In their book, "World's Championship Match", F.D. Yates and W. Winter stated in regard to 17...O-O-O: <"Too venturesome, 17...O-O, left a good and playable game".>

Alekhine in his notes for this game, stated in regard to 17...O-O-O: <"In making this risky move Bogoljubov already planned the sacrifice at e5 which, doubtless, gave him some fighting chances. He can hardly be blamed for that decision, inasmuch as the alternative 17...O-O 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rfd8 20.O-O-O Nf8 21. Qb7, etc., would have left him but very few chances of salvation.">

As there is some difference of opinion regarding the merits of 17.O-O or 17...O-O-O, it is helpful to get Fritz 9's evaluation.

Fritz 9 prefers 17...O-O and gives the following evaluation and line of play:

Evaluation after 17...O-O: (.63) (18 ply).

17...O-O 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rad8 20.O-O Nb8 21.Qb3 Qxe4 22.Nc3 Qa8 23.f5.

After 17...O-O-O, Fritz 9's evaluation and line of play is:

Evaluation after 17...O-O-O: (1.18) (16 ply).

17...O-O-O 18.Nd5 Qd6 19.Qa4 Bxd5 20.Rd1.

Based on Fritz's evaluation and suggested lines, it does appear that 17.O-O may be a better move, but White would still have an advantage.

However, Bogojubov and Alekhine may be correct that 17...O-O-O may provide more counter chances.

Look what happened next! At move 18, Alekhine, instead of playing the strongest line indicated by Fritz 9, 18.Nd5, played 18.Qa4.

After 18.Qa4, Fritz 9 provides an evaluation of (.62) (16 ply). Fritz indicates the following line: 18...f5 19.O-O Kb8 20.Bc6 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Bxb2.

At move 19, Alekhine again played differently from Fritz with 19.e5.

Bogoljubov was now getting the fighting chances that he was hoping for after playing 17...O-O-O. Next followed some real fireworks with both Bogoljubov and Alekhine sacrificing material. Bogoljubov sacrificed a Knight at move 20 and Alekhine sacrificed a Pawn at move 24.

At move 28, the game was decided when Bogoljubov blundered with 28...Kb8??. Alekhine's reply 29.Ned4! was immediately decisive.

Alekhine stated: <"A longer resistance was possible after 28...Nxf2 29.Kxf2 Kb8; but by continuing 30 Ng3 Rhf8 31.Ra3 (followed by 32,Re3 or Rd3, etc.)-White would still increase his pressure in a decisive manner".>

In Yates's and Winter's book of the match, they make no mention of Bogoljubov's mistake, 28.Kb8??.

In 1954, in "Kings of Chess", Winter stated that after 28...Nxf2 29.Kxf2 Kb8, White would still have the advantage, but the disappearance of the Bishop makes the win much more difficult.

Fritz 9 clearly showed that after 28...Nxf2, Alekhine's suggested line would lead to a certain draw.

28...Nxf2! 29.Kxf2 Kb8 30.Ng3 Rhe8 31.Kg1 Rd5 32.Rc4 Qe3+ 33.Kh1 f4 34.Re4 Re8xe4 35.Nxe4 f3 36.gxf3 Qxf3+ 37.Kg1 Qe3+ (.00).

A small advantage for White, per Fritz 9, is still possible after 28...Nxf2: 29.Kxf2 Kb8 (.30) (18 ply) 30.Ra3 Qd7 31.Rab3 Qd2.

Or 28... 29.Kxf2 Kb8 30.Rd1 (.32) (18 ply) Qc6 31.Rxd8+ Rxd8.

Any win for White after 28...Nxf2 would be very difficult to prove. The line Alekhine gave appears to be a draw.

In summary, I think Bogoljubov was right in chosing 17.O-O-O. It may not have been the best move according to computer programs, but based on his style and abilities, it was probably his best chance to obtain counter chances.

Unfortunately, Bogoljubov missed a very good chance for the draw, had he not overlooked the more obvious 28...Nxf2 and Alekhine's winning move 29.Ned4.

29 ?

click for larger view

29 ♘e2-d4! <pin: c7-sq>

click for larger view

On a side note, the match lasted from 6/9 - 11/11/29 for a total of 156 days. Subtracting 1-day per game, we get 5.24 days between games. Thats seems like quite a lot.

On July 9th, 1929, there was a meeting of the players and the municipality of the city of Wiesbaden, and the program of the match was discussed and accepted there.

Bogoljubow then played in the great 1929 Karlsbad tournament - July 31st - August 26th.

September 5th - drawing of the lots in Wiesbaden.

September 6th - the first game in Wiesbaden. The first 8 games were to be played in Wiesbaden.

A period of rest was scheduled for September 24 to October 1st.

Games 9-11 were to be played in the Schwartzwald under the auspices of the German Chess Union.

Games 12-17 were to be played in the Netherlands under the auspices of the Chess Union of the Netherlands.

Games 18-23 were to be played in Berlin under the organization of the president of the local club of Mr. E. Post.

The remaining games were to be played in Wiesbaden.

Thanks for posting that information from
"Bogoljubow - The Fate of a Chess Player"

It made me think of a recent post I made about problems with proofreading and accuracy in what appears to be a similar chess history book- Andris Fride's "Vladimirs Petrovs: A Chessplayer’s Story from Greatness to the Gulags."

I found the book to be invaluable, because there simply is no other source about the details of <Petrovs'> life and games available in English.

Unfortunately the book suffers from horrifying textual errors, including incorrect names of cities and players and incorrect cross tables, game scores, and even game results.

I noticed <Taylor Kingsford> has reviewed both volumes here, and I was wondering if you had seen it?

Anyways here it is, for what it's worth-

<"Parallel Problems,
Different Fates"

<<<Taylor Kingston>>>

Vladimirs Petrovs: A Chessplayer’s Story from Greatness to the Gulags by Andris Fride, 2004 Caissa Editions, Yorklyn, Delaware, USA, paperback, 190 pages, English algebraic notation, $25.00.

Bogoljubow: The Fate of a Chess Player, by Sergei Soloviov, 2004 Chess Stars Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria, paperback, 280 pages, figurine algebraic notation, $29.95.>

Exciting match though!

<offramp>

You wrote <Although as Capablanca wrote ( to a friend ), "Can you imagine me or Dr Lasker losing like this?">

I agree with your post, but I just want to clarify that Capablanca did not write this at the end of the match. He wrote it to Norman Lederer after game 6, when Bogoljubov had scored his second win to tie the match:

"...can you imagine B. winning two games from me or Dr. L. so early?"

<morfishine>

You wrote <<Pawn and Two> Thanks for the information! I googled the match and it provided the first game date of 6/9, which is obviously in error>

I'm not sure what you mean. If "6/9" means the 6th of September, why do you think that date is in error?

<Pawn and Two's> source agrees with that date for game one of the match: <September 6th - the first game in Wiesbaden.>

"...can you imagine B. winning two games from me or Dr. L. so early?">

Yes, quite right.

But looking at the 1927 match, Alekhine had his second loss at game 7. Capablanca lost his second game at game 11.

<offenbach> (great composer):

Yes, good points, which I doubt Capablanca had in mind when he wrote the letter. As you say, Capablanca "should" know that it's common to lose two in a row in a match at any level, no matter how good the players are.

I suspect that Capablanca's letter to Lederer was written out of frustration that it was not he who was playing the match. I also suspect Capablanca secretly believed that Bogoljubov couldn't win a single game from him. Up until the time of the <Capablanca-Alekhine 1927> match, Bogoljubov had lost every single game he had ever played against the Cuban:

search "capablanca-bogoljubov"

In the strange/unique tournament book written by Nimzovitch, Nimzo states that Bogoljubov often spoke of his coming match v Alekhine as though he was going to win it and he would be world champion.

It was the 1934 match Bogoljubov could have won. He blew game after game. Bogoljubov's play against the risk taking Alekhine turned it into what was to be called 'an exhibition match.'

All that match seemed to do was build up Alekhine's assumption that he could get away with anything on the chessboard and still win. Euwe brought him crashing back to reality the following year.

That wake up call knocked Alekhine back into shape though his golden era 1927-33 was never fully re-captured.

A Capa - Alekhine rematch?
Again in the 1929 Carlsbad tournament book Nimzovitch claimed that Capa was changing his style and embracing his (Nimzo's) ideas. It would have been interesting. Alekine claimed he beat Capa in 1927 by imitating Capa's style. In the re-match Capa may have imitated Alekhine's style.