From page 253 of the August 1929 'Wiener Schachzeitung' the conditions:

Begin: 6th September

30 games

Winner is the one who scores most points (15 1/2), if he scored 6 wins.

The World champion gets $6,000 in every case, Bogoljubov gets the surplus.*

Programme: 8 games in Wiesbaden in September, 3 games in Heidelberg October 1-8, 6 games in Berlin Ocotber 10-22, 4 games in Haag and 2 in Amsterdam Ocober 24 to November 4, 7 games in Wiesbaden in November as finish.

Thanks to <Karpova> I now have the financial conditions for the <Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929> match.

But I do not have sufficient corroboration or reliable enough evidence for the financial conditions I reported in Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934.

I can't leave this passage in the draft without more specific evidence:

<Bogoljubov had arranged a purse of $6,800 to be paid Alekhine should he win, and $5,000 should he lose>

The evidence I do have is indirect- <Skinner and Verhoeven> state that the match conditions were the same for both the 1929 and 1934 matches, but they only give financial information for the 1929 match.

That's the financial information I put in the Draft for <1934>.

On pages 311-313 of the October 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' is a report by Hans Kmoch (Berlin, October 23, 1929) and on page 313 he mentions that Dr. Lasker was the arbiter. And the Ufa shot a film.

Possibly, he was that just in Berlin (it's not mentioned).

Ufa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...

<Jess> What kind of info is most needed for your draft? Organization or also assessment of play. The article by Kmoch could be used for the latter also.

But I will indeed have to delete the financial information from Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934 if I can't confirm it.

Possibly I will ask <Thomas Tonk> if he can find some Nederlander information on this.

That said, I'm particularly interested in the entire <Kmoch> article for sure, but I don't want you to bust your typing fingers either.

Match is relocated to the netherlands and Dr. Rueb welcomes them on October 25 in the "National Schaakgebouw" in the Haag chess club (? <Schachheim>, "Heim" is home/asylum) where games 18, 19 and 23 were played. 20th game in the "Hotel Bristol" in Rotterdam. Games 21 and 23 in the "Militiesaal" in Amsterdam (the masters were welcomed there by Dr. M. Levenbock.

Page 321 of the November 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'

And then, on page 326 (after the game scores):

The farewell address was given by Jhr. H. Strick van Lindschoten. Both masters departed for Wiesbaden on November 8 and 9. In a short summary of what happened in the Wiesbaden games, Alekhine's victory is reported.

Oh! There is a photo of <Emanuel Lasker> arbitrating this event, showing him at the board with <Johnny> and <Bogo>.

I have it in my file.

When <Boomie> saw this photo, he said of <Dr. Lasker>, "What a mensch."

This last part sounds directly on point too:

So, for current and future authors of WCC intros, don't worry about how to set up hyperlinks. Jess is coordinating copy editing, footnote format, and such. I have agreed to embed the final product in the necessary HTML to send to Daniel as a "plug and play" module ready to replace the old intro file.

They don't pay you the big volunteer money for nothing.

Put another way, they pay you nothing for your big volunteer work.

Making your work extra big!

Here are two sources for match conditions for Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929:

SOURCE ONE:

<Bogoljubov had arranged <<<a purse of $6,800 to be paid Alekhine should he win, and $5,000 should he lose>>>

There could be up to 30 games, but the winner had to score at least 6 wins and 15 1/2 points, meaning that there was also a necessary minimum number of games to be played>

-"The Times" 28 June 1929, p. 8.
In Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven,
"Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946"
(McFarland 1998), p. 490

==============

SOURCE TWO:

<conditions:

Begin: 6th September

30 games

Winner is the one who scores most points (15 1/2), if he scored 6 wins.

<<<The World champion gets $6,000 in every case, Bogoljubov gets the surplus.*>>>

Programme: 8 games in Wiesbaden in September, 3 games in Heidelberg October 1-8, 6 games in Berlin Ocotber 10-22, 4 games in Haag and 2 in Amsterdam Ocober 24 to November 4, 7 games in Wiesbaden in November as finish.

* "World Champion" apparently means Alekhine, and not the new WC after the match>.

-"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253

################

Notice the financial arrangements are different in each source?

I am inclined to think the "Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" report is more likely to be more accurate because it is published much closer to the actual match start date.

Do you think this is a safe assumption? I will continue to look for more data, and if anyone has other information on this topic I'd be grateful if you posted it here.

######################

Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929

On 13 January 1929, <Alekhine> insists on observance of the London Rules for a world title match with <Bogoljubov>.

Alekhine's letter to Alekhine-Bogo match organizer Strick van Linschoten:

<"I... acknowledge receipt of your letter... in which you inform me that Mr. Bogoljubow... has paid in the sum of 500 dollars to serve as first guarantee for the conclusion of a match between him and me for the championship of the world at chess, and as a surety in case of the non-realization of this project... Mr. Bogoljubow will have to give me at least three months notice of the date of its commencement. Likewise, he will have to pay in at this time... the supplementary sums provided for by the <<<London rules,>>> or induce the organizers to do so. In case of the non-fulfilment (sic) of these conditions, the match with Mr. Bogoljubow... would not be able to take place.">

"American Chess Bulletin" March 1929, p. 41.
In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215

###############

And now <Alekhine> confirms the world championship status of the match on 28 June 1929:

<"In an interview given by Alekhine to... <The Times>... he said that the match with Bogoljubow would <<<definitely>>> be for the world championship.">

"The Times" 28 June 1929, p. 8.
In Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven,
"Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946"
(McFarland 1998), p. 490

#################

But no mention of any actual document in which <Alekhine> explains why he waived the $10,000 stipulation sometime between 13 January 1929 and the start of the match on 6 Sept. 1929. No document even simply stating that he waived the stipulation.

From page 338 of the November 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'

<Vor Beginn gab es in der gesamten Schachwelt mit Ausnahme von Bogoljubow niemand, der am Siege Aljechins auch nur leisen Zweifel gehegt hätte.> (Before the start, there was no one in the whole chess world with the exception of Bogoljubov, who would have entertained even quiet doubt about Alekhine's victory.)

Bogoljubov is called one of the strongest tournament players of recent times but his lack of consistency excludes him from the list of potential World Champions.

For elaboration from the previous page 337, the games are said to have been played in <Wild-West-Stil>. On the choice of this playing style (why their choice cannot be resented): <Bogoljubow nicht, der nicht aus seiner Haut herauskann, Aljechin nicht, der sich seinem Gegner angepaßt und ihn auf dessen ureigenster Domäne, dem Gebiete der Taktik, geschlagen hat.> (not Bogoljubov, as a leopard cannot change his spots, not Alekhine who adapted himself to his opponent and beat him on his* very own demesne, the field of tactics.)

* "his" refers to Bogoljubov

Now back to page 338:

Alkhine abstained from a sharp weapon - solid positional play which he had demonstrated in his WC match against Capablanca. This one he will need in his rematch against Capablanca as he would lose horribly with the style employed against Bogoljubov. <Capablanca ist heute so stark wie je zuvor> (today, Capablanca is as strong as ever before). There's a footnote to this statement I will refe to later. Now the text goes on claiming that Capablanca fulfilled all imaginable obligations (<Der Kubaner hat seit mehr als Jahresfrist alle erdenklichen Voraussetzungen erfüllt [...]>) seemingly prior to 1929 already and now Alekhine was obliged to fulfill his promise back from Buenos Aires, to accept Capablanca's challenge first, even if this is not fully possible anymore, as fast as he can.

The footnote cites an interview from the 'Mährisch-Ostrauer Morgenzeitung'.

Bogoljubov: <Was Capablanca betrifft, so steht er nach meiner Meinung an vierter Stelle, also hinter Aljechin, Lasker und mir.> (concerning Capablanca, in my opinion, he ranks on 4th position behind Alekhine, Lasker and myself)

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.

From the description of game 10: <But while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker converted his advantage with great precision.>

I consulted <keypusher> and he suggested to put the last part of the description this way <Lasker finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle>.

"finally" isn't necessary because it doesn't supply any new information, and it interrupts the flow of the sentence.

<converted his advantage with great precision>

<converted his advantage after an arduous struggle>

Nothing wrong with either.

"converted ...with precision" is a more clinical style choice in chess writing, while "arduous struggle" is more colorful.

If it were me I would use "arduous struggle" because it paints more of a picture of the man himself at the board.

Thanks! So let's go with <Lasker finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle.>

No I hadn't, but wonderful!

<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.’>

I had read that story elsewhere so it's nice to know it has a proper source documented now.

I "think" the same quote appears in <Munninghoff's> bio of <Euwe>, but I have not checked yet.

Added now to Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935

#########################