ <13th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <14th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <15th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <16th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <17th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <18th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <19th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <20th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <21st game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <0-1> Alekhine: "I consider this game, along with the thirty-fourth, to be the most meritorious in the match." -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.188> <After Alekhine notched his 4th win in <game 21>, Capablanca opined that "there can hardly be a stronger player in the world than the Slav master."<Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.200>> -<22. Nc3?> ################################ <22d game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> <But Capa saves the 22nd game. According to Kasparov (p. 316 of OMPG I), Capa played now with increasing power until he missed the win in the "completely won" 27th game (game 105, pp. 316-318).> Alekhine gives Capa exclamation points for <42...Nc7!> and <45...Nxf4!> -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.191> ################################ <23d game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <24th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <25th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <26th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <27th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> <<But Capa saves the 22nd game. According to Kasparov (p. 316 of OMPG I), Capa played now with increasing power until he missed the win in the "completely won" 27th game (game 105, pp. 316-318).> ################################ <28th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <29th game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1-0> <In game 29, Alekhine put up great resistance and Capa "from a practically winning position he had reached one that was drawn" (p. 322 of OMPG I) and won after a blunder.> Capablanca: "....when it seemed that the game would be drawn, Dr. Alekhine committed an error... by playing 44...Kg5 instead of 55...Bd6. We immediately took advantage of the opportunity to obtain a decisive advantage by means of 56.Ne5." "I believe that with the result of this game, the match takes on fresh interest..." <Winter, "Capablnaca" p.201> Alekhine: "When I played the blunder 55...Kg5??" -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.201>. ################################ <30th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <31st game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> -<(Capablanca) missed a win in game 31 and agreed to a draw, although he could have played on (game 107, pp. 323-328). > ################################ <32nd game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1-0> ################################ <33rd game> Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927 <1/2> ################################ <34th game> Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927 <1-0> Alekhine on game 21: "I consider this game, along with the thirty-fourth, to be the most meritorious in the match." -<Alexander Alekhine, "On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927" (Pergamon 1984), p.188> ################################ Alexander Alekhine 31 Oct 1892 <Early Record> -<Moscow Chess Club Spring Tournament 1908> 1st over Kade, Parfenov, Rubtsov, and Shaposhinikov. (Shakmatnoe Obozrenie 1909, n79/82, p.66. in Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," McFarland 1998, p.738) === -<Düsseldorf 1908> 6th Congress of the German Chess Federation, Haupturnier A (3-16 Aug) Shared 4th with Busch, behind Kohnlein, Wiarda and Gajdos, with +8 -3 =2. (Deutsches Wochenschach 1908, p.305. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.738) Alekhine's first international tournament. === -<Moscow Chess Club Autumn Tournament> (Oct 1908 - Jan 1909) 1st over Lyubimov, Katalimov, Rozanov and Pavlov. (Shakhmatnoe Obozrenie 1909, n79/82, p.69. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.738) === All Russian Amateur (1909) (15 Feb - 12 March) 1st over Rotlewi, Gregory and Daniuszewski, with +12 -2 =2. (Mezhdunarodny Shakhmantny Kongress v Pamyat M.I. Chigorina St. Petersburg 1909, p.36. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.738) Alekhine earned the Russian national master title for this victory. He also won a "cut glass vase valued at 650 roubles." (Skinner and Verhoeven, p.34) === 17th DSB Congress, Hamburg (1910) (18 July -6 Aug) Shared 7th with Dus Chotimirsky, behind Schlechter, Duras, Nimzowitsch, Spielmann, Teichmann and Marshall, with +5 -4 =7. (XVII. Kongress des Deutschen Schachbundes, e.V. Hamburg 1910, p.21. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.740) === Karlsbad (1911) (20 Aug - 24 Sept) Shared 8th with Leonhardt, Tartakower and Duras, behind Teichmann, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Rotlewi, Marshall, Nimzowitsch and Vidmar, with +11 -9 =5. (Deutsches Wochenschach 1911, p.361. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.741) === -<Moscow-St. Petersburg Match> (13 April) Alekhine played 1st board for Moscow and drew against E. Znosko-Borovsky. St. Petersburg won the event. (Niva-Shakhmaty 1912, p.150. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.741) === Nordic Congress, Stockholm (1912) (25 June-7 July) 1st over Cohn, Marco, Olland and Spielmann, with +8 -1 =1. (Tidskrift för Schack, 1912, p.127. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.742) Alekhine's first victory in an international tournament. === Vilnius All-Russian Masters (1912) (19 Aug - 17 Sept) Shared 6th with Levenfish, behind Rubinstein, Bernstein, Levitsky, Nimzowitsch and Flamberg, with +7 -8 =3 (Niva-Shakhmaty 1912, p.309-10. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.742) === St. Petersburg Quadrangular (1913) (17-22 April) Shared 1st with Levenfish, over Duras and Znosko-Borovsky, with +2 -1 =0. (Shakhmatny Vestnik 1913, p.137. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.742) === Game Collection: Scheveningen 1913 40th Anniversary of the NSB, Commemorative Tournament (28 July - 8 Aug) 1st over Janowski, Olland and Yates. (Tijdschrift van den Nederlandschen Schaakbond 1913, p.194. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.742) === Game Collection: All Russian Masters St Petersburg 1914 (4-31 Jan) Shared 1st with Nimzowitsch, over Flamberg, Lowcki, Levenfish, and Znosko-Borovsky, with +13 -3 =1 (Novoe Vremya, 22 January (4 February) 1914, p.7. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.743) === St. Petersburg (1914) (21 April - 22 May) 3rd behind Emanuel Lasker and Capablanca, ahead of Tarrasch, Marshall, Bernstein, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Blackburne, Janowski and Gunsberg. (Das Grossmeisterturnier zu St. Petersburg im Jahre 1914, p.XXIV. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.743) === 19th DSB Congress, Mannheim (1914) (July-Aug 1914) 1st over Vidmar, Spielmann, Breyer, Marshall, Reti, Janowski and Bogoljubov. Tournament unfinished. (Deutsche Schachblatter 1914, p.10. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.744) === 1 game, 1908 WCC: Euwe-Alekhine Rematch 1937 ORIGINAL: Euwe - Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) Edward Winter, "Euwe and Alekhine on their 1937 Match" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <World Championship Disorder> Edward Winter (2002) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <DRAFT EDIT> in progress: <JFQ> RESEARCH by <Karpova>, <dakgootje>, <thomastonk>, <crawfb5>, <JFQ> ################################# <5 Oct - 7 Dec 1937> Nine cities in Holland <DRAFT EDIT> Immediately after losing his title to Max Euwe in Dec 1935, Alexander Alekhine challenged for the rematch which had been guaranteed in their initial contract. H.W. Zimdin, the main stockholder of Panhans AG, offered to finance the match if it were played in the Panhans Hotel in Semmering, Austria.<1> On 23 Feb 1936, Alekhine arrived in Semmering for negotiations with Euwe's representative Hans Kmoch and the Austrian organizers, reporting that his loss to Euwe in the 1935 match had been the "greatest lesson of his life." <2> By April 1935 the Semmering offer broke down, possibly due to problems guaranteeing the required purse because the Dutch guilder was outperforming the Austrian schilling.<3,4> On 17 May 1936 Alekhine and Euwe signed a contract to play their rematch in various cities in the Netherlands.<5> Conditions would remain the same as the 1935 match. Win or lose, world champion Euwe would receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700), which he promised to donate to the Dutch Chess Federation.<6> From a mandatory 30 games, the first to 15 1/2 points with 6 wins would triumph, with Euwe enjoying draw odds.<7,8> The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours with the next 24 moves in 1 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour thereafter. The 1st adjournment came after Black's 40th move and the 2d after Black's 80th move. Geza Maroczy was referee and the seconds were Reuben Fine (Euwe) and Erich Eliskases (Alekhine).<9> In the period since their first championship match, Euwe had finished ahead of Alekhine at Nottingham (1936), Amsterdam (1936), and Bad Nauheim-Stuttgart-Garmisch (1937), and scored +2 -1 =2 against him in their individual encounters. According to Eliskases, Alekhine prepared seriously, girding himself with brisk walks and a health regimen of no tobacco or alcohol.<10> Alekhine had blamed his 1935 defeat in part on "tobacco in excess and, above all, alcohol" which "proved absolutely fatal in the long run."<11> Euwe trained by playing in the Stockholm Olympiad just before the match, explaining that "this kind of preparation was certainly necessary, since I had played very little this year."<11> Euwe struck first in game 1, and after game 5 he still led by a point. <Game 6>- Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 was played in Haarlem's Great Concert Hall, which featured acoustics so sharp that Eliskases claimed "Every sound can be heard on the stage. The audience produces so much noise that it is impossible for the players to play."<12> Alekhine stunned the audience by offering a knight in the opening with (6.Nf3!), a move he later characterized as "putting before black a most difficult practical problem."<13> Eliskases describes Euwe's response: "The reaction!... He... was playing a losing game after only a handful of moves."<12> Indeed, Euwe erred with (6...b5?), after which Alekhine claims "the game is already lost, as White, in addition to his positional advantage, soon wins material."<14> Alekhine went on to win in just 23 moves and seize the match momentum. He won three of the next four games and clinched the title by game 25, becoming the first world chess champion in history to reclaim his title in a rematch. Euwe attributed his loss partly to exhaustion, noting the irony that he "felt very tired in the second half of the match, perhaps as a result of the... strenuous exertion of the team tournament (Stockholm Olympiad)... in which I had participated with the object of playing myself into my best form." Euwe also described the psychological shock he experienced after Alekhine's dramatic surge through games 6-10: "When I discovered, after the tenth game, what kind of an opponent I had to contend with, I was already three points behind."<15> Alekhine attributed his win in part to a careful study of every game <Euwe> had played between the two championship matches. He also reported that he did not reveal any of his new opening ideas in games he played during this period.<8> Mikhail Botvinnik observed that the rematch "was more interesting than their 1935 match. In their first match, Alekine played poorly. In the second, he regained the form he had shown in his match against Capablanca in 1927."<16> NOTES <1> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Dec 1935), p.353 <2> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (March 1936), p.66 <3> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (April 1936), p.121 <4> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Dec 1936), p.353 <5> "Polygoon Hollands Nieuws (A filmed newsreel)," (17 May 1936) Dutch transl. by <dakgootje> http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler... <6> "Het Phohi-Sportpraatje. Schaken en Voetbal" ("Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië," 24 Dec 1935), p.3 Dutch transl. by <dakgootje> http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... <7> "Wiener Schachzeitung" (May 1936), pp.133-139 <7a> Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p.593 <8> Alexander Alekhine, "How I Regained the Title," "Chess Review" March 1938, p.64 <9> Alexander Alekhine, "The World's Chess Championship, 1937" (Dover Publications Inc. 15 April 1974), p.13 <10> "Chess" vol 3 1937, p.43. In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.594 <11> "Manchester Guardian" (5 October 1937), pp. 11-12 <12> Alexander Munninghoff, "Max Euwe- the Biography" Piet Verhagen transl. (New in Chess 2001), p. 206 <13> Alexander Alekhine, "My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937" (Dover 1985), p.229 <14> Alexander Alekhine, "The World's Chess Championship, 1937" pp. 54-55 <15> Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, p.35 Originally from <The Manchester Guardian>. <16> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Alekhine vs. Euwe Return Match 1937" Kay DeVault, transl. (Chess Digest 1973), p.3 ########################### <Rematch clause>? Did Euwe have a right to a guaranteed rematch in the contract for the 1937 match <EDIT> <dakgootje> Did a quick search, saw an interview with AA from January 1938. However, I think it was [at least partly] republished as an interview in.. Chess Review or some other magazine. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Last 2 paragraphs concern the future, wherein he notes he'll defend the title against any opponent, that he has heard/understood that the next match will be one such as the rest of the chess community wants, and that the chances of Capablanca-Alekhine are substantial. So <if> Euwe had right to rematch, AA knew little more than a month after regaining the title that Euwe wouldn't use it. Perhaps Euwe mentioned something like that in a postmatch-conference. ================== <Euwe> post-match: "It is not my intention to challenge my opponent as soon as possible, since I am well aware that the claims of others for a match for the highest title have more weight now. Nevertheless, if my tournament results justify my doing so, I may make an attempt to recapture the title four or five years from now. For the time being such an idea is out of the question, for my opponent is undisputedly my better." Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, p.36 (originally published in "The Manchester Guardian") === <EDIT> <dakgootje> I might go into the matter further this afternoon/evening - but I quite doubt Euwe had the right for revanche. Do you know what happened in Stockholm 1937? Apparently something to do with how to decide the challenger. Article of note is http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Concerns the dinner that concluded the match, december 18th 1937. Euwe mentions AA would like to play Capa and hopes that if AA is victorious (and presumably in the rematch as well, though that's unclear) that AA will give him a chance as well. AA hopes to play him soon again as well. He then continues saying the world championship should not be a private matter, that it should be for everyone, and that Euwe has experimented in this regard(!). Also that he disagrees with whatever happened in Stockholm, and hits out at FIDE a bit. Haven't read the rest closely, but he's clearly angry at FIDE. And there're parts wherein he notes he wants to decide his own opponent rather than have it decided via some tournament. So I'm not quite sure what this is all about. But it was clear right after AA became champion that Euwe wouldn't challenge. Even if he was allowed. The ball is quite obviously in Johnny's yard. <--> I think the crux of the 1937 stockholm matter is that FIDE claimed the right to decide the challenger. AA thinks they can sod off and that he'll decide for himself thankyourverymuch. Which isn't exactly what we are looking for. But that Johnny is completely free to decide implies Euwe had no official right to challenge. Or otherwise did not accept the right, which is de facto the same. ============= <EDIT> <dakgootje> Euwe published an article concerning the Future of the World Chess Championship, 18 december 1937? http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... Quite long, so haven't really read it yet. Only the first paragraph; apparently Euwe had made Match-arrangements for the next 5 years, in case he'd win. Think first Capa in 1939, then if he'd win Flohr in 1940, then the winner of the AVRO-tournament in.. 1942 or something. AA had made no such arrangements, which caused the lack of clarity concerning the next challenger. And probably why AA spoke so extensively about that he wanted to decide for himself. Which in turn strengthens my belief there were no prior rematch-arrangements. Yeah, it seems very important. Of main importance is that Euwe talks about the rights of some contenders. He groups himself with Reshevsky and Fine as players with no clear backing organization who will depend on tournament results. Oh, yes, he literally says "Rights of various contenders"; starting with Capa, Flohr and Keres. I don't have time for an exact translation, but will give the general gist a bit broader than I've done yet later on. But considering that wording, that he doesn't mention any rights for himself, and the previous article - I think we can be rather sure he did not in fact have any special rights for contending the crown. === <EDIT> <dakgootje> Translation of "De toekomst van het wereldkampioenschap schaken", Euwe, December 18th, 1937, Nieuwsblad van het Noorden http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... <The Future of the Chess World Championship>, by dr. M. Euwe Due to the victory of Alekhine a great deal of confusion has arisen with regards to the future of the World Championship. Alekhine didn't have any appointments made in case he'd win the revanche-match, whereas I in this regard was provided for the first five years. Many have found this clumsy of me that I'd sold the bear's skin before catching it - however these critics forgo that the way of things necessitates this, the psychological disadvantage nonetheless. It was during my world championship that the world chess organization for the first time took official steps to obtain the control over the title. The decision of the congress in Stockholm to have the title defender play Flohr in 1940 would've been binding for me, in case I'd have managed to defend my title. This was the first hide, in fact not by my guilt. The second appointment was the outcome of the result of the voting in Stockholm, which would've practically eliminated from the title a decent player like Capablanca. According to the rules of the world chess organization it was only possible to play for the title once every four years, and therefore Capablance would have had his first chance in 1944 (at the age of 56!). In order to meet this with more fairness (this unfairness was recognized by all delegates, even those in favor of Flohrs candidacy), I was willing to, after a possible victory over Alekhine, play Capablance already in 1939, after which the winner of this last match would play in 1940 against Flohr. So the bear had two skins. My third promise is little known: in 1941 or 1942 to play against the winner of the to-be-held AVRO-tournament. Concerning these plans, which were proposed by my own chess organization KNSB, I was of course sympathetic. Now that Alekhine has won the revanche-match, all these arrangements are nullified, and it's perhaps interesting to see what will come in its place. This will be easiest looking at the right of the various contenders for the World Championship. Starting with Capablanca, who lost his title in 1927 in Buenos Aires against Alekhine and hasn't got a revanche since. Alekhine has always been willing to play a second match, however on exact the same grounds of the first match. As the dollar has devaluated this agreement can be interpreted in two ways. I'll be neutral which interpretation is right, and therefore who is to blame that it didn't come to a match thus far, however I'm delighted that the chance is currently bigger than ever that both rivals will play in 1939. I have several days ago heard Alekhines remarks regarding this subject and in September spoken more than once with Capablanca. Both made a very serious impression and, which might be even more important, the same can be said from the South-American financiers of this revanche match. Flohr is the official candidate of the World Chess Organization and this body will try all possibilities to get a meeting between Alekhine and Flohr before 1940. I deem it not impossible that Alekhine, in case he beats Capablanca in 1939, will be willing to play in 1941 (with two years in between) against Flohr - however not because Flohr is the candidate of the World Chess Organization because Alekhine will not recognize the Organization as law-maker regarding the world championship, partly based on the conduct of affairs in Stockholm. Keres has placed himself at the center of attention due to his victory in the Austrian Eight-man-match (<literal translation of achtkamp>). Based on this success the organizers of this Match, the famous Panhaus-concern, have already sent a challenge to Alekhine, to player a match in 1938 against Keres. Of this match probably nothing will come, because Alekhine will probably hold on to (and rightly so!) the minimum amount of two years time between two subsequent matches, and moreover because Capablance is favored by Alekhine according to the declarations. Botvinnik, despite relative failing against Lowenfisch, stays Russias premier man. As soon as the USSR sees a serious and promising contender in Botvinnik, then the creation of a match will of course be easy. The result of the match Botvinik-Lowenfisch means in that regard only a delay of a step, which will certainly be taken at some time. Reshevsky, Fine and myself, are other contenders whose interests are not yet voiced by any body's and whose claims are closely intertwined with possible successes in tournaments. Of special importance in this regard is the AVRO-tournament which might take place in 1938, and in which six to eight of the strongest players in the world will compete. Other primary conteders, either bercause they are among the older group (Lasker, Bogoljubov, Tartakower and others) will have much more problems - due to two reasons. First of all they will need a series of successes to make a claim, and secondly they won't often have the opportunity to take part in important matches, because nowdays there seems to be a movement to organize so-called elite-tournament with few participants. This is shown not only in the recently played German fourway-match and the Austrian eightway-match also in several other matches that are still being organized - namely the AVRO-tournament and the fourwaymatch on the Semmering (for which Alekhine, Capablanca, Keres and myself have received an invitation). The chess world looks at the development of things with interest. The most probable and also more just order of things seems to me: in 1939 Capablanca, in 1941 Flohr and in 1943 the most successful player in tournaments. <Signature of Max Euwe> ################# <MATCH CONDITIONS> <The match was to consist of a <<<mandatory 30>>> games. First to 15 1/2 points with 6 wins would triumph, with Euwe enjoying draw odds. <<<Euwe>>> would receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700) win or lose.> Referee: Geza Maroczy (Alekhine "The World's Chess Championship, 1937, p.13) Match seconds: <Fine (Euwe), Eliskases (Alekhine)> (Alekhine "TWCC,1937 p.13 Skinner and Verhoeven, p. 593 Time Control: 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours; next 24 moves 1 1/2 hours; one hour for every 16 moves after. 1st adjournment after Black's 40th move; 2d adjournment after Black's 80th move. (Alekhine "TWCC,1937 p.13) === <Sources for Purse Information> <<<<Euwe>>> would receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700) win or lose> EDIT <dakgootje> 24 Dec. 1935 [First talks about Euwe being an amateur player]: "Even so for the latest worldchampionship match he has received nought; whereas Alekhin -as one knows- has gotten 10000 guilders." Then it continues to shed light on the rematch, stating that Euwe would claim the 10000 guilders. However, he had already granted this fee to the Dutch Chess Federation to advertize chess. Ever the gentleman ;) Header: Het Phohi-Sportpraatje. Schaken en Voetbal. Newspaper: Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië Publication date: 24-12-1935 Page: 3 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === EDIT <thomastonk> (Corroboration on the 10,000 guilders going to Euwe, win or lose): And this one http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... states that f 10.000 are needed for the return match. And here you get this information from Euwe http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === <Source for Mandatory 30 games> <mandatory <<<30>>> games> Alekhine: <"...even after the match was over, in the five exhibition games which we were obliged to play under our <<<contract,>>> he produced high class play..."> -Alexander Alekhine, "How I Regained the Title," "Chess Review" March 1938, p.64 ################################# ####################################### <P. 121 of the April 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': The Semmering project finally broke down. The return match (<<<Retourmatch>>>) will take place in autumn 1937 in the Netherlands. In beginning of May, Alekhine will travel to Amsterdam to sign the contract.> <One of the reasons may have been the influence of the economic crisis on the respective currencies (Gulden and Schilling) as the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' reiterates that <<<the Dutch Gulden beat the Austrian Schilling.>>> Although the Gulden had been devalued in the meantime. I'm referring to p. 353 of the December 1936 issue.> =============== More on the Semmering project (Euwe-Alekhine rematch in 1937 in Austria, financed by Zimdin of Panhans AG): <P. 92 of the March 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': A new plan is in consideration, 15 games in summer 1937 in the <<<Hotel Carlton, Amsterdam>>> and then, after a short break, the rest in Panhans Hotel in Semmering, Austria.> <P. 121 of the April 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': The Semmering project finally broke down. The return match (<<<Retourmatch>>>) will take place in autumn 1937 in the Netherlands. In beginning of May, Alekhine will travel to Amsterdam to sign the contract.> <One of the reasons may have been the influence of the economic crisis on the respective currencies (Gulden and Schilling) as the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' reiterates that <<<the Dutch Gulden beat the Austrian Schilling.>>> Although the Gulden had been devalued in the meantime. I'm referring to p. 353 of the December 1936 issue.> <NEGOTIATIONS> <Semmering Negotiations> Dec. 1935 <Alekhine-Euwe <<<rematch>>> would take place in early spring of 1936 in Austria, H W Zimdin, main stock holder of the Panhans Hotels, was willing to finance it and Euwe and Alekhine agreed to the invitation> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" December 1935, pp. 353 === Jan. 1936 <the January issue (1936, p. 17) reports that there'll be a meeting in Vienna on February 22, 1936 between Alekhine himself and Euwe's representative Kmoch (Euwe was job-relatedly prohibited) to <<<negotiate>>> their rematch.> Neue Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1936, p.17 ================ Feb. 23, 1936 <Semmering, Hotel Panhans , February 23, 1936. Present are representatives of the Panhans AG, Alekhine and Kmoch (for Dr. Euwe). Chairman was Zimdin, president of Panhans AG. So the Panhans AG is willing to fnance the rematch in the Panhans hotel. Now they'd to find a date, Euwe can't play prior to October 1, 1937 while the hosts don't want a later date than August 20, 1937. Both parties cite vitally important reasons. Yet, they are optimistic with regards to the <<<written negotiations>>> and the match is close to safe.> There is also a report on Alekhine's visit in Vienna (he was there because of the above negotiations) on pages 65-67 by <j. h.> (so hannak again). I may return to it later.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" March 1936, p. 65 Feb. 23, 1936 (cont.) <As he was in Vienna for the Semmering negotiations (Zimdin willing to finance a rematch), Alekhine undertook a bit more and Hannak reports on it on pp. 65-67 of the March 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'. P. 65: Apparently, Alekhine arrived in Vienna on February 23, which was also the day of the negotiations. Alekhine declared openly that he lost the match deservedly and that his opponent had won deservedly. No excuses or palliation. The Alekhine-Euwe committee behaved quite correct and the whole match was conducted in the spirit of true sportsmanship and fairness. (<<<Mit wirklich nobler Beherrschung und tapferem Freimut erklärte Aljechin ohne jede Verklausulierung, daß er den Wettkampf verdient verloren und daß ihn der Gegner verdient gewonnen habe. Es gebe keinerlei Ausrede und keinerlei Beschönigung. Auch das Aljechin-Euwe-Komitee habe sich durchaus korrekt benommen und der ganze Wettkampf sei im Geiste echter Sportlichkeit und Fairness geführt worden.>>> pp. 65-66). P. 66: Alekhine is looking forward to the return match (<<<Rückkampf>>>), which will likely take place next year (Semmering negotiations) but he would be ready to start tomorrow. He lost to Dr. Euwe because he sinned against the steadfast law of chessgoddess Caissa: He regarded Euwe only as the solid mathematician and correct scientist, who could be disarranged inwardly by irrational and paradoxical. (<<<er habe in Euwe zunächst nur den soliden Mathematiker und korrekten Wissenschaftler gesehen, den man mit Irrationalismen und Paradoxen in innere Unordnung bringen könne.>>>). This worked in the beginning, as Euwe played weakly during the first 10 games, putting up much less resistance than Bogoljubov, for example. But this alleged psychological superiority ended in Alekhine's doom. Suddenly, Euwe became an energetic fighter (<<<energischer Kämpfer>>>). Now the psychological inferiority from the beginnig, became a psychological superiority. From game 14 onwards, Alekhine didn't have the feeling he could win, because he didn't deserve to win, as he wasn't the most worthy recently (gegenwärtig>). In fact, he played well gain in the last games and fought determined against his fate but fate was just. Alekhine considers this match to be the greatest lesson of his life and wants to take it to his heart for the whole future (<<<Aljechin betrachte den Wettkampf als die größte Lehre seines Lebens und er wolle diese Lehre beherzigen für alle Zukunft.>>>). P. 67: Alekhine can be aussured that his dignified demeanor and splendid spirit regained the old sympathis of the Vienna chess community.> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" March 1936 === More on the Semmering project (Euwe-Alekhine rematch in 1937 in Austria, financed by Zimdin of Panhans AG): <P. 92 of the March 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': A new plan is in consideration, 15 games in summer 1937 in the <<<Hotel Carlton, Amsterdam>>> and then, after a short break, the rest in Panhans Hotel in Semmering, Austria.> <P. 121 of the April 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung': The Semmering project finally broke down. The return match (<<<Retourmatch>>>) will take place in autumn 1937 in the Netherlands. In beginning of May, Alekhine will travel to Amsterdam to sign the contract.> <One of the reasons may have been the influence of the economic crisis on the respective currencies (Gulden and Schilling) as the 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' reiterates that <<<the Dutch Gulden beat the Austrian Schilling.>>> Although the Gulden had been devalued in the meantime. I'm referring to p. 353 of the December 1936 issue.> === 17 May 1936 <Rematch Contract Signed> The contract was signed 17 May 1936 in the Hotel Carlton, Amsterdam. Narrator: <"AMSTERDAM – The chessmasters sign the <<<contract for the return-match>>> which shall take place in 1937 in the Netherlands." "The Chief of the Department of Art and Sciences, mister P. Visser, speaks on behalf of the government."> P Visser: <"First of all, I’d like to express the sincere satisfaction of the <<<Dutch Government>>> that it has been decided that the match Aljechin-Euwe will take place once more. This shall happen within the boundaries of our country"> -Polygon Dutch News, May 17, 1936 Dutch translation by <dakgootje> http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler... ########################### <MATCH CONDITIONS> <The match was to consist of a <<<mandatory 30>>> games. First to 15 1/2 points with 6 wins would triumph, with Euwe enjoying draw odds. <<<Euwe>>> would receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700) win or lose.> Referee: Geza Maroczy (Alekhine "The World's Chess Championship, 1937, p.13) Match seconds: <Fine (Euwe), Eliskases (Alekhine)> (Alekhine "TWCC,1937 p.13 Skinner and Verhoeven, p. 593 Time Control: 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours; next 24 moves 1 1/2 hours; one hour for every 16 moves after. 1st adjournment after Black's 40th move; 2d adjournment after Black's 80th move. (Alekhine "TWCC,1937 p.13) === <Sources for Purse Information> <<<<Euwe>>> would receive the entire purse of 10,000 guilders ($6,700) win or lose> EDIT <dakgootje> 24 Dec. 1935 [First talks about Euwe being an amateur player]: "Even so for the latest worldchampionship match he has received nought; whereas Alekhin -as one knows- has gotten 10000 guilders." Then it continues to shed light on the rematch, stating that Euwe would claim the 10000 guilders. However, he had already granted this fee to the Dutch Chess Federation to advertize chess. Ever the gentleman ;) Header: Het Phohi-Sportpraatje. Schaken en Voetbal. Newspaper: Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië Publication date: 24-12-1935 Page: 3 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === EDIT <thomastonk> (Corroboration on the 10,000 guilders going to Euwe, win or lose): And this one http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... states that f 10.000 are needed for the return match. And here you get this information from Euwe http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === <Source for Mandatory 30 games> <mandatory <<<30>>> games> Alekhine: <"...even after the match was over, in the five exhibition games which we were obliged to play under our <<<contract,>>> he produced high class play..."> -Alexander Alekhine, "How I Regained the Title," "Chess Review" March 1938, p.64 ################################# <CHESS EVENTS BEFORE THE MATCH> 10 - 28 Aug 1936 <Nottingham 1936> (Euwe shared 3d, Alekhine 6th, behind Botvinnik and Capablanca) Nottingham (1936) === 10 - 18 Oct 1936 <Amsterdam 1936> (Euwe shared 1st with Fine, Alekhine 2d) Amsterdam (1936) Alekhine vs Euwe, 1936 <0-1> === 28 Dec 1936 - 6 Jan 1937 <Hastings 1936/1937> (Alekhine 1st, over Fine and Eliskases) Hastings (1936/37) === 31 March - 9 April 1937 <Margate 1937> (Alekhine 3d, behind Fine and Keres shared 1st) Margate (1937) === 15 June - 10 July 1937 <Kemeri 1937> (Alekhine 4th, behind Petrovs, Reshevsky and Flohr shared 1st) Kemeri (1937) === 18-27 July 1937 <Bad Nauheim 1937> (Euwe 1st, Alekhine and Bogoljubov shared 2d) Bad Nauheim-Stuttgart-Garmisch (1937) Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1-0> === 31 July - 14 Aug 1937 <Stockholm Olympiad> (Euwe wins bronze medal on 1st board, behind Flohr and Keres) Keres vs Euwe, 1937 <0-1> ################################# <MATCH PREPARATION> <Alekhine>: Alekhine on the 1935 Match: <Alekhine considers this match to be the greatest lesson of his life and wants to take it to his heart for the whole future (<<<Aljechin betrachte den Wettkampf als die größte Lehre seines Lebens und er wolle diese Lehre beherzigen für alle Zukunft.>>>).> "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" March 1936, p.66 === Sept 1937 <Znosko-Borovsky> interview with <Alekhine> <"For the last two months, following on the tournament in Kemeri, Alekhine has been leading a very <<<well regulated kind of life.>>> He lives on his estate, goes to bed at 10 p.m., rises at 7 a.m., takes lots of walks, does some fishing, and plays no chess whatsoever- except for playing over games and studying some novel ways of opening. He sleeps well, has a good appetite and has put on wieght. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he has shunned excitement of any kind. I studied his behavior quite closely, and could not detect any jerky, nervous movements. He is quite calm, speaks fluently and slowly and altogether gives an impression similar to that he gave after his victory over Capablanca. Well- nearly the same."> "Chess" vol 3 1937, p.43 In Skinner and Verhoeven, p.594 === Alekhine: from "How I Regained the Title" <"...I had (a) to make a careful analysis of all the games played by Euwe during the period between the two matches; (b) to take note of all his articles and commentaries... during the same period and try to read between the lines; (c) to prepare <<<new lines of play>>> specially for the match, on no account making any use of them in the tournaments preceding it; and (d) to adapt myself during the actual match to the program of openings prepared by my opponent an, while trying as far as possible to disprove his inventions (which turned out to be particularly difficult, because these innovations had plainly been deeply studied), simply to steer clear of anything that might show itself to be particularly dangerous in the games that followed."> -Alexander Alekhine, "How I Regained the Title," "Chess Review" March 1938, p.64 === Alekhine: <"I was absolutely stale after about eighteen months of uninterrupted chess work. In particular, from May, 1934, on I played the match for the title against Bogoljubow, took part in the Zurich, Orebro, and Warsaw tournaments, undertook three long and tiring tours in North Africa, Spain, and Scandinavia, and meanwhile wrote the critical record of the Zurich tournament! The result was that I arrived for the opening of the match really sick of chess, and to force myself to think of chess I had recourse to various stimulants, such as tobacco in excess <<<and, above all, alcohol.>>> These stimulants might have done little harm in a short contest (and, indeed, I played fairly well in the first few games), but proved absolutely fatal in the long run; in these circumstances defeat became inevitable."> -Manchester Guardian, 5 October 1937, pp. 11-12 ########################## <MATCH PREPARATION> <Euwe>: <"...there was very little of the 'old-fashioned' preparation, except for the habit of taking <<<ice-cold showers>>> and a new hobby: flying pleasure aircraft."> -Munninghoff, p.185 === Euwe: <"At the end of July and the beginning of August I took advantage of the opportunity to get some practice and participated in the <<<German quadrangular tournament>>> and in the team tournament in Stockholm. This kind of preparation was certainly necessary, since I had played very little this year..."> -Manchester Guardian, 5 October 1937, pp. 11-12 ############################### <COURSE of the MATCH> 5-6 Oct (The Hague) <1st game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 7 Oct (Rotterdam) <2d game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> Euwe: <"I did not know how to <<<hold the draw>>> in positions that were drawn... This weakness is most obvious in the second, seventh, eighth, twenty-first, and twenty-fourth games."> -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, pp.35-36 ################################ 10-11 Oct (Amsterdam) <3d game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 12 Oct (Amsterdam) <4th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 14 Oct (Amsterdam) <5th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 16 Oct (Haarlem) <6th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> 6.Nf3?! Alekhine: <"Putting before black a most <<<difficult>>> practical problem."> -Alexander Alekhine, "My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937" (Dover 1985), p.229 <Eliskases>: This game was played in the "Great Concert Hall" in <Haarlem>. <<<Eliskases>>> on game 6 in the Great Concert Hall: "The reaction! After Euwe's great effort in the fifth game he failed miserably in Game 6. He, who is able to handle the opening like no other man, was this time playing a losing game after only a handful of moves. After 23 moves Euwe's position was utterly hopeless... p.206 Great Concert Hall: "The acoustics are excellent, which means: bad for a chess game. Every sound can be heard on the stage. The audience produces so much noise that it is impossible for the players to play."> -"Max Euwe- the biography" Alexander Munninghoff, p. 206 =================== Alekhine: "6...b5 After this mistake the game is already lost, as White, in addition to his positional advantage, soon wins material." -Alexander Alekhine, "The World's Chess Championship, 1937," pp.54-55 ################################ 19 Oct (Rotterdam) <7th game> Bishop sac: 20...Qxg4 Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <0-1> Euwe: <"I did not know how to <<<hold the draw>>> in positions that were drawn... This weakness is most obvious in the second, seventh, eighth, twenty-first, and twenty-fourth games."> -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, pp.35-36 ################################ 21 Oct (Leiden) <8th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> Euwe: <"I did not know how to <<<hold the draw>>> in positions that were drawn... This weakness is most obvious in the second, seventh, eighth, twenty-first, and twenty-fourth games."> -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, pp.35-36 ################################ 24 Oct (The Hague) <9th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 26 Oct (The Hague) <10th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 30 Oct (Groningen) <11th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 1 Nov (Amsterdam) <12th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 3-4 Nov (Amsterdam) <13th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 6-7 Nov (Zwolle) <14th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 9-10 Nov (Rotterdam) <15th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 11-12 Nov (Rotterdam) <16th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1/2> 25. … Qe5? <<<whiteshark:>>> Immortalized under World Championship Quality Blunders>: http://streathambrixtonchess.blogsp... ################################ 14 Nov (The Hague) <17th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 16-17 Nov (The Hague) <18th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 20-21 Nov (Eindhoven) <19th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 23 Nov (Amsterdam) <20th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 25 Nov (Amsterdam) <21st game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <0-1> Euwe: <"I did not know how to <<<hold the draw>>> in positions that were drawn... This weakness is most obvious in the second, seventh, eighth, twenty-first, and twenty-fourth games."> -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, pp.35-36 ################################ 27-28 Nov (Delft) <22d game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> ################################ 30 Nov - 1 Dec (Rotterdam) <23d game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <1/2> ################################ 2 Dec (Rotterdam) <24th game> Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 <1-0> Euwe: <"I did not know how to <<<hold the draw>>> in positions that were drawn... This weakness is most obvious in the second, seventh, eighth, twenty-first, and twenty-fourth games."> -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, pp.35-36 ################################ 4-7 Dec (The Hague) <25th game> Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 <0-1> ################################ <5 EXHIBITION GAMES> ############################# <EVALUATIONS> Euwe: <Alekhine is not only very strong, but he must be regarded as the best player in the world... <"...I felt very tired in the second half of the match, perhaps as a result of the pretty <<<strenuous exertion>>> of the team tournament in Stockholm, in which I had participated with the object of playing myself into my best form... but even more important than the physical causes were the psychological. When I discovered, after the tenth game, what kind of an opponent I had to contend with, I was already three points behind. Then I appreciated how serious the situation was..."> <rematch clause> "It is not my intention to challenge my opponent as soon as possible, since I am well aware that the claims of others for a match for the highest title have more weight now." -Max Euwe, "How I Lost the Title" "Chess Review" 1938, p.35 === Botvinnik: <"The Alekine-Euwe Return Match of 1937 was more interesting than their 1935 match. In their first match, Alekine played poorly. In the second, he <<<regained the form>>> he had shown in his match against Capablanca in 1927."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Alekhine vs. Euwe Return Match 1937" Kay DeVault, transl. (Chess Digest 1973), p. 3 === Alekhine: <"Euwe's play... was not only <<<not inferior>>> to but slightly better than his play in 1935, at all events in the first twenty games."> -Manchester Guardian, 28 December 1937, pages 11-12 ######################### Alekhine: <His... principal asset is undoubtedly his profound knowledge of the openings... In view of this formidable asset my principal problem before the match was to try to enter the arena with better or at least equal chances in the opening play. To this end I had to (a) to make a careful analysis of all the games played by Euwe duing the period between the two matches; (b)to take not of all his articles and commentaries... (c) to prepare new lines of play specially for the match, on no account making any use of them in the tournaments preceding it; and (d) to adapt myself during the actual match to the programme of openings prepared by my opponent and... to steer clear of anything that might show itself particularly dangerous in the games that followed. Thus, for instance, after losing the first and fifth games I immediately abandoned the fashionable variation of the Slav Defense and also the Queen's Gambit Accepted." 64 <"Euwe has virtually never made an unsound combination...when he has the initiative in a <<<tactical>>> operation his calculation is to all intents impeccable."> 64 "With his (Euwe's) characteristic sporting spirit, the ex-champion has admitted himself that the result of this match corresponds with the relative strength of the players..." 64 A. Alekhine, "How I regained the title" "Chess Review" 1938, p.64 ######################### 3 games, 1937 WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948 ORIGINAL: FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948) Edward Winter, "Interregnum" (2003-2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <World Championship Disorder> Edward Winter (2002) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <The World Chess Championship by Paul Keres> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1946 ########################################## <2 March - 17 May> In The Hague and Moscow <DRAFT EDIT> <JFQ> World chess champion Alexander Alekhine died on 23 March 1946. At the July 1946 Winterthur congress, FIDE proposed a contest for the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.<1> They planned a quadruple round robin tournament featuring the following candidates- Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.<2> Max Euwe was also included because he had previously held the world title.<3> The tournament was delayed, partly because the USSR was not yet a FIDE member.<4> On 15 September 1946, the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details. This meeting occurred a day after the USSR-USA match ended, and did not involve FIDE.<5> Botvinnik reportedly announced that he would not play in the Netherlands. He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.<4> The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow. The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games to be played in Moscow.<6> Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament.<4> Nothing concrete was decided until the next FIDE congress in The Hague on 30 July-2 August 1947. The Soviets were now members of FIDE.<7> All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946. The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played partly in The Hague and partly in Moscow, and most notably, no extra player would be added.<8,9> Miguel Najdorf was excluded because of this change. He won Prague 1946 and would have qualified directly for the championship tournament, since Botvinnik won Groningen 1946 and was already seeded into the championship.<9> Shortly before the tournament, Fine dropped out due to academic commitments. FIDE therefore decided to stage a quintuple round robin, for a total of 25 rounds, with one player having a bye each round.<10,11> The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.<12,13> Players were permitted two assistants to help analyze adjourned games.<14> First prize was $5,000; second $3,000; third $2,000; fourth $1,500; and fifth $1,000.<13> Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.<12,15> Decided by lot, the first 10 rounds were held in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.<16> During the first leg, all players except Botvinnik lodged at the Kurhaus in Scheveningen.<17> Botvinnik objected to the Kurhaus, explaining that he wanted to stay "in a hotel where I can get to... (the Dierentuin playing hall) on foot in twenty minutes."<18> At first, a few members of the Russian delegation insisted that Botvinnik stay with the other players at the Kurhaus. But Soviet consul Filipp Chikirisov offered to locate different lodgings, and Botvinnik was eventually able to secure rooms at the Hotel De Twee Steden for his family and his seconds, Viacheslav Ragozin and Salomon Flohr.<18> Botvinnik led the field by a point when he faced Keres in the 10th round. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." "After six days' rest", Botvinnik later recalled, "Keres sat across from me, pale as death."<19> Keres proceeded to <lose in 23 moves> <insert game link>- Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948, enabling Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg. In Moscow, the masters played in the magnificent Salle des Colonnes in front of 2,000 spectators. 3,000 more people were in the streets outside, following the action on a giant demonstration board.<20> Botvinnik clinched the title by round 22, finishing three points ahead of Smyslov. Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.<21> According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."<22> In 1991 Botvinnik claimed that "during the second half in Moscow... it was proposed that the other Soviet players... lose to me on purpose... it was Stalin... who proposed this. But of course I refused!"<23> In a 1994 conversation with Gennadi Sosonko, Botvinnik said "...in 1948 I played well. I prepared with all my heart and showed what I was capable of."<24> ================== NOTES <1> FIDE (Fédération internationale des échecs or World Chess Federation), founded in 1924, first administered a world chess championship in 1948. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum" (2003-2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... http://www.fide.com/ <2> Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Winter, "Interregnum." <3> Minutes of the FIDE Secretariat of the congress in Winterthur in July 1946. In Winter, "Interregnum." <4> "CHESS" (Dec 1946), p.63. In Winter, "Interregnum." <5> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), pp.105-106 <6> Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" pp.107-108 <7> The USSR joined FIDE at The Hague conference of 1947. They arrived late on 2 Aug, the last day of the congress. "El Ajedrez Argentino" (Nov-Dec 1947), pp. 298-300. In Winter, "Chess: The History of FIDE" "Section 5: Euwe world champion for one day" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <8> Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Oct 1947), pp.154-155. In Winter, "Interregnum." <9> "Chess Review" (Aug 1947), p.2 <10> "American Chess Bulletin" (Jan-Feb 1948), p.11. In Winter, "Interregnum." <11> "American Chess Bulletin" (Mar-Apr 1948), p.25. In Winter, "Interregnum." <12> Paul Keres, "Match Tournament for the World Chess Championship- The Hague and Moscow 1948" (Estonian State Publishing 1950), p.7 <13> Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Hardinge Simpole 1949), p.3 <14> Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" p.111 <15> Golombek, p.4 <16> G.W.J. Zittersteyn, "The Preparations for the Netherlands Leg" in Max Euwe, "The Hague-Moscow 1948 Match/Tournament for the World Chess Championship" (Russell Enterprises 2013), p.19 <17> D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, "Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title." In "Chess Life and Review" (Apr 1948), p.7 <18> Botvinnik, "Achieving the Aim" pp.113-114. We have corrected the spelling of the hotel in the source text, which was "Twee Staden." According to a contemporary Dutch newspaper account, the correct spelling is "De Twee Steden." "De Tijd", 25 March 1948, p.2. http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/i... <19> Mikhail Botvinnik, "15 Games and their Stories" Jim Marfia, transl. (Chess Enterprise Inc. 1982), pp.40-42 <20> Golombek, p.126 <21> Taylor Kingston, "The Keres-Botvinnik case revisited: A further survey of the evidence" ("Chess Cafe" 8 Oct 2001), p.2. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt... <22> Tim Krabbé, "Open Chess Diary", Item #65 (11 June 2000) http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/.... <23> Max Pam and Genna Sosonko, "Een interview met Michail Moiseevitch Botwinnik" (Vrij Nederland 20 Aug 1991) http://www.maxpam.nl/archief/IBOTWI.... In Tim Krabbé, "Open Chess Diary" Item #42 http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/.... In Kingston, pp.4-5 <24> Genna Sosonko, "Russian Silhouttes 3d Edition" (New in Chess, 2009), p.42 ######################################## <EDIT> Karpova http://www.maxpam.nl/archief/IBOTWI... Question: - Fischer heeft altijd beweerd dat de Sovjet-spelers in combine tegen hem speelden. Is er indertijd wel eens sprake geweest van zo'n combine? Botvinnik: <"In het geval van Fischer kan ik daar geen oordeel over geven, maat ik heb zelf wel eens meegemaakt dat er opdrachten werden verstrekt. In 1948 speelde ik met Keres, Smislov, Reshevsky en Euwe om de wereldtitel. Na de eerste helft van het toernooi, dat in Nederland werd gespeeld, werd het duidelijk dat ik de nieuwe wereldkampioen zou worden. Ik stond op kop. Tijdens de tweede helft in Moskou gebeurde er iets onaangenaams. Op heel hoog niveau werd voorgesteld dat de andere Russische spelers expres tegen mij zouden verliezen, om er zeker van te zijn dat er een Sovjet-wereldkampioen zou komen.> Question: - Hoe hoog? Botvinnik: <"Stalin heeft dat persoonlijk voorgesteld. Maar ik heb dat natuurlijk geweigerd! Het was een intrige tegenover mij om mij te kleineren. Een belachelijk voorstel, slechts gedaan om mij als de toekomstige wereldkampioen nog even te kleineren. In sommige kringen wilde men liever dat Keres wereldkampioen zou worden. Het was oneerbaar, want ik had al lang bewezen dat ik op dat moment sterker was dan Keres en Smislov.> === Translation from Dutch to English by <dakgootje>: Question: - Fischer has always asserted that the Sovjet players played together against him. Has such a team-play* taken place at the time? Botvinnik: <"I can't judge regarding the case of Fischer, but I've personally experienced that orders were handed out. In 1948 I played with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the World Title. After the first half of the tournament, which was played in the Netherlands, it became clear that I would become the new World Champion. I had the lead. During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. From very high up it was proposed that the other Russian competitors would lose to me on purpose, so as it be sure that there'd be a Sovjet-World Champion.> Question: - How high up? Botvinnik: <"Stalin has proposed it personally. But of course I've refused! It was an intrigue against me to belittle me. A preposterous proposal, merely done to diminish me as future World Champion. In some circles it was preferred that Keres would become World Champion. I was dishonorable, because I'd long proven to be stronger at the time than Keres and Smyslov.> -- ############################################ http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1946 <CONDITIONS> <10 rounds in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow. The order of the venues (Moscow 2d) was decided by lot (drawing of a pawn).40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves per hour after that, time of play 5:30pm - 10:30pm. Players may agree on a draw at any time. Each player permitted to analyze adjourned games with 2 assistants. <<<Prizes:>>> 1st $5,000; 2d $3,000; 3d $2000; 4th $1,500; 5th $1,000. <Arbiter:> Milan Vidmar <Assistant to Vidmar:> Alexander Kotov <The Hague venue:> The "Kierentuin," which before the war was headquarters of the local zoo. <Residence for players and officials (and some adjourned games finished here):> The "Kurhaus" in Scheveningen> <Botvinnik refused to stay in the "Kurhaus" and was given rooms in the "Hotel Twee Staden." He was joined at the Hotel by his wife, daughter, and his 2d Ragozin.> <Official Opening:> <Held <<<in>>> "The Town Hall."> <Moscow venue:> <"Salle des Collones" (Hall <<<of>>> Columns)> ########################### <NEGOTIATIONS for Alekhine-Botvinnik title match>: === Nov 1938 <Botvinnik's> recollection: <"At the end of the tournament <<<[AVRO 1938]>>> I approached Alekhine and asked him to grant me an audience. He caught on quickly, a look of joy flashed over his face. He realised that playing a match for the world championship with a Soviet player was the simplest, and possibly the only, way to reconcile himself with his native land... I invited Flohr to come with me (I needed an authoritative witness-- wasn't Alekhine connected with White Russian emigres? Care was essential.) But Alekhine had been well disposed towards me since the Nottingham tournament. The chess player in him felt my admiration for him, and this disarmed him.... Over a cup of tea... the conditions were quickly agreed... Alekhine was ready to play in any country (except Holland!) and the question of venue was up to me. The prize fund was to be 10,000 dollars... We agreed that I should send a formal challenge to an address he gave in South America... If there was a positive decision and that if everything was agreed the announcement of the match would be made in Moscow. Before then everything was to be strictly secret. We had a firm handshake and then parted, never to see each other again."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), pp. 70-71 === Jan-Feb 1946 <Botvinnik on title match negotiations with Alekhine>: <"The situation was a delicate one. First of all it was out of the question to invite Alekhine to Moscow, as this was linked with the preliminary investigation of <<<the accusations,>>> and secondly it was undesirable to enter into direct negotiations with him. I suggested that the whole match be played in England and at first the negotiations went through an intermediary, Mr Du Mont, editor of the "British Chess Magazine" (from material published in the magazine one could take it that du Mont and Alekhine were corresponding with each other)... the suggestion was accepted and negotiations began."> <First of all it was out of the question to invite Alekhine to Moscow, as <<<this>>> was linked with the preliminary investigation of the accusations, and secondly it was undesirable to enter into direct negotiations with him.> The word "this" refers to the plan to play Alekhine for the title match. Botvinnik means the match would be too directly linked to the accusations (of Alekhine's collaboration) if the match were to take place in Moscow. In the sentence <the suggestion was <<<accepted>>> and negotiations began>, Botvinnik means it was <accepted> by the Soviet government. Despite this, a faction in the Soviet government still tried to prevent the match, and Botvinnik had to spend most of his time arranging political allies to help convince his government to allow the match. Some in the Soviet government feared that they would be accused of dealing with a Nazi collaborator. In particular, they were worried about losing credibility with the French communists, who were among the most vocal detractors of Alekhine. Now, March 1946 Botvinnik: <"A letter arrived from England, from Derbyshire (the organiser of the Nottingham tournament). Now he was president of the <<<British Chess Federation.>>> He told us that in principle the English were prepared to run the match (which was quite understandable as the prize fund was guaranteed by the Soviet Union)..."> It was a telegram from the same Derbyshire that (according to Francisco Lupi) Alekhine received a short time before he died. The dating is actually ambiguous in Lupi's account. It's Botvinnik who claims Alekhine received the telegram a day before he died, but I can find no corroboration for this at present. Botvinnik: <"The day before (Alekhine's death)... there was a meeting of the executive committee of the British Chess Federation where the question of the match was resolved favourably. Immediately after the meeting Alekhine was sent a telegram with an official <<<proposal>>> to play a world title match with the USSR champion (meaning Botvinnik)." > -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim." Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), pp.95-98 === <Yuri Shaburov on Botvinnik-Alekhine match negotiations>: <"...suddenly, on March 8, news came that changed the situation. Alekhine was handed a telegram from British chess official Derbyshire, notifying him of messages from Botvinnik wishing to play him for the world championship... Alekhine responded by sending a telegram the same day, with his consent to the conditions proposed for the match. Soon after, Alekhine was invited to the British Embassy in Lisbon, ​​where he was handed a <<<letter from Botvinnik.>>> It said: 'I regret that the war prevented our match in 1939. I again challenge you to a match for the world championship. If you agree, I await your answer, with your preferences for the time and venue for the match.' February 4, 1946. Mikhail Botvinnik. "> <Negotiations on the match were now concrete. Alekhine chose Du Mont, editor of the British Chess Magazine, as his representative to finalize the conditions of time and place of the match. Already, it was agreed that the <<<match will be held in London,>>> waiting for the decision of the Executive Committee of FIDE.> Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992), pp. 230-231. http://lib.rus.ec/b/377831/read === <Skinner and Verhoeven on Botvinnik-Alekhine match negotiations>: <"Just fifteen days before his death, Alekhine, by now financially destitute, was working with Lupi on a book of the Hastings tournament to try to obtain some income when... a telegram arrived from the President of the British Chess Federation [Derbyshire] saying that Botvinnik had financial backing to issue a challenge for the world championship and had proposed the match be played in England. <<<Alekhine answered straight-away and accepted the challenge...>>> Some days later Botvinnik's intentions were confirmed in a personal letter which was delivered through the British Embassy. Alekhine then asked his old friend, Julius du Mont, the editor of the British Chess Magazine, to act as his representative in England... On the night of the 23 March he suffered a fatal heart attack..."> --Skinner and Verhoeven "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" McFarland, 1998 p. 733 === <Pablo Moran on Botvinnik-Alekhine match negotiations>: <"...telegram from Mr. Derbyshire in Nottingham: 'Moscow offer substantial sum for chess championship of world to be played in England between you and Botvinnik suggest you appoint someone in England represent you and arrange all details wire reply.' "This was the cause of Alekhine's second cardiac stroke... He answered Mr. Derbyshire immediately, accepting the match provided Botvinnik wold agree to the conditions of 1939... Some days later... Botvinnik himself sent a letter through the British Emabassy in Lisbon. The text was in Russian, with an English version attached: 'World's Championship. Mr. A. Alekhine! I regret that the war prevented the organisation of our match in 1939. But I herewith again challenge you to a match for the world's chess championship. If you agree, a person authorized by myself and the Moscow Chess Club will conduct negotiations with you or your representative on the question of conditions, date and the place where the match should be held, <<<preferably through the British Chess Federation.>>> I await your answer, in which I also ask you to state your ideas about the date and the place of the match. I beg you to send a telegraphic reply, with subsequent postal confirmation, to the Moscow Chess Club.' February 4th, 1946. '(Sgd.)Michael Botvinnik'"> -Pablo Moran "A. Alekhine- Agony of a Chess Genius" Edited and translated by Frank X. Mur McFarland, 1989 p. 276 ##################################################### 25-27 July 1946 <FIDE Congress in Winterthur> <As regards the world championship, it was decided in Winterthur <<<25-27 July 1946>>> to fill the vacancy by organizing, exceptionally, a tournament among the top candidates, i.e. Euwe, Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Fine, Reshevsky and one of the winners of the upcoming Groningen and Prague tournaments. To settle the qualification issue regarding the future candidates a commission was appointed, comprising Rueb (Chairman), Louma (Vice-Chairman), Sir George Thomas, O. Bernstein and E. Voellmy. ...it was decided that the world championship tournament (four rounds) would take place in the Netherlands in June 1947, offers having also been received from the United States and Argentina. As previously noted, Euwe was chosen as a participant (by dint of having held the world title), and the federations of the United States and the USSR were given until 1 September 1946 to nominate other masters from their respective countries if they were not satisfied with FIDE’s selection of Reshevsky, Fine, Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov. The minutes also stated: ‘If the winners of the tournaments in Groningen and Prague are not among the six above-mentioned masters, they shall play a match in Prague organized by the Czechoslovak Federation under the auspices of <<<FIDE.>>> The winner of that match shall be added to the list of participants. If one of the winners of those two tournaments is already on the list of participants, the other shall automatically qualify. Should the envisaged match end in a draw, the Qualification Committee shall decide upon the procedure.’> -Edward Winter, "Interregnum" (2003-2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... === 19 Sept 1946 <Botvinnik:> <"In September of last year, when the strongest chessplayers of the world were gathered here in Moscow <<<(Keres, Reshevsky, Smyslov, Euwe, Fine and the author of this article)>>> they held a conference (19 September) on the subject of the coming contest for the world championship. After the inevitable arguments, it seemed that a means of agreement was indicated."> -"CHESS" March 1947, pp. 168-169. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === Dec 1946 "Chess" magazine: <‘Holland having got together £4,000 for the world championship tournament planned by the FIDE next June, Euwe arranged a meeting of the six prospective participants (himself, Fine and Reshevsky of the USA and Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov of the USSR) at Moscow. At this, Botvinnik in anger stated that one Dutch paper during the Groningen tournament [won by Botvinnik, ahead of Euwe and Smyslov] had said that the Russian participants might work together to put him into first place. He therefore refused to play for the championship in Holland. Russians know no ‘freedom of the press’. It was finally agreed to stage the event half in Holland, half in Russia, but there was further argument over the question of where the first half should be held. The USSR has not joined the International Chess Federation (FIDE). At the last FIDE Assembly Spain, who had been a founder-member and had paid its dues throughout, was ejected in the hope that the Soviets would join; the sacrifice has deeply wounded Spanish sentiment. The Russians want the tournament in April, Fine not before August. Estimates of the cost of Holland’s half of the tournament are now rising to £6,000 and £7,000. Dr Rueb, President of the FIDE, has <<<withdrawn FIDE’s claim>>> to organize the tournament, which work lies mainly between Euwe (for the Dutch Federation) and the Russian Chess Federation at the moment.’> -"CHESS" December 1946, p.63. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === Jan 1947 <Najdorf:> <CHESS printed a report on an interview in the January 1947 issue of El Ajedrez Español in which Najdorf had declared: ‘<<<I believe that I am inferior to none of the players who are to participate in the next world championship, Botvinnik, Fine, Reshevsky, Keres, Euwe. …None of these have a better record than I. I have played much less than they have, admittedly, but I am satisfied with my results>>>.’> -In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === Before Aug 1947 <As the players and national federations continued to jockey for position, <<<FIDE>>> prepared for what was expected to be its decisive congress, in The Netherlands in the summer of 1947> -Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === 30 July - 2 August 1947 <FIDE Congress in The Hague> <...the Swiss delegate, E. Voellmy, gave an account in the October 1947 Schweizerische Schachzeitung (pages 154-155). He reported that the idea of an Euwe-Reshevsky match had been evoked and that a widespread wish existed in Eastern Europe for a Botvinnik-Keres match. Nonetheless, Voellmy recorded, <<<the Russians had reverted to the Winterthur plan,>>> and the agreement meant that March 1948 would see the start of a six-man tournament (Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Euwe, Reshevsky and Fine), firstly in the Netherlands and then, following a two-week break, in Moscow."> -Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === 1-2 Aug 1947 <Euwe champion for one day> According to Oxford Companion: <"Thus he (Euwe) would say wryly that he had been world champion for one day in 1947.” However, according to the minutes of the FIDE Congress, that decision was never taken. 1 and 2 August 1947 respectively, as published in El Ajedrez Argentino, November-December, 1947, pages 298-300): after Euwe left the room the delegates decided to proclaim him world champion, but with an obligation upon him to play a match against Reshevsky and with the winner of that match then having to play Botvinnik. However, Messrs Louma and Rogard regarded this proposal as dangerous in view of the absence of the members of the Soviet delegation, and <<<it was decided to postpone the resolution,>>> pending their arrival. The second text above states that after they had come the following day the six-man match-tournament was agreed upon.> -Edward Winter, Chessnote 3816 === "American Chess Bulletin" Report on <FIDE Congress in The Hague> <It was noted that <<<the Dutch and Soviet Federations had agreed jointly to assume all the expenses, including travel and living costs, of the six masters,>>> and the Bulletin added: ‘There were other propositions submitted to the meeting. One suggested a match between Dr Euwe, champion in 1935, and Reshevsky; the other, an enlargement of the plan and the admission of three or four additional masters regarded as eligible to compete for the honor. Both were voted down. Because of the grounding of their plane at Berlin en route to The Hague, the four Soviet delegates, Ragozin, Postnikov, Yudovich and Malshev, did not arrive until the last day of the meeting, but, according to Vice-President Giers, cooperated in every way to make possible a harmonious understanding. Of far-reaching effect is the entry of the USSR, hitherto outside of the Federation, into closer and permanent relationship with the other leading chess-playing nations as an affiliated unit. It is understood that Russia has 600,000 registered players. The world organization, of which Dr A. Rueb of The Hague is the head, is now practically complete and its rulings will carry full weight. All major decisions are left to the General Assembly, which convenes annually and is attended by one delegate from each unit.’> -"American Chess Bulletin" September-October 1947, p.107. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === August 1947 "Chess Review" commentary: <‘The FIDE has virtually revived its program of a year ago ... The line-up is exactly that given then, except for the provision including winners of the 1946 Groningen and Prague tournaments if not those already named. Botvinnik, already named, won at the former; but Mendel <<<Najdorf won at Prague, would have qualified under the 1946 provisions.>>> The only other alterations in the 1946 plans are the added delay to 1948 and the arrangement for half the play to take place in Russia.’> -"Chess Review" August 1947, p.2 In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." === Jan-Feb 1948 American Chess Bulletin: <Rueben Fine> <‘Bad news comes from the West in the announcement that <<<Reuben Fine of Los Angeles has decided to withdraw from the tournament.>>> The reason advanced for this unexpected step on the part of one of the heroes of the AVRO tournament was the necessity for his continuing a post-graduate course at the University of Southern California to avoid the loss of an entire year in the pursuit of his studies.’> "American Chess Bulletin" January-February 1948, p.11. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum." ######################### <CONDITIONS> <10 rounds in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow. The order of the venues (Moscow 2d) was decided by lot (drawing of a pawn).40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves per hour after that, time of play 5:30pm - 10:30pm. Players may agree on a draw at any time. Each player permitted to analyze adjourned games with 2 assistants. <<<Prizes:>>> 1st $5,000; 2d $3,000; 3d $2000; 4th $1,500; 5th $1,000. <Arbiter:> Milan Vidmar <Assistant to Vidmar:> Alexander Kotov <The Hague venue:> The "Kierentuin," which before the war was headquarters of the local zoo. <Residence for players and officials (and some adjourned games finished here):> The "Kurhaus" in Scheveningen> <Botvinnik refused to stay in the "Kurhaus" and was given rooms in the "Hotel Twee Staden." He was joined at the Hotel by his wife, daughter, and his 2d Ragozin.> <Official Opening:> <Held <<<in>>> "The Town Hall."> <Moscow venue:> <"Salle des Collones" (Hall <<<of>>> Columns)> -Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Harding Simpole 1949), p.3 === <Source> for Milan Vidmar arbiter, The Hague venue, residence, official opening venue: -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, "Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title." "Chess Life and Review" (April 1948), p.6 <Source> for Draw may be agreed at any time: -"Chess Life and Review" "Battle Royal" May 1948, p.11 === <Source> for Moscow venue: Golombek, p.126 === <Source> for Alexander Kotov assistant to Vidmar, 16 moves per hour after initial time control: Paul Keres "Match Tournament for the World Chess Championship- The Hague and Moscow 1948" (Estonian State Publishing 1950), p.7 -============== <Source> for Moscow being the 2d venue by lot (drawing of pawn) --Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim." Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.109 <Source> for Each player permitted to analyze adjourned games with 2 assistants. -Botvinnik, p.111 <Source> for Botvinnik refused to stay in the "Kurhaus" and was given rooms in the "Hotel Twee Staden" -Botvinnik, p.113-114 <Source> for Botvinnik's wife, daughter, and 2d Ragozin joining him at the Hotel. -"Chess Life and Review" "Battle Royal" May 1948, p.8 ######################### <Seconds> (Since conditions allowed for <2> people to assist players in analyzing adjourned games, it's possible that some players had more than 1 <second>) See -Botvinnik, p.111 <Keres> - Bondarevsky (source - Botvinnik, p.118-119) and/or Tolush (source- Israel Horowitz, "The World Chess Championship- a History" (MacMillan 1973), p.121) ================== <Euwe> - Cortlever -(Needs source) and/or Van Scheltinga (source- Horowitz, p.121) ================== <Smyslov> - Alatortsev (source- Horowitz, p.121) ================= <Botvinnik> - Ragozin and Flohr (source- Botvinnik, p.113-114) ================= <Reshevsky> - Prins (source- Horowitz, p.121) ########################### <COURSE of the TOURNAMENT> <Leg One: The Hague> ################################# <Round 1> Euwe vs Keres, 1948 <0-1> Smyslov vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 2> Keres vs Smyslov, 1948 <1-0> Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> Euwe's 1st career loss to Botvinnik. <"Euwe remarked that in his opinion Botvinnik was <<<better than Alekhine>>> was in the 1937 world championship match."> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, "Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title." "Chess Life and Review" (April 1948), p.9 ################################# <Round 3> Reshevsky vs Keres, 1948 <1-0> <"The last seven moves were made with three minutes remaining on each of their clocks. Here <<<Sammy>>> showed that superiority in time trouble for which he is famous."> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, p.11 ================== Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1/2> <"Among the <<<Russians>>> present at their own reserved table were Ragosin, Tolush, Bondarevsky, Flohr, Kotov, Alatortsev, Lilienthal..."> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde,p.11 ################################# <Round 4> Euwe vs Smyslov, 1948 <0-1> <"With his Queen en prise, Euwe sacrificed both Knights. The atmosphere was charged with excitement. One teller was so unnerved that he dropped some pieces off a wallboard. Everyone was keyed up as <<<the sacrifices looked so good>>> and yet so impenetrably vague. Then Euwe missed the correct line and Smyslov wriggled out of the mating net. Euwe adjourned in a lost position. The pathos exhibited by the faces of the audience was so visible that even Euwe's face turned red all over. But it was too late.> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, p.14 "Euwe's description of his thoughts and oversights:" http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/i... === Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1-0> <"As expected, both players ran short of time and after twenty-seven moves, their respective times were 2:17 [Botvinnik] and 2:26 [Reshevsky]. On this occasion <<<The U.S. speed whiz>>> faltered, blundered badly and then-- incredibly-- lost the game on time!"> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, pp.13-14 <"Botvinnik take some sort of <<<pills>>> during the game. Can they be vitamins?"> D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, p.16 ################################# <Round 5> Keres vs Botvinnik, 1948 <0-1> === Reshevsky vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> <"...Reshevsky made a startling twelfth move <<<[12.d5]>>> which apparently wrecks Black's hopes in this variation... the complications were numerous and in them Euwe lost a pawn. Reshevsky's fortieth move, made with only seconds left on his clock, turned the adjourned ending into a win."> -D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, p.15 ################################# <Round 6> Keres vs Euwe, 1948 <1/2> === Reshevsky vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 7> Smyslov vs Keres, 1948 <0-1> <"Against Smyslov, Keres adopted tactics similar to those in... K Junge vs Alekhine, 1942 at Munich 1942. The central battle was whether Smyslov could force P-K4. When Keres effectively prevented the thrust, his rival became desperate and <<<sacrificed>>> a pawn unsoundly."> Smyslov to play: click for larger view 27.b5? click for larger view D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, "Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title." "Chess Life and Review" (May 1948), p.8 Harry Golombek on <27.b5?>: <"In a quite even position, [Smyslov] suddenly procured for himself a chance of losing by a completely <<<unsound Pawn sacrifice,>>> the point of which seemed based on a hallucination."> Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Harding Simpole 1949), p.91 === Euwe vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 8> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> === Keres vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 9> Smyslov vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> === Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 10> Euwe vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1/2> === Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948 <1-0> Botvinnik: <Before the departure of the Soviet players (Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov) for the Netherlands, a conflict unfortunately arose, leading to heated arguments over the scheduling of the Dutch half of the Match-Tournament. The rounds had been scheduled without considering the elementary requirements of a sporting event. A tournament should be so paced as to allow its participants to accustom themselves to a definite rhythm of play. Then, and only then, can you expect to see superlative creative achievements. The Dutch organizers felt this was of little consequence, failing to see that a string of free days (owing to holidays, and to the fact that we had an odd number of players) would upset this playing rhythm, and put a player off his stride. When I discovered that one of the players would end up with <<<six straight "rest" days,>>> just before the final round of the second cycle, I suggested to my colleagues Keres and Smyslov that we register joint protest. Alas, they did not support me! And so I told them, most sincerely, "Just wait; when we get to the Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." Now the first part of my prophecy had been fulfilled. After six days' rest, Keres sat across from me, pale as death, quite obviously afraid that the second part of my prophecy would also come to pass!> Botvinnik's final move: 23.Qd4-e3 click for larger view Botvinnik: <This quiet move forces mate. With only seconds remaining, Keres <<<stopped the clocks>>>. Then, without a word, he signed the scoresheets, rose and left. Poor Paul was probably thinking less of chess during this game than of the mistake he had made before he even left Moscow...> Mikhail Botvinnik, "15 Games and their Stories" Jim Marfia, transl. (Chess Enterprise Inc. 1982), pp. 40-42 ################################# <Leg Two: Moscow> <Round 11> Smyslov vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1-0> === Euwe vs Keres, 1948 <0-1> ################################# <Round 12> Keres vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> === Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> ################################# <Round 13> Reshevsky vs Keres, 1948 <0-1> === Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1948 <0-1 ################################# <Round 14> Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 <0-1> Botvinnik's first loss in the tournament. === Euwe vs Smyslov, 1948 <1-0> ################################# <Round 15> Reshevsky vs Euwe, 1948 <1/2> === Keres vs Botvinnik, 1948 <0-1> ################################# <Round 16> Reshevsky vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> === Keres vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> ################################# <Round 17> Smyslov vs Keres, 1948 <1-0> === Euwe vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 18> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> === Keres vs Reshevsky, 1948 <0-1> ################################# <Round 19> Smyslov vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> === Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1948 <0-1> ################################# <Round 20> Botvinnik vs Keres, 1948 <1-0> === Euwe vs Reshevsky, 1948 <0-1> ################################# <Round 21> Euwe vs Keres, 1948 <0-1> === Smyslov vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 22> 9 May Botvinnik clinches 1st place Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1948 <1/2> <Botvinnik>: <"Here I felt that I simply could not play any longer, and offered my opponent a draw. Since Euwe, the former World Champion, had a decidedly unhappy tourament score at this point, I had no doubt that he would accept the offer. But to my surprise, Euwe unexpectedly said that he would like to play a little longer. I was angered; my fighting spirit immediately returned. <<<'Fine,' I said, 'let's play on, then.'>>> Euwe felt the change in the atmosphere, and extended his hand to congratulate me on winning the tournament."> Mikhail Botvinnik "15 Games and Their Stories" Jim Marfia, transl. (Chess Enterprises Inc. 1982), p.49 === EDIT <thomastonk>: <<WCC Editing Project: I wonder if Euwe's side of the story exists ...> Yes, it does, of course. Euwe wrote in 1948 a book on the match tournament in Dutch (a German version has been printed as well, and the English translation was published quite recently). Euwe stated that he accepted the draw and showed two possible lines to support the drawish character of the position. He does not report on a first and a second offer. Nothing special, and why should he be surprised by the draw offer and "lost nerves" as the German edtion of Botvinnik's book claims. The only one who could have lost nerves - in a positive sense - was the new champion, I think. thomastonk: Several Dutch newspapers reported that the game was drawn after 15 moves, and I've seen none that mentioned 14 moves. "The Times" based on Reuter reportet this, too. Euwe wrote that 11.0-0-0 was broadcasted from Moscow ... There are many ways to *make* this an interesting game.> === <Harry Golombek> Eye witness account: <"Botwinnik was taking no chances, and Dr. Euwe, last beyond a shadow of doubt, had little incentive to play for a win... Botwinnik exchanged off the gambit Pawn on the fourth move, made as if to embark on a minority attack on the Q side, and then proposed a draw, which Dr. Euwe <<<readily>>> accepted."> Harry Golombek, "The World Chess Championship 1948" (Harding Simpole 1949), p.204 ======= Two more eye witness accounts: <D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde>: <"With a draw sufficient to win... Botvinnik went directly to his task in the twenty-second round... When <<<his offer of a draw was accepted,>>> the partisan audience burst into enthusiastic cheers at this triumph of Soviet chess."> ========== <Hans Kmoch>: <"14... KR-K1. At this point, <<<Botvinnik offered a draw>>> and Euwe accepted."> Both of these accounts appear in D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, "Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title." "Chess Life and Review" (August 1948), p.11 === Keres vs Smyslov, 1948 <1/2> ################################ <Round 23> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1/2> === Reshevsky vs Keres, 1948 <1/2> ################################# <Round 24> Euwe vs Smyslov, 1948 <0-1> === Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 <1-0> ################################# <Round 25> Keres vs Botvinnik, 1948 <1-0> === Reshevsky vs Euwe, 1948 <1-0> ############################## <AFTERMATH> Keres allegedly "throwing games" to Botvinnik" controversy: <Taylor Kingston> ################################### <Prague 1946> Crosstable: http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file... Dates: October 2 - 22 Note: Treybal Memorial Source: Di Felice p.285, 3 games, 1948 WCC: FIDE World Championship Knockout 1999 Original: FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (1999) 1 game, 1999 WCC: FIDE World Championship Knockout 2000 Original: FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2000) 1 game, 2000

<< previous | page 3 of 5 | next >>