Between 1937 and 1948
Alekhine spent his Christmas holydays in Paris and was honored by the French government. At the reception, he announced he had declined an invitation to play Flohr. During the New Year period, Alekhine went to Hasting to attend the annual Congress as a special guest. Maybe he was interested to look live at the games of some young participants like Keres, Fine, Flohr or Reshevsky with who he may soon or later battle for the world title. He said to the BCM he might postpone a challenge from Flohr because he may play another match in 1939 and there for can’t take any obligation for 1940. He also said he would gladly place the title in the hands of FIDE as soon as it could command the necessary financial support and cold control the title in a manner likely to earn the confidence of the leading master who was concerned with the question of the world title. This latter condition he considered even more important than the former. At the present Alekhine is the opinion that neither of that condition is fulfilled.
Salo Flohr was interviewed by a Russian newspaper in April 1938 about his chance to play Alekhine the article was reproduced by Chess in October 1938:” It’s difficult to say how good my chance are. On my ability in position play I am certain that I could hold my own against Capablanca; not again Alekhine. To defeat the present title-holder, I should have regained the powers I possessed at the very outset of my career. I intent to train intensively…by the time the match is due I hope to regain my early powers and be in a position to give Alekhine a worthy battle.”
One month later after the German troops invaded Czechoslovakia, Chess was announcing the dead of the match:” The world championship match between Dr. Alekhine and Flohr is dead. The money which was to have financed it has been diverted into the hands of the Teuton…meanwhile, Dr. Alekhine has declared himself willing to play the match for the world’s championship against the first prize winner of the AVRO tournament on condition to be determined later. The Dutch company AVRO may finance such match.” Indeed Alekhine made a short speech during the opening ceremony to confirm his readiness and added:” However I reserve the right to play first against another chess master for the title.”
Keres won the AVRO tournament on November 27, 1938, and the Organizers tried immediately to settle a meeting between-Keres and Alekhine. AVRO wished to take control of the World Championship, and they had the means to finance it. Dr. Alekhine evinced just a little disinclination to confer with the AVRO representatives and Keres, and he said he didn’t close the door for a match and will decide on the conditions later. AVRO was envisaging to play in the various town of Holland, but Alekhine didn’t want to play another “traveling” match.
In the BCM of January 1939, H. Golombek confirmed that Keres has challenged Alekhine but has said he will not be able to play the match until his academic studies are finished. He also said that Fine looks more interesting in teaching chess than do be a player and the match Alekhine-Flohr is out of question.
I the same issue Alekhine talked about the world championship. “…The logical and inescapable conclusion is that the next snatch for the world title most is fought against a representative of the younger generation. Which one? In my opinion, this is a toaster of minor importance; no one can claim an exclusive moral right to be the first challenger. The thing that matters to the chess world is to determine whether the holder of the title is at all times the best player in the world; and only a match, not a tournament, however strong the players, can settle this.
Which of the four matches, against Keres, Fine, Botvinnik, or Reshevsky would be the most interesting from a sporting and from a purely chess point of view? in my opinion it is just as difficult to say before the event as it would have been, for example, to say in advance what would he the result of the tournament just concluded, Each of these young masters has his own style and his own conception of chess; each has a pronounced individuality. Each, therefore, represents a complex and on the exceedingly interesting problem for anyone who, like the writer of these lines, has always considered the psychological element to be one of the most important factors of the struggle in chess. It is, therefore, with the greatest satisfaction that I envisage the probable coming fight—or, I hope, fights!
The present situation is this after the tournament was ever Keres challenged me to a match, adding that he would prefer But to play before the end of 1940. Accepting in principle, I communicated to him my financial conditions, which are virtually the same as those of the first match, against Euwe and of the projected match against Flohr; I also conveyed my decision in future to defend my title in one place only. Practical experience of the last matches, and especially of the AVRO tournament, has shown me the impossibility of playing my best if there are journeys to be made during the contest, it is now for the challenger and those who may support him to reply: in any case, there remains the possibility of another match for the title in 1939…”
The Times of London wrote in December 1939: ”As a result of the recent AVRO tournament movement has been set on food to form a club for the organization of the “Grand Masters” of the chess world. One of the principal objects of the association will naturally be the regulation of the World Championship. Membership of the club will be restricted at the first to the masters who took part in the AVRO tournament, with the exception that Emmanuel Lasker, ex-champion, will be invited to become an honorary member. Later on it is intended to widen to the scope of the organization by inviting other aspirants to the World Championships. The whole project is so far very much in the air, but Sir Georges Thomas has provisionally accepted the invitation to become chairman of the committee.”
On May 1939 Chess announce the failure of the match Alekhine-Keres: “A perfect deadlock having reached on account of Dr. Alekhine refusal to travel during the match and the AVRO organizers desire to give several Dutch cities the benefit of the spectacle.”
On September 1939, another attempt to bring about a match for title world championship between Alekhine and Capablanca has been made in Buenos Aires by Senor A. de Muro, president of the Argentine Chess Federation.
He approached the two players who, of course, were busy playing for the international team tournament (Olympiad) of Buenos Aires. Unfortunately, the war broke up on September 1 and Alekhine is supposed to be incorporate into the French Army.
Here is Capablanca’ s reply dated September 16th published a few days later in the Evening News of London:
In answer to your letter of the 13th inst., I have pleasure in advising you that I am disposed to play a match for the championship of the world whenever it can he arranged.
I accept to play for the purse arranged by you with Senor Alekhine in whatever form. I recognize that of that purse Senor Alekhine has the right to receive 20 percent as a fee for being world champion. The remaining 80 per cent, it is the custom to divide in the proportion of 60 percent to the winner and 40 percent, to the loser, but if you wish to alter the proportion to 70—30 or 80—20 or even all for the winner, I have not the slightest objection to make.
About the rules of London rules of play the London rule will be acceptable, but if you wish to modify them, fixing a determining number of games, again I accept this modification. Also, I whatever reasonable modification you might desire.
As you will see, you will have no difficulty in coming to an agreement with me, and as soon as you obtain the conditions from Senor Alekhine, I should be at your service to come to the final arrangement.
(Signed) J. R. Capablanca
Dr. Alekhine’s reply to Senor de Muro, on September 18th, was as follows:
As I have already explained to Commandant Dez, the French delegate to FIDE, in one of the recent reunions, I am subject to mobilization as an official interpreter in reserve. Consequent, it is impossible for me at the moment contract an obligation for a prolonged time such as would he needed for a match In the title.
I would like to explain, nevertheless, that provided the good-will for the interested parties and the intention of the organisers-contrary to what has been shown on other occasions should be serious, I see no reason whatsoever why this planned match should not be realized when circumstances permit.
(Signed) A. ALEKHINE.
A month later Chess Magazine announces that Alekhine answered a letter from Buenos Aires who promised 80,000 pesos for the match. Alekhine also suggested that a part of the receipts should go to the French Red Cross. Alekhine put as condition that the match shall not be under FIDE which he describes as “totally void of a sense of reality and contrary to the aims of the large majority of chess community.” The match was scheduled to start April 1940… A month later news came Argentina that the funding of the match went no too well only half of the money has been collected and nothing much is forecasted. The Dutch magazine Schaakwereld said:” Contract signed, contract not signed, agreement reached, new difficulties arisen. So it has been for the past 12 years, and we fear it will continue as long again.”
Later a bank account was opened in Buenos Aires, and financial proposal was sent to Alekhine for a match with Capablanca which was believed to start in June 1940. However, the history made another end to it. The Second World War broke out. The Nazis invade Holland, Belgium, and France on May 1940 and Alekhine was incorporated into the French army for few months. In the fall of 1940, Capablanca was still hoping to meet the World Champion. Begin of 1941 Alekhine went to Lisbon where he tried to obtain the entry permit for the USA with probably the idea to meet Capablanca but fail to get the visa then decided to return to his wife in the German-occupied France.
Alekhine wrote to Chess in July 1941
Dr. Alekhine has written us briefly and has some interesting news. He has written Mr. George Sturgis, President of the U.S. Chess Federation, suggesting three possibilities:
(1) A match with Capablanca;
(2) A match with Reshevsky;
(3) A match-tournament (Capablanca, Reshevsky, Fine and Alekhine) like St. Petersburg, 1896, to be arranged in the autumn, and five or six months later a title match between the winner (or the second if I am first) and myself. I added that in case this last project came to fruition, I should be perfectly willing to take a formal obligation to defend the title at a given time.
“It is certainly most unfortunate that Botvinnik, Keres. Flohr and Euwe (who is now working for the Nazis) are in the war-zone, but I suppose we must make the best of it.”
In 1941 Paul Keres, who was still active as a chess player in a Europe occupied by the Nazi, published a letter which was printed in many newspapers.
The question of the world chess championship succession has become especially absorbing in recent years, due to the rise of some talented masters. This was one of the most vital issues of chess life in the past, yet up to the present, it has not been satisfactorily resolved.
Let us take the present situation. Active in the chess world are some leading masters, such as Botvinnik, Capablanca, Euwe, Fine, Flohr and Reshevsky, all considered worthy candidates for a championship contest. The author of these lines is also included in the list of claimants. Who should have priority in the next match against Alekhine? The question is an exceptionally difficult one, both for the present titleholder and for the candidates themselves.
Why in general has the opinion been formed so unanimously that Alekhine, although holding the world title, is not at the same time incontestably the very best among the best? This is easy to explain. During the years of his brilliant successes, for several years before and after the match against Capablanca, Alekhine had shown such phenomenal achievements and so convincingly demonstrated his superiority over all his rivals, that his position in the chess world did not evoke the least doubt. Greater successes could hardly be thought of. Alekhine then had two courses left: either to remain at his unattainable height or to begin to descend. It was the latter that happened. The encounters with the leading masters in Nottingham 1936 and the AVRO Tournament in 1938 had proved that Alekhine’s “super-class” no longer existed and that he would have to fight as hard for his place as any of the candidates. This sufficed for the public at large to begin talking about “the end of Alekhine,” and looking for his successor. This view was little affected by Alekhine’s brilliant triumph in the return match with Euwe; some said that Euwe had simply not been in proper form, and others went even farther to declare that Euwe was altogether the weakest of all the rivals of Alekhine.
Such explanations may seem convincing to the chess public, but not to experts. Does Alekhine’s failure to win one of the first places in two tournaments imply that he played weaker than the other leading entrants? It would be just as wrong a claim as to declare, after Alekhine’s triumph over Euwe, that he played stronger than any other candidate. Every tournament player knows that the ultimate result depends not only on chess prowess but also on numerous other factors whose influence is very great at times. Hence, it would be wrong to judge the strength of a chess master by isolated tournament results. One must also take into account the personal experience of previous meetings with the same players, and only by taking all factors in conjunction can a more or less accurate picture be obtained.
It might be argued that Alekhine’s playing strength has declined somewhat as compared with the period of his greatest ascendancy, while that of his rivals has risen, resulting in the disappearance of the “super-class.” However, Alekhine is not weaker than any one of the seven claimants. Possibly the decline of his strength is to be explained by approaching old age, fatigue, or analogous reasons; yet his original ideas, fighting temperament, colossal resourcefulness, ingenious combinations — all these have remained almost at the same level. I had occasion after the Team Tournament at Buenos Aires to do some analyzing with Alekhine, and it was only then that I really understood what he represents. I can freely declare that none of his seven rivals possesses his resourcefulness, his most subtle grasp of positions, and his experience. The weapons with which he may be conquered consist of fundamental theoretical knowledge, accurate play, and above all, greater endurance and stronger nerves. Which of these qualities should be appraised as the highest in match play, is hard to tell. One thing is clear: a match between Alekhine and any one of the seven candidates will constitute a chess event of exceptional interest, the outcome of which cannot be determined in advance.
And now the most difficult question arises. Who of the candidates is the strongest? This cannot be answered without organizing a special chess contest. The moral right to priority for the next match belongs to the two ex-champions, and of them, first to Capablanca as the senior.
However, as for a return match between Alekhine and Capablanca, there has been grave doubt ever since 1927 that it will ever take place. On the whole, it seems to me almost impossible to arrange a match between two masters so distrustful of each other. In conversations at Buenos Aires each of them accused the other for the failure of repeated negotiations, and of course, I cannot judge as to who is right. At present, there are again rumors afloat about Alekhine traveling to Cuba to meet Capablanca, but I do not attach much credence to this possibility.
The other candidate with “moral rights” — Euwe — after losing the title has made several futile attempts to secure a return match. His fervent admirers, the Dutch chess players, did a great deal to assure the formal right for a new challenge. Partly to this end, they organised both the famous AVRO Tournament and the Euwe-Keres match of 1939-1940, but in neither event did Euwe justify the hopes placed in him. Euwe has even given up his educational activity to be able to devote himself more fully to chess. This, of course, gives him greater chances than in 1937, yet the possibility of arranging the match seems to me more than doubtful; for Alekhine is going to America if he can, while Holland is in the zone of warfare, and there can be no immediate thought of carrying out a chess match there.
There remain, five masters, who, owing to their youth, would be favorably situated in the event of a match against the world champion. What are the chances of these claimants?
True, in the AVRO Tournament, Fine won both his games against Alekhine. This was manifestly due, however, to reckless play on the part of the champion, who resolved to win at all costs, so that no decisive significance can be attached to that result. Bearing in mind the above-described qualities of Alekhine, Fine is inferior to him both as regards resourcefulness and in grasping the hidden depths of a position; nevertheless, he surpasses him in point of endurance, strong nerves, and possibly in erudition in openings. There would probably be a very strenuous contest between them. This match is also hardly possible at present, Fine being “only” the second chess master in the U.S.A., and financing of the match would first be offered to the country’s leading master.
How would a match between Alekhine and Reshevsky proceed? The latter’s style is quite different from that of Fine. Reshevsky is hardly inferior to Alekhine as to wealth of original ideas, he plays superbly under time-pressure, he conducts the endgame with at times amazing peculiarity, and he is much younger than the champion into the bargain, so that it would be a hard struggle for the latter. Americans naturally place high hopes in Reshevsky; nevertheless, he also has some vulnerable points that Alekhine might take advantage of. Accustomed from childhood, when he was a “Wunderkind” of chess, to a sense of superiority over his opponent, Reshevsky has apparently retained this feeling, hidden in his subconscious, to the present day. It seems as though he always endeavours to confront his opponent with the solution of some problem, and to direct the course of events as he deems fit. However, the position does not always warrant such tactics, especially when one’s own game becomes gradually worse. This factor constitutes a great danger to Reshevsky, for the opening is perhaps the weakest part of his play. With an opponent like Alekhine, this circumstance might acquire a decisive importance. No doubt, in the course of preparation for such a match, Reshevsky will considerably enlarge his knowledge of the openings, but he will not overtake Alekhine in so short a period. The encounter between these two masters, which appears to be most likely in the near future, will certainly yield a number of fighting games that should immensely delight all followers of chess. In a clash between two equally attacking styles, developments of exceptional interest are to be expected.
There remain the masters who are in Europe: Botvinnik, Flohr and Keres. A few years ago I named Botvinnik and Reshevsky as the most serious contenders for the world title. At present, however, preference is given to Botvinnik. In Reshevsky’s play there occur flashes of ingenious ideas, but he lacks the exceptional sureness and calm of Botvinnik. With him as the opponent, one can never tell by his behaviour whether he likes his position or not. Botvinnik is a serious danger to Alekhine; he has an excellent knowledge of theory, he utilises with extraordinary precision the least positional advantage, and he retains the fullest sang-froid when defending himself, even in difficult positions. Should Alekhine fail to achieve anything in the first games of a match with Botvinnik, his nerves might give out, which would mean disaster. Personally, I believe that of the seven claimants, Botvinnik would have the best prospects against the champion.
It is interesting to note the opinion of Capablanca. To the question of whom he considers (of course, after himself) the best-qualified candidate for the world championship, he named Keres and Botvinnik.
Of the play of Flohr, who now lives in Moscow, it can be said that it is not inferior to Botvinnik’s as regards stability. Suffice it to recall his results during several years up to 1936, when out of a hundred tournament games he lost only one or two. I have met Flohr over the chessboard many times, and also analysed with him, and what I like in him most is his lucid appraisal of positions, and his outstanding general mastery in positional play. None of the other claimants can vie with him in this respect. In the opening, as in the endgame, he is equally at his best, but is strikes me that his “Achillean heel” consists in his invariable tendency to solve exclusively in a positional way all the problems that arise, though not all situations lend themselves to such treatment. It is true that this defect may be eliminated, for Flohr has more than once shown his skill also in combination; nevertheless, at the present time he prefers the defence to the attack, and this may become dangerous for him.
It remains to speak about myself. Capablanca holds a higher opinion than I do myself of my chances. I believe I should be classified with chess players of the combinational style, yet in case of necessity I possess sufficient positional knowledge. I happen to have original ideas, but my endgame play still requires deeper study. I like intricate, acute games, and it seems to me, I have a common defect with Alekhine: we both dislike the strategy of waiting, and in tedious defensive positions we feel rather bored, and often play them badly. In recent tourneys I did my utmost to rid myself of this weakness, and am hoping to achieve success in this respect. As for a possible match with Alekhine, the games with him have always especially interested me, and I felt well in them, for Alekhine too is fond of complications. Of the outcome of such a match, hardly anything can be said beforehand, but at any rate, I am firmly convinced that it would not be a “cat and mouse” play.
Of course it is possible that besides the seven contenders who have been in the forefront now for several years, new ones may soon appear. A step forward in this direction was marked by the last championship of the U.S.S.R. Bondarevsky, Lilienthal and Smyslov have shown themselves as masters seriously to be reckoned with. But it would be premature immediately after a first success to place any master in the group of championship candidates. He must be given time to perfect his style, the opportunity to enrich his tournament and match experience. This I can assert from my own example, for back in 1937, after winning the Semmering-Baden tourney, I was proclaimed as a candidate for a championship match, and a challenge to Alekhine was sent by the tournament committee. Luckily, nothing came of it, for at that time I should certainly have lost the match. Young pretenders to the title need the experience of playing with grandmasters, and the development of their style, before entering upon such a responsible match.
A good deal has been said here about existing contenders, yet the outstanding question still remains unsolved: how should priority for the match be determined? To answer this, it would be necessary to have recourse to one or several tournaments in which all the claimants could participate. Such tourneys should also be open to new stars who are in need of training with the world’s strongest masters.
Another plan might be suggested: to carry out at first preliminary tourneys — a European and an American — with, say, six participants in each, and then the finals with two from each tourney playing a quadruple round. The winner of the finals would be the first challenger. These are mere suggestions that could be varied after serious discussion.
In conversations with Alekhine I gained the impression that he would agree in principle to such a plan. Chess players throughout the world would doubtless hail with satisfaction the announcement that the question of the world championship match had at last been regulated.
J.R. Capablanca died on March 8, 1942
During the war, the World Champion played few tournaments and matches in Germany, Poland, Spain and in Portugal where he settled in the middle 40’s. He was then living in Estoril in an impossible situation tired and sick, with no material resources and virtually on charity…
In 1945 C&R published an interesting article on the future of the World Chess Championship.
Though the letter which follows by no means reflects our own views in every detail, we consider it a very stimulating contribution on a topic of high importance. To the Editor of CHESS Dear Sir,
The present position, in regard to both the selection of challengers for the Championship, and the conditions under which Championship matches are played, is, to say the least of it, very unsatisfactory.
I must profess profound ignorance of the constitution and the inner workings of the FIDE, but the recent decision of this Body, that Flohr is to be the next challenger for the World’s Championship, is clearly contrary to the wish of the vast majority of the world’s chess enthusiasts.
It would seem obvious that this decision will not be accepted without a fight. It is possible that at no distant date the chess-playing public will come to some definite agreement in regard to the method of holding world championships.
This article is an attempt to put forward a reasonable scheme, which, with modification of details, might prove acceptable to most chess players. The three main problems to be solved are :—
(a) The conditions under which the championship is to be held ;
(b) The method of selection of challengers, and
(c) Finance.
(a) Conditions under which championship is to be held. Generally speaking, the championships of athletic games are decided by tournaments, either on the American, or the Knock-out system. It is, however, generally considered that the Chess Championship of the world should be decided by a match, consisting of a large number of games, between the existing champion and a challenger. The recent match was one of 30 games spread over a period of nearly two and a half months. It is obvious that such a long drawn-out match is a very severe strain on the contestants, and the time involved both in preparation for the match and in completing the match itself runs into several months. For these reasons it is clear that a match for the championship” cannot take place more frequently than once in every two years.
The venue of the match should be the country of the reigning champion, except that, if a champion has two consecutive victories to his credit, the next match should be held in the country of the challenger.
(b) Method of selection of challenger.
This is the controversial problem. The selection of a challenger by the votes of delegates from many countries has various disadvantages, which do not require elaboration. For the challenger to select himself purely by performance would be the ideal system. Whilst it may be held that the actual championship should be decided by match play, there is no good reason why the challenger should not be ascertained through a tournament success. In fact, however a challenger is finally selected, his performance in recent tournaments must be the main guiding factor in the minds of the selectors.
The suggestion now put forward is that, in alternate years, a special tournament should be held, the winner having the right to challenge for the championship in the following year.
The participators in the tournament should consist of eight players, selected in the following manner.
The FIDE should have the right to select 4 players, amongst whose numbers must be included the previous challenger or ex-champion as the case may be. The FIDE should then prepare a list of 8 further players from which the final selection of 4 players should be decided by the votes of the chess-playing public.
The tournament should be played on the knock-out principle, with the 4 players, selected by the FIDE, seeded in the draw. In all rounds up to the final the winner should be decided on the result of 3 games. The final should be a match of 5 games. Where scores are equal at the end of any match, the latter should be continued until one of the contestants wins a game.
‘The venue of the tournament should be decided by lot, in such a way that each country represented on the FIDE should have the opportunity of organizing the tournament in turn, provided such country were prepared to put up a certain sum towards the cost of the tournament, if necessary.
(c) Finance.
One of the greatest difficulties in the staging of championship matches in the past has been the raising of a sufficient sum from the backers of a challenger. The reward to both the reigning champion and the challenger should be fixed definitely at a suitable figure, and the total cost of the championship match should be met out of funds provided by the chess-players of the’ world.
The suggestion, that in every year either a championship match or a tournament to select a challenger should be held, would, of course, involve a considerable increase in the cost of providing a world champion: although the tournament would be very attractive and would, no doubt, take the place of one of the usual Masters’ tournaments.
Compared with many other games, the number of chess-players is small, and it is highly improbable that a fund could be raised which would be sufficient to endow championships for all time. My suggestion is that the funds required for the cost of the tournaments and championship matches should be raised annually by very small contributions from chess enthusiasts throughout, the world. Each subscriber to a chess magazine or a chess club should contribute a sum equivalent to 6d. or 1/- each year, such amount being added to his subscription. These small sums should be collected by the magazine proprietor or club secretary, and remitted by the latter to the controlling chess body of his country. Would it be too ambitious to hope that 100,000 sixpences or 50,000 shillings, a total of £2,500, could be collected each year? Would not £5.000, added to gate money, be sufficient to cover the cost of the challengers’ tournament and the championship match in each period of two years? Or if insufficient, would not the countries, in which these great events are to be held, be able and willing to meet the necessary balance?
Each subscriber to the funds would be entitled to one vote in selecting four Masters to compete in the challengers’ tournament. The method of registering votes would require very careful detailed consideration.
Incidentally, only Masters who -are champions, ex-champions, or who have competed in a challengers’ tournament, should be entitled to the rank of Grandmaster.
The suggestions are purely tentative and a mass of detail remains to be considered. This is, however, an attempt to put on a reasonable basis a matter which is of great importance to chess-players. It can hardly be denied that the non-settlement of this problem is little short of a disgrace to the chess world.
Alekhine has been champion since 1937: he also held the title from 1927 to 1935. During the first period. 1927-1935, his leading rivals were Capablanca, Nimzovich, Bogoljubow. Spielmann, Euwe, Flohr, with Capablanca by far the most dangerous. In tournaments he outshone everybody from 1929 to 1933; however, Capablanca did not appear in any tournaments with him in chose years. The theoretical terms for a match were a purse of $10.000, but special provisions applied for Capablanca (refusal to play in Cuba, the famous gold clause). Three matches were played, two with Bogoljubow (both of which Alekhine won), one with Euwe (which Alekhine lose). A return match with Euwe In 1937 was won by Alekhine- The financial remuneration in 1937 was below that in 1935. Since 1937 there have been no matches.
The exact whereabouts of Alekhine at present are unknown to me. In 1940 he was with the French army. In the early part of 1941 he wrote a series of scandalously anti-Semitic articles for Nazi publications. It has been alleged by some that he did so under compulsion. In the spring and summer of 1941 he was in Lisbon. For reasons which have not been made public he left Lisbon in 1941 to return to. Germany, although he was apparently free to go to any Allied country. Since 1941 he has participated in a number of tournaments on the Continent, including a “European” championship. He was in Spain at the end of 1943.
Before the war Alekhine was confronted by a number of younger contenders for the title. His six major rivals Botvinnik, Capablanca, Euwe, Fine, Keres and Reshevsky, all had better tournament records, while Botvinnik and Fine had plus scores against him in their personal encounters.
In 1939 Alekhine was champion in name only. There has been no change since then…
1945, the WWII was at its end, Alekhine who was accused by many to be a collaborator of the Nazi regime after publishing a couple of anti-Semitic articles in German newspapers became a “person non grata” in the chess world. Pressure was made by the American players to boycott him in future tournament.
After being ‘rejected’ from the London Victory tournament of 1946, Alekhine wrote an open letter to the organizer Mr. W. Hatton-Ward:
Dear Mr. Hatton-Ward,
I have received your letter on my return from the Canaries on November 28th. Before I knew the contents of this letter it was manifestly impossible for me to undertake anything, for I had no idea what reasons had induced you to cancel the invitation. Now I can and must do it, and this not solely on account of the tournament which you are organising – whatever purely chess interest it might have had for me – but especially because of these very reasons.
First of all you inform me that certain circles have formulated objections based on my alleged sympathies during the war. Now anybody not swayed by prejudice must realise what must have been my real sentiments towards people who took from me all that makes life worth living; people who have wrecked my home, pillaged my wife’s castle (and evidently all I possessed) and finally even stole my name!
Having devoted my life to chess I have never taken part in anything not directly connected with my profession. Unfortunately, all my life – especially after I had won the World’s Championship – people have ascribed to me a political aspect which is entirely preposterous. For nearly twenty years I have been nicknamed “White Russian” which was particularly painful to me, for this made impossible any contact with my country of origin which I have never ceased to love and admire.
Finally in 1938/9, I had hoped, over negotiations and correspondence with the U.S.S.R. champion, M. Botvinnik, to have put an end to this absurd legend, for in fact a match between him and myself in the U.S.S.R. was practically fixed. Then – came the war – and after its termination here I am, being vested with the degrading epithet “Pro-Nazi, accused of collaboration, etc., etc.
In any event, far from bearing any ill-will towards you, I am grateful to you for having provoked this accusation – for the false position in which I have been placed during the last two years was in the long run morally intolerable.
Dr. Euwe’s protest I find far from surprising – the reverse rather would have surprised me. For, among the mass of monstrosities published by the Pariser Zeitung, insults were featured against members of the organising committee of the 1937 match; the Netherlands Federation has even addressed a protest on this subject with Mr. Post. At that time I was quite unable to do the one thing which would have clarified the situation – to declare that the articles had not been written by me.
Dr. Euwe was so convinced of my “influence” with the Nazis the he wrote me two letters in which he asked me to take steps in order to ease the fate of poor Mr. Landau and of my friend Dr. Oskam. The fact is that, in Germany and in occupied territory, we were under constant supervision and the threat of the concentration camp on the part of the Gestapo. Dr. Euwe’s reaction on my being invited is therefore quite natural; but, in common with so many, he is wholly mistaken.
The principal reason which has induced you to dispense with my participation is the “ultimatum” as you call it, of the U.S.A. Chess Federation. This is a serious matter, for these gentlemen have evidently taken their decision, giving reasons which in their opinion justified this step. I cannot at the moment know these reasons accurately, but I am entitle to suppose that it is a question of an accusation of collaborating with the Nazis. The term collaborator is generally used against those who, officially or otherwise, have acted according to the views of the Vichy Government. But I have never had anything to do with this Government nor with their representatives. I have played chess in Germany and occupied countries because this was our only means of livelihood, but also the price I paid for my wife’s liberty. Reviewing in my mind the situation in which I found myself four years ago, I can only state that to-day I should have acted in the same way. In normal times my wife has certainly the means and necessary experience to look after herself, but not in time of war and in the hands of the Nazis. I repeat, if the allegation of “collaboration” rests on my forced sojourn in Germany, I have nothing to add – my conscience is undisturbed.
It is another matter if facts are alleged against me which are non-existent, notably the articles which appeared in the Pariser Zeitung. Here I must object strongly. During three years, until the liberation of Paris, I had to keep silent. But at the first opportunity I have, in interviews, tried to place the facts in their true perspective. In these articles, which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal, and which came known to in Germany as reproduced in Deutsche Schachzeitung, there is nothing that was written by me.
The matter which I had provided related to the necessary reconstruction of the International Chess Federation [FIDE] and to a critical appreciation, written long before 1939 of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker.
I was astonished, on receipt of letters from Messrs Helms and Sturgis at the reaction which these purely technical articles had produced in America and replied in this sense to Mr Helms.
It is only when I obtained knowledge of the perfectly stupid balderdash which emanated from a mind imbued with Nazi ideas, that I understood what was on foot. At that time I was a prisoner of the Nazis and our only chance was to keep silent before the whole world. These years have destroyed my health and my nerves, and I am astonished that I can still play good chess.
My devotion to my art, the esteem which I have always shown for the talent of my colleagues, in short my whole pre-war professional life should have led people to think that the vapourings of the Pariser Zeitung were a fake. I particularly regret not to be able to come to London in order to re-affirm this fact in person.
Please excuse the length of this letter (of which I am sending copies to the British and U.S.A. Federations).
I remain, yours sincerely,
Signed A. Alekhine Madrid, December 6th, 1945
Botvinnik was dreaming about a match vs. Alekhine and the title of world champion. Soltis, in his book (Soviet Chess 1917-1991) mentioned the story between Veinstein (1907-1993) member of NKVD and Botvinnik regarding the preparation of a possible match between the World Champion and the best Soviet player. “Veinstein said to Botvinnik that the match was impossible because Alekhine was a war criminal-not for the Soviet Union but to France…and according Lt. General Mamulov, if Alekhine came to USSR to play he would be arrested and turned over the French government”. However in a Chess Section meeting, which included Veinstein, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Kotov and Ragozin, the participants confirmed after a re-vote the wish of “the match” and sent the matter to a higher level for final acceptance.
- Moran published in his book the following story:
Begin of 1946 Alekhine receive a 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. It was hard for him to overcome the shock, and he could not believe that he would soon be back in the great chess world. He answered Mr. Derbyshire immediately, accepting the match provided that Botvinnik would agree to the conditions of 1939. Poor Alekhine! He would have accepted any conditions. Some days later Michael Botvinnik himself sent a letter through the British Embassy 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 organization 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 place of the match. I beg you to send a telegraphic reply, with subsequent postal confirmation, to the Moscow Chess Club.”
February 4th, 1946. “(Signed.) Michael Botvinnik.”
CLR write in March 1946: “Last month the powers that be in Soviet chess life tossed a hot potato in the British Chess Federation’s lap. Unscrambling the metaphor, the hot potato consisted of cabled message embodying these points:
- Mikhail Botvinnik, Soviet champion, was challenging Alexander Alekhine to a match for the World championship title.
- The Soviet Union was prepared to put up a purse of $10,000, to be divided In the proportion of two-thirds to the winner, one-third to the loser.
- The match was to be played shortly in England, under the aegis of the British Chess Federation.
American chess players rubbed their eyes at the rapidity with which the sequel was unreeled. Alderman Derbyshire, president of the BCF, transmitted the challenge to Alekhine. The champion accepted with alacrity.
So far, so good: world championship matches have always been important for the sporting interest they create, for the arguments they settle, for the publicity they give the game, for the theoretical innovations they introduce.
But further consideration of the most recent proposal foreshadowed doubts, controversies and headaches. For example:
Would present objections to Alekhine’s active participation be dropped?
Would the United States Chess Federation and its Dutch counterpart, to mention only two, give the match their blessing?
Would the International Chess Federation (FIDE) agree to the match; and if it did, would It stipulate that both players must agree to be bound for the future by FIDE rules for holding world championship contests?
There was no quick and definitive reply to these questions. Yet, could the match take place in the absence of such a reply? So deep-seated were these problems that they even overshadowed what would ordinarily be the fundamental question: who will win the match?!
Almost every factor spoke up for the relatively youthful contender. Alekhine has piled up a record second to none in the history of the game. But he is now 54- Botvinnik is only 35. Alekhine is old, weary, past his prime, not in too good condition; Botvinnik is young, fresh, toughened by years of tense competition with the hard-boiled, resourceful Soviet masters. In recent years, Alekhine has wandered from the main path of chess theory, concentrates overmuch on memories of the good old days; Botvinnik is cool, objective, patient, a superb psychologist who has broken the will of many a younger competitor.
Alekhine and Botvinnik have played together in two great tournaments: Nottingham, 1936 and AVRO (Amsterdam), 1938. In both cases, Botvinnik came ahead of Alekhine. They have played three games, with one win for Botvinnik, the other two ending in draws.Given the temperaments and embittered political background of both players, all indications pointed to the tensest match in chess history. And that angle too would favor the younger player.
To sum up: It was Botvinnik for choice — if, when and as the match took place.
On March 24 a radio news flash announced the death of the World Champion Alexander Alekhine at the age of 53 in Lisbon. First reports ascribed his death to a heart ailment, but a subsequent autopsy disclosed that death had been caused by asphyxia due to an obstruction in his breathing channels due to a piece of meat.
Associated Press said:
“When Alekhine was found dead on Sunday in the Hotel Estoril, he held a piece of beefsteak in his right hand. Intimates said Alekhine was accustomed to eating with his hands, never using knives or forks when he could avoid them, and that he would eat alone when he wanted complete enjoyment from a meal.”
At the time of his death, Alekhine was working on his memoirs and playing training games with the Francesco Lupi, Champion of Portugal.
The period 1946-1948 was indeed very crucial for the world chess championship’s future. Who will be next champion? How?, On which criteria?, when?, for how many years? So many questions were in the hand of FIDE and its president Dr. Rueb, which need to be solved immediately to avoid anarchy.
For Christmas 1945, Dr. Rueb sent to all federations an appeal to reconstruct the chess world. Among the guidelines, Rueb expressed his wishes to decentralize FIDE with the creation of continental zones: Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Palestine, North America, South America and Central America, Australia with South Africa and East Indies… and to fix a democratic system for the world championship.
C&R of April 1946 wrote an article under the title “Whose title?”
“Alekhine’s untimely death left the question of the World Championship in the most confused state since the days of Lasker’s abdication to Capablanca in 1920. The situation was a field day for legalists. Could Botvinnik claim the title on the ground that he was the last challenger? Could Euwe claim the title on the ground that he was the only living ex-Champion? Should the title be awarded on the basis of a tournament?. If so, who should play in it? Who was to decide where it should be played? Clearly this was a golden opportunity for the International Chess Federation to exert some much-needed authority.”
In Chicago, United States Federation headed Elbert Wagner stated:
“It is the position of the USCF that the way is now open for a World Championship Tournament, and it is to be expected that the International Chess Federation will act upon the matter at its meeting this summer. Otherwise, the USCF will consider independent action with respect to the world title.”
Dr. Euwe declared in Amsterdam his preference for an open tourney for the title. Dr. Rueb, president of the International Chess Federation, told reporters that he expected such a tourney to be held in the USA. At the same time the FIDE president set up a committee including British, Belgian and Czech delegates with the aim to draft a proposal to solve the world championship title.
The views of the USCF published in May 1946 were clear: The match system may have been good enough in Steinitz’s day, but it does not meet the standards of modern chess competition. The number of contenders for the title is much larger today and provision must be made to give these men an equal opportunity to win the highest honors in chess while they are still I their prime… Under the tournament system, a champion wins the title for an limited period-one or two years. He secures no life interest in the title and has no control over future competition, except during the period he is champion. We believe that tournament system should be adopted by FIDE for world title competition. It has proved highly in every country that has adopted it. .
The Russian-French master E. Znosko-Borovsky gave some interesting view about the deadlock in the BCM: “The sudden and premature death of Alekhine has raised the question of the World’s Championship, which is in itself simple but lends itself, for the time being, to dangerous complications. It has roused many passions and rivalries in the chess world if we are to judge by the rumours which reach us from everywhere. In the USA there is a project of an International Tournament to settle the question, there is an invitation from the Argentine for the President of the International Chess Federation to come over and discuss the matter, and there are other suggestions.
The position would be different if we possessed a world organization with sufficient authority to implement their decisions. Unfortunately this is not the case. Quite naturally it should be their business to solve these difficult problems.
The question never was within the province of the F.I.D.E. (as Euwe wanted it to be when he became World Champion) and in the absence of funds all discussions and resolutions on the subject remained theoretical and without practical application.
Since the war the situation has become appreciably worse and it will take some time before this organization can be reconstructed and they can resume their labours. But as long as financial means are lacking and the Federation is not able on its own means, or with the help of the various National Federations to see to the organization of World Championship contests, their decisions will have but a moral importance, closely dependent tin the value of the members of the committee and will not be accepted by anyone as a matter o’ course.
As for international Tournaments, they are open to a number of objections. On what grounds should one or the other country assume the right to decide on a matter in which the whole world is interested? For eight years now the World Championship has never been decided by tournaments but by matches, for tournaments carry a certain element of luck and hazard.
There would, at a events, have to be tournaments not between a great number of players but with a limited number of participants who would play several games with each other.
Now who would participate in the projected tournaments? Let us discuss it from a practical point of view. No doubt Fine and Reshevsky are considered the strongest players in the United States. But the actual champion is Denker: he could
not, therefore, legitimately be left out. In the meantime l has been challenged by Steiner, and thus we have four prospective candidates from the U.S.A. alone. Would it not be more logical to ask them to settle the question of national superiority first of all. so that only the best one should compete for the world title? On the other hand how much time would this require? In any case the same reasoning would apply to other countries, at least those who possess players who might become world champions, first and foremost the U.S.S.R. Here the position is clearer, for Botvinnik is beyond any doubt their best representative. But if America sends four representatives, it would be ludicrous for the U.S.S.R. to send only one, especially as they have a Keres among their leading players. But he does not play even second board so that we have three more candidates, even if we do not consider Flohr. But in the world there are other claimants, to name only one—Euwe. In a tournament let but one of this class o’ player default and the result of the competition becomes entirely fallacious.
As it is not a matter of immediate urgency to have a new worlds champion it might be left to post-war tournaments to establish the rightful claimants. bus it would probably take too long. The results of the last tournaments, won by Tartakower. Steiner and Euwe, do not commend this solution.
To find out the right solution (and the matter is of such complexity that no solution could be found that would be entirely satisfactory and just) let us go back a little and examine the situation as it is “de jure ’ and “ de facto.’’
Among living masters Euwe alone has been champion of the world. He lost his title to Alekhine. With the death of Alekhine the title reverts to Euwe as a matter of course.
Theoretically, there is no argument about it all. But the chess world might not willingly accept this solution or be satisfied by its adoption. Not that Euwe has gone back, but his victory is now ten years old, and there have been quite a number of young players since then who have proved equal to him if not superior. On the other hand. Alekhine’s first challenger since the war, therefore the last challenger to the title, is Botvinnik. Alekhine accepted the challenge. The title goes to him by default if death can be called default and not a matter of ‘force majeure.’ In any case Botvinnik has more right than anyone to contest the title and, being the first player in the U.S.S.R. and with Alekhine out of the lists, he must undoubtedly be considered the strongest player to-day.
Thus a match between these two great masters, one having the formal right and the other the required qualifications, would be the fairest solution.”
Many proposals coming from federations or strong masters were received by FIDE. Botvinnik suggested two options in a cable sent to the British Chess Federation (BCF):
- Play a match for the title with Holland’s Dr. Euwe, with the understanding that the winner of such match would be obliged to play a second match with the winner of a tournament held with the world’s best players as participants.
- Play in a tournament for the Championship with the leading contenders for the title, with the stipulation that there should be no more than six players, and they should play at least four games with each other.
During its first after-war Congress in Winterthur, Switzerland (July 25-27 1946), FIDE, represented by only seven countries but without the USSR Chess Federation, which was still not member, laid down the rules for the future of the world chess championship and published the statement:
“ The next world chess championship will be organized under a tournament system. Three bids were received: from Argentine, USA and Holland but for practical reasons Holland has been selected. The tournament will be organized in one venue in June 1947. The tournament will have fours rounds and no more than four games per week will be played. No extra stipend will be paid to the participants. Are nominated as participants:
- Dr. M. Euwe, former World Champion.
- The American masters Reshevsky and Fine, or two other masters which will be designed by the USCF before September 1, 1946.
- The Russian master Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov or three other masters nominated by the USSR Federation before September 1, 1946.
- If the winners of Groningen and Prague tournaments are not among the above nominated, they will play a match in Prague under the auspices of FIDE. The name of the winner will be add to the list of the participants. If one of them is already qualified the then the other one will be selected.
In case if the World Championship tournament will finish with a tie for first place, a match will be organized in Russia under the conditions which shall de decided later by the Qualification Committee.
The program established for the next two years shall be as follow:
1947 World Championship Tournament in Holland to be financed by the Dutch Chess Federation.
1946/47 Zonal tournaments financed by the organizers.
1948 Interzonal tournament with 20 participants with the winners of the Zonals and Masters nominated by the Qualification’s Committee. The tournament to be financed by the organizer.
1949 Candidates’ s Tournament with 10 players(including the 5 best from the 1947 World Championship Tournament plus the 5 best from the Interzonal 1948). Financed by the organizer. Each federation represented will be charged with an entry fee of SFR. 1,000. The sum collected will be distributed among all the participant
1950 Match for the World Championship between the winner of 1947 and the winner of the Candidates’ s Tournament of 1949. Each federation will be charged with $4,000 for the prize fund. The Organizer will cover the organizing cost plus $6,000 for the prize fund. The winner’s share will be $6,000 and the loser’s share $4,000
Botvinnik won Groningen and the USCF complained to FIDE against the unfairness condition to the American players who did not travel to Prague due to short notice. A proposal was sent by USCF to FIDE with a request to accept automatically an American player as a ninth qualifier. A demand, which was immediately rejected by Dr. Rueb. Miguel Najdorf (ARG) was declared winner of Prague tournament but critics came that this event can’t be counted as a qualification’s tournament. Finally to the chaotic climax, Dr. Rueb declared that FIDE has withdraw FIDE’s claim to organize the tournament which work lies mainly between Euwe for the Dutch Chess federation and the Russian Chess Federation.
Dr. Euwe was traveling around the world to find support for the World Championship. The Dutch Federation rejected the Soviet proposal for a full tournament in Moscow but agreed for a slip and the first half to be played in Moscow in September and the second half in Holland in October 1947.
C&R of April 1947 informed about the difficulties to find the right system to please all participants:
”The World Championship tangle had grown even more complex and difficult to solve. The FIDE had definitely withdrawn m the organization of the World Championship Tournament, had abandoned its grandiose scheme for determining future candidates.
Newer troubles developed. Holland, having raised $16,000 for the FIDE tournament, was eager to settle this important chess event. The Dutch Chess Federation designated Dr. Max Euwe, only living ex-World Champion, to negotiate with the Russian Chess Federation to bring such a tournament to fruition. A meeting of the six prospective contestants (Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov as decided the FIDE and sanctioned by the Dutch Federation) was arranged in Moscow during the U.S.A—USSR match. Here, Botvinnik stated angrily that, during the Groningen tournament, one Dutch paper 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. However, it was finally agreed to stage the event half in Holland, half In Russia, but there was the further question of where the first half should he held.
Time troubles developed as well. The Russians wanted the tournament held in April, while Reuben Fine, his mind on is academic duties, favored August as the earliest date. In Holland, backers of the proposed tournament saw the costs rising, estimated that their half of the tournament might run to $24,000 or even $28,000.
Further, the U. S. Chess Federation indicated before the recent U. S. championship that it would regard the players finishing first and second as its candidates for the World Tournament. Now it stood by its word, declined to recognize any arrangement which would not accept Reshevsky and Kashdan as U. S. representatives…”
- Botvinnik, considered as the strongest player at the time published an article in Sharmaty CCCP which was translated and published in Chess and Chess Review of 1947
“Two questions must be settled in respect to the holding of a match for the world championship:
- the determination of who is to be candidate for the title, and 2. the holding of the match between the champion and his rival. Obviously, the second question is the basic one, but it, would be a mistake to under-estimate the importance of the first.
Up to the present time, candidates for the title have never been formally chosen by objective means, i.e., by the holding of competitions among the candidates themselves. To be sure, this is only formally, since before Capablanca and Alekhine challenged the world champion at different times, they had won general recognition by demonstrating their superiority over other candidates in a series of tournaments. But in most cases, chess players who have succeeded in obtaining matches with the champion, as for example Bogoljubov, Schlechter, Marshall, Janowski and others (not including Zukertort, Tchigorin and Tarrasch), have been in no way superior to other candidates to the title, Even Lasker had not yet enjoyed any particular success before his match with Steinitz. On the other hand, equally great masters, such as Rubinstein and Nimzovitch, whose successes gave them much more right to a match with the champion than the above mentioned grandmasters, had no opportunity to fight for the title.
What was the reason for this? Why, if we may so put it, was fate kind to some and cruel to others?
Firstly a match for the world championship naturally involves expense (at present, several thousand dollars). When a match is held between the two best chess players in the world, a match lasting from one to three months, during which each of the players, in striving to prove his superiority, produces chefs-d’oeuvre of the art of chess playing, surely the participants have the right to a monetary compensation corresponding to the strain they undergo and the skill they are required to display. –
It seems tome there can be no question about this. The labour of both participants must be compensated, and the fact that this payment is usually made in the form of a prize, or, as in former times, a stake, can be explained simply as tradition.
But who has always been responsible to find the necessary funds for holding such matches? Obviously, this responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of the candidates themselves. As a rule they have depended on lock and the support of patrons. But not always has fortune smiled on them…This is the first reason why champions have played matches not always with their most dangerous opponents.
But it would be ridiculous to explain this paradox only by the financial element. The second explanation lies in the fact that the champion as a rule has not been eager to participate in matches in general, and sometimes has purposely played with less dangerous rivals in order to avoid meeting more unpleasant opponents.
It is well known that Lasker was not at all anxious to play with Rubinstein and Capablanca, while Capablanca in his turn did not exactly crave a match with Alekhine and a revenge match with Lasker. After 1927, Alekhine did not play a match with Nimzovich or a return match with Capablanca.
Thus we see that there are two factors hindering a championship match between the holder of the title and his strongest rival: 1. the rival cannot always obtain the funds for such a match and 2. the champion as a rule is not interested in playing a match with his strongest opponent.
What measures might be taken to regulate this matter, of such interest to the entire chess world?
One proposal was published by the Chess Federation of the U.S.A. in the Chess Review of a few months ago, a proposal excluding the idea of a match in general. According to this proposal, the title of world champion is to be bestowed every year on the winner of a tournament participated in by the champions of the various countries. Thus the selection of world champion would be made in the same way in which the champions of separate countries receive their title. In this respect, it must be noted that tournament playing, especially when the qualifications of the participants are so varied, inevitably involves a great element of chance, and therefore to determine the strongest chess player on our planet by such superficial means would be most detrimental to the chess art. The champion of the world should not be simply the luckiest player in this year’s tournament. He hould be (and always has been) a master whose playing should be epoch-making, a master whose games represent models to be studied by hundreds of thousands and even millions of chess players throughout the world. For Soviet players, there is nothing convincing about the argument put forth by the Americans that the champion of the U.S.S R. is selected by such tournament playing. The fact is that leading Soviet grandmasters and organizers of Soviet chess activities have more than once expressed the opinion that the strongest player in the U.S.S.R. should be selected by the match system. We greatly regret that such a system has not yet been adopted. It is clear why the match system, under which the element of chance is reduced to a minimum, has become the traditional system for selecting the world champion, and this excellent tradition from the point of view of promoting chess as both an art and a sport should be continued.
But how are we to hold matches for the world championship? At present, almost everything points to the fact that the candidate to the title of champion should be chosen in match-tournaments participated in by leading candidates, i.e., that the right to playing a match with the world champion should be formally won in open contest. This of course presents certain shortcomings since theoretically the strongest opponent of the champion may by chance fail to win first place in the elimination match-tournament. But if such elimination contests as well as matches for the world championship are held regularly, all objections should be overcome,
In respect to the question of how these matches are to be financed (for the same necessity arises of finding means of paying for these elimination match-tournaments as for championship matches), various proposals have been made. A characteristic one was published last year in the English journal CHESS. The author of this proposal suggests the holding of elimination match tournaments with eight participants, four of whom-are to be appointed by the World Chess Federation (FIDE), while the other four are to be elected by chess lovers throughout the world from a list of eight candidates.
This list is to be draw up by the FIDE. Everyone who wishes to vote must pay one shilling! And these shillings are to form a fund for the holding of the contests. It can hardly be claimed that such a system is correct in principle, since election is substitfited for fair competition. Furthermore, it is doubtful that it would provide the necessary expenses.
It seems to me that a correct solution to the problem would be the existence of an authoritative World Chess Federation, having sufficient funds at its disposal accruing from contributions received from various countries. In this connection, it is necessary to state that the present federation—the FIDE—has neither the necessary funds nor the necessary authority the last congress of the FIDE, held in Switzerland in July of the last year was attended by representatives from only from six to eight countries, among whom were no representatives from either the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A. If a truly authoritative organization existed, it would be fully able to arrange for the holding of both the elimination contests and the match for the world championship. Nevertheless, we must frankly admit that even, if-such a federation were organized, it is doubtful that the contributions received from various countries would be sufficient to cover expenses.
What is to be done at the present time, when no such organization exists I would make the following suggestions
- – Elimination contests (match-tournaments) for determining the candidate for the championship title should be obligatory. The expenses of these contests should be borne by the country in which they are held. Experience has shown that this is fully practicable even when it was not a matter of determining the world championship, major contests were held in Moscow 1935 and 1936, In Nottingham—1936, in Semmering-Baden—1931, in Amsterdam—1938 and in Groningen—1946.
- Within a given period, the world’s champion should be obliged to play with the winner of the elimination match-tournament. If the player who pretends to the title is able to obtain funds covering the expenses of the match in any particular country, the champion should go there to play unless the native land of the champion guarantees the expenses of the match. In the latter case, the match should be held in the native land of the champion, as was the case with the Alekhine— Euwe revenge match.
- If the candidate to the championship is unable to find support for such a match in any country, and if the native land of the champion likewise -refuses to support the match, then the world championship is to be considered open and the champion loses his title. i.e., the situation will be the same as that which exists, at the present time- It Is clear that then the new world champion will be determined by a match-tournament participated in by the leading candidates to the title.
Under such a system, not only the player who pretends to the title, but the champion himself will be interested in having the match held, and it is to be expected that the two of them will quickly come to an agreement. The circumstances which formerly hindered the holding of title matches will now be eliminated.
It is possible that such a system is justified only at the present time, when there does not yet exist any authoritative world federation. –
Let us say a few words about the coming contest for the world championship. In September of last year, when the strongest chess players of the world were gathered here in Moscow (Keres, Reshevsky, Smyslov, Euwe, Fine, and the author of this article) they held a conference (19th 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. I do not wish to speak of this in detail, since I hope that by the time this article is published the situation will have become more clear. At any rate, I shall take upon myself the responsibility of saying that the Soviet grandmasters are for a match- tournament which will be participated in by all leading chess players, that they are for holding the tournament in the friendliest atmosphere possible, under conditions aiding each participant to reveal his greatest creative possibilities and enabling the strongest player to emerge the victor.”
FIDE met for its annual Congress at The Hague (July 30th-August 2nd 1947). This time eighteen federations were represented. Shortly before the Congress the Soviets had announced their intention to join FIDE. But due to bad connection and flight delay there were not there when the Assembly started. So with only one proposal on the agenda (the Dutch proposed a match for the FIDE championship between Euwe as Champion against Reshevsky as Challenger. Then if Keres and Botvinnik were then to contest a match, the plan continues, the winners could meet for the championship of the world…), the Assembly decide to confer the title on M. Euwe since he was the last unsuccessful challenger. However the Assembly did stipulate that he was to defend his title at set time within a period as yet unspecified.
Euwe was again World Champion…for two hours then the Russian delegation appeared and after a long and impressive speech given by Ragozin (member of the Soviet delegation) the negotiation to fix the final regulations started once more. Finally the final agreement, which was draft on September 18, 1946 and amended during the Congress, was adopted and sent to the six participants for signature.
AGREEMENT on the WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT
The present Agreement is concluded between the claimants for the title of World Chess Champion
- Botvinnik (U.S SR.) M. Euwe (Holland)
- Fine (U.S.A.) P. Keres (U.S.S.R.)
- Reshevsky (U.S.A.) V. Smyslov (U.S.S.R.)
who have agreed as follows:
(1) A Tournament is to be held, the winner of which will receive the title of World Chess Champion. In the event of a tie for first place, a new contest is to be held within six months between the participants who tied for first place. The arrangements for such new contest are to be agreed upon between the winners within one month after the end of the main tournament.
(2) The six players named above are to participate in the Tournament, each contestant to play four games against each other contestant.
(3) Three rounds a week are to be played. On game days the play is to continue five hours, and on adjourned-game days six hours. Time control— 40 moves in 2½ hours, and thereafter 16 moves an hour.
Note—In the event or sickness of a participant, duly certified by an officially recognized doctor the sick participant is exempted from playing, but not for more than a total of three days during tile entire course of the Tournament.
(4) The Tournament is to start on March 1, 1948.
(5) The first half of the Tournament is to be held in Holland. and the second half in the U.S.S.R.
(6) The Referee for the Tournament is to be agreed upon by the undersigned within three months from the date of signing of the present Agreement.
Such Referee is not to be a citizen of Holland, the U.S.A. or of the U.S.S.R. The Referee is to have three assistants, one each from Holland, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. The decision of the Referee is considered final.
(7) The Tournament is to be financed in equal portion by the Chess Federations of the U.S.S.R. and of Holland.
(8) The follow Tournament prizes will be awarded:
First Prize US$ 5.000
Second Prize 3.000
Third Prize 2.000
Fourth Prize 1,500
Fifth Prize 1.000
Sixth Prize 500
Furthermore, each contestant is to receive an honorarium of US$ 250 and reimbursement of all traveling and maintenance expense or himself and his family.
(9) The rules and regulations governing subsequent contests for the title of World Chess Champion are to be settling by special agreement not later than one month before the opening of the present Tournament.
(10) The draft of the present agreement should be signed within one month, and will come into force thereafter. The parties are to exchange signed copies which will be sent to their respective addresses
(11) The present Agreement is drawn up in six copies three in Russian and three In English, each copy having equal force.
Signed
- Botvinnik M. Euwe
- Euwe for R. Fine P. Keres
Through Power of Attorney
- Reshevsky V. Smyslov
(Signed with the following provision to Par. 8 ‘‘S. Reshevsky signs this agreement on the understanding that, his honorarium is to be US$ 2,000”)
Alberic O’Kelly, the Belgian Champion, won the first European Zonal tournament held in Holland in July 1947 and qualified to the semi-final planed by FIDE for 1948. He only was undefeated in the tournament. L. Pachman (CZE) and Dr. P. Trifunovich (YUG) tied for second place.
In a telegram send to C&R (published in February 1948) the American Reuben Fine announced its withdrawal for the world championship tournament: “Professional duties make it impossible for me to get away in time to play the tournament.” As announced long before by FIDE, no replacement was made.
With this historical tournament coming the world chess newspapers had a lot to publish: biographies, analyses, statistics, predictions… In the C&R of 12-1947, Botvinnik, 36, 1st player of USSR was forecasted as a true favorite by leading the past performances crosstable with 57.80% following by Keres, 31, current champion of the USSR with 54.63%; third came Dr. Euwe, 46, former World Champion with 51.43%; fourth Reshevsky, 36, 1st player of the USA with 48.65% and fifth Smyslov, 26, 3rd player of the USSR with 36.96%.
The tournament being reduced to five players it has been agreed that the first ten rounds will be played at The Hague and fifteen more rounds at Moscow. So the contestants will meet each other twice in Holland and three times, in Russia, a total of fifty games.
World Championship Tournament 1948
The official opening of the tournament took place on March 1st at The Hague Town Hall.
The Russians had brought a large and complete delegation with them appropriate for such an important event. The head of the delegation was D. V. Postnikov, assisted by M. M Agapov, and it also included a radio commentator, a doctor, a cinema operator and three correspondents: Bondarevsky, Flohr, and Lilienthal.
The tournament itself was being held in a large hall in the Zoo. The hall, which is really a theatre can accommodate up to 2000 spectators. On the stage sat the four players and on the backstage was the referee Dr. Vidmar of Yugoslavia.
Each of the competitors has been allowed a second. Botvinnik has Ragozin, Keres has Tolush. Smyslov has Alatortsev, Euwe had Cortlever and Reshevsky who didn’t bring anyone from the States choose Prins on the spot.
The tournament was being given full press, newsreel and radio coverage by the European news agencies. Among the famous masters who represent the press are Flohr, Tartakover, Kotov, Lilienthal, Golombek Yanovsky…
Punctually at 5.30 on March 2nd, the first round commenced. At the opening ceremony the previous day the order of play had been decided by the drawing of lots. Botvinnik got number 1, Dr. Euwe number 2, Smyslov number 3, Reshevsky number 4 and Keres number 5.
Games based on report published in C&R, BCM, the tournament book by Keres and also by Euwe.
Round 1
The hall was full packed with journalists and chess fan when Mr. Visser, the mayor of the city was asked to play the traditional first move for each game.
Euwe played Keres. The Dutch choose the Steinitz variation of the Spanish opening, a very theoretical game was displayed on the boards which gave to Euwe a nice position with domination of the center. Euwe made a first mistake move 24 with an unnecessary f4 then more dramatic with 28. Qxc4 with gave to the Estonian the chance to a masterly combination winning a piece. Smyslov-Reshevsky, another Ruy Lopez, was also very bookish opening with the first 16 moves already played many times. White’s advantage was clear but with 27. Bg3 instead of Rc1 Smyslov missed the right continuation and winning chance. With Bishops of opposite color the end ended logically with a draw.
Round 2
While ex-world champion Dr. Max Euwe stood by, photographers snapped Mikhail Botvinnik as he was about to make his first move in the world title tourney at The Hague. It was Botvinnik on the move in more ways than one. Most observers feel that the Soviet grandmaster is destined to be the next world champion but it remained to be seen how quickly he would establish his superiority.
The games between them followed the main line of the Slav-Meran opening until Black deviated at move 14 with a dubious a5 instead of 16…Nf6! with a even game. This strategical mistake led White to make a fine pawn sacrifice for a successfully King’s side attack.
Keres executed Smyslov in 27 moves just faster than Botvinnik did with Euwe. In a Slav opening, each players attached on the opposite side. Of course Black could claim an equal position after 15…c5 instead the passive Rb8. Keres saw immediately the possibility for an irresistible attack on the King’s side with the fine maneuvers of 20. f4 followed by 21 f5 and 22 Qh3.
Round 3
Keres, the leader of the tournament, lost with the black pieces to Reshevsky. An irregular opening with both Bishops in fianchetto, left the Black with a comfortable position. However both contestants were in time-trouble with nine moves to play in three minutes. At this exercise the American showed his famous superiority. He took control of the opponent’s eighth rank after which mate was unavoidable. Smyslov-Botvinnik was less spectacular but interesting as the favorite was in danger in the middle game with a isolated kings’ pawn on which his opponent concentrate all his pieces. Botvinnik had to lose the pawn but was lucky than Smyslov missed 27.Re2 with good winning chances. Finally Botvinnik managed to centralize his Knight to fix the weak b-pawn and save a half point.
Round 4
Both Euwe and Reshevsky built up wining position only to blunder and throw victory into their opponent. After the Spanish opening, the Dutch had a a good positional advantage and went on with good tactical move like 26.Nd5 following a strong attack on the opponent’s King. Came then the critical position on the 33rd move. With his Queen en prise, Euwe sacrificed both Knights, 33. Nxg6 which was probably not the best as the expert showed that after Qg4 Black were more or less without plan. Euwe missed the same Queen’s move on the 34th, this time it was his last chance as Black had enough material advantage and could find the right defense. The game of Botvinnik-Reshevsky was a “zeitnot story” with both player short of time which showed the American blundered a winning position 28..Bc5? played instead of Ng5 with a quick win. With no more time the game was stopped after 32 moves in any case the US Champion had a lost position.
Round 5
Keres, vs. Botvinnik, decided to surprise everyone with some irregular opening which resulted of an expected lost. With some unusual poor play the Estonian lost a pawn before the adjournment. Keres put some resistance after it but the Russian played well with no risk and won the pawn ending. More sadness came among the public with the fourth loss of the former World Champion. The Dutch tried to improve his game vs. Botvinnik played at the early stage of the tournament but Reshevsky had the best preparation with the strong move 12. d5! which later gave to White an pawn up upper game. Despite a good defense by the Dutch and the usual time trouble Reshevsky with accuracy and vigor converted the position into a winning end-game.
Round 6
Keres-Euwe was a close Spanish opening, the Dutch well prepared got a better position after Keres mistaken with 22 Rc1?. Could he win if he had played 31… Rf5! maybe as as many experts said but the move he choose was just enough to accept a offer of draw.
More exciting was the game between Reshevsky and Smyslov when Black sacrificed his Bishop for four pawns. Smyslov did his best but the American hold well and the draw was agreed.
Round 7
Euwe could still not claim for his first victory but a draw with the leader of the tournament was already recognized as a very performance. He said himself: I chose the Tarrasch variation of the French defense because I have good change to draw and less to lose.” Without great passion he achieved what he was expected.
The battle for the center was the main topic in the game between Smyslov and Keres. Once Keres achieved his goal his opponent unexpectedly sacrificed a pawn and went to the adjournment with a lost ending. After they resumed the Estonian went in with a faulty combination but Smyslov missed the right defense and Keres won.
Round 8
The game Keres-Reshevsky finished with the first “grandmaster draw” of the tournament. Reaching an interesting middle game both of them didn’t want to take any risk at this stage of the tournament as Reshevsky said after the game.
The other game, Botvinnik Smyslov was another story. Playing white against the Gruenfeld, Botvinnik managed to build up a nice position with an exchange up but short of time after only 22 moves, he leader of the tournament had to rush to finish in the time control with of course missing couple of best moves. On resumption of the adjourned game showed great determination to win but Smyslov playing very actively, found each time the best move to hold on. Finally very disappointed Botvinnik agreed to share the point.
Round 9
A short game between Reshevsky and Botvinnik when the Russian nearly lost his lead. A Dutch defense which was admirably played by the American. In a complicated middle game with a weak pawns structure, the Russian went for a sacrifice of two pawn in order to gain freedom for its pieces. With time trouble coming and sixteen moves to be played in ten minutes, both players went into this scramble missing of course the best possibilities. The American could have play 28.Qb3 with some winning expectations. At the end Botvinnik saved his day thanks to a perpetual check.
Smyslov who celebrated his 27th birthday during the game, opened with the Spanish defense. The plan chose by Euwe was not the most popular and as expected he had some difficulties to solve the play of some passive pieces. Better but not easy, Smyslov demonstrated his fine end-game play and eventually won the game.
Round 10
The way how Keres was crushed by Botvinnik rise a lot or critics and suspicions among the press members (until today no prove of “selling games” were found). People were unanimous “it was not the real Keres!”. Why Keres trying to improve with Black the Nimzo-Indian game that both players drew at the AVRO tournament in 1938? Anyway the plan chosen by Black was a real disaster and Botvinnik was really happy to get such help and conclude in 23 move with a forced mate! Reshevsky played at the “level of Keres”. A middle game beautifully handled by Euwe forced his opponent to give up a piece hopping to find some counter-play. When the game was adjourned most of the press believed that Euwe will score his first win. Probably too confident but in any case without too much analyses, Euwe missed once more the right continuation with the move 44. Re2 which gave no more than a draw instead of 44.Nf6 with…a wining endgame.
Those two games played on March 25, 1948 concluded the Dutch portion of the match. Botvinnik was the clear leader with 6 points followed by Reshevsky with 4.5 then Keres and Smyslov 4 and Euwe 1,5.
The second part of the match started in Moscow on April 10 with the opening ceremony. The next day 2,000 spectators inside the Hall of Columns and 3,000 spectators outside in the street were waiting the heros of the first World Championship tourney. A huge success for the organizers. An outdoor demonstration board was set up in Marina Square so that those outside could follow the play.
For the Soviets this tournament was of course very important. The victory was a must!
Soltis indicated in his book mentioned that the Kremlin took also this tournament very seriously: “Botvinnik was ordered to a meeting at the Party Central Committee chairman Lt. Gen. Arkady Apollonov.They were called into the office of Andrei Zhdanov, who was waiting with former defense minister Kliment Voroshilov. Zhadanov got to the point quickly, asking if Reshevsky would win the title “Reshevsky may become world champion” Botvinnik replied. Then after a theatrical pause he added:” But this would indicate that nowadays there are no strong players in the world’ …
Round 11
Euwe was surprise with the opening preparation made by Keres. Some Spanish variation which is considered as out of fashion by many but looks like improved by recent Soviet analyses. Keres played the novelty 12…Qf6 and Euwe reacted badly with 13.Bxc6 then 15. Nd2 which led to a disaster and another defeat.
Smyslov followed the move of the game between Euwe and Keres from round 1. Reshevsky tried to improve with 12…Re8 which was immediately refuted with 13.dxe5 and an advantage due to the best occupation the central squares. Later, after few exchanges, White got both Bishops and managed to win an extra pawn. The game was adjourned, a rook ending with 2 pawns less. Hopeless of course and the following joke was printed in few magazines: “when the game resume Reshevsky was astonished the hall filled to capacity. He asked Kotov why so many people had come to watch a spectacle that could only be short and painful. Kotov replied that the US champion was famous for his remarkable recoveries in critical situations. Reshevsky said regretfully: “this time it was too late for tactical jokes!”
Round 12
Euwe tried to improve an old game of Kotov or Foltys in the Meran variation of the Slav which has too good reputation. Botvinnik showed once more his ability to find the right plan at the board and after a nice tactical move 22. Qg3! forced his opponent to resign in hopeless position at move 36. The more friendly fight between Keres and Smyslov didn’t produce too much. Both players decided to exchange pieces to reach a Queen and Bishop’s ending which the players played without too much trouble. According Euwe, it looks that White (and most all the journalists) missed a winning move with 35. Qh8! instead of Qh4, so we may deduct that once more Reshevsky was protected by GOD Caissa.
Round 13
The first Sicilian defense played in the tournament was used by Botvinnik vs. Smyslov. The number one kept the control of the center then later, Black achieved some good advantage by playing with the two Bishops in a open position. Finally he broke the last defense by winning the exchange, a pawn. A clean victory. Reshevsky was probably happy to see Keres playing such variation of the Queen’s Gambit declined which was already used twice unsuccessfully by Alekhine during his match against Euwe in 1935. After 16 moves Black’s position was already desperate but Keres put some resistance which upset the American who used all his time to find a winning plan but could only manage to go to the adjournment with a slight plus. On the resumption Reshevsky felt into a diabolical trap set by his opponents and collapsed quickly.
Round 14
A big day for the American who beat Botvinnik probably in a day off. Surprisingly, Reshevsky chose the same variation used by Keres in round 10 but of course played with much better convictions. He kept the position closed and gave no chance to the Russian to operate on the King’s side. At the same time he built up some threat on the usual white’s weakness risen from such position and made his opponent in zugzwang before winning the exchange and the game.
Euwe was also pleased today; he scored his first victory since the tournament started. Euwe improved Keres’ game of round 12 with 10.a4! White managed to secure both Bishops and where had already better when Black mistaken with 15…Qh4? missing 16.Ne4 and few moves later a lost of material. Euwe could finish in beauty with the fantastic 27. Qxf7 but chose instead to stay longer on the board probably to take more pleasure in the celebration.
Round 15
An easy quick draw for Euwe against Reshevsky. The American was a little bit worse against Euwe’s French Defense but managed to force the Dutch to exchange majors pieces with nothing much left to expect something better than a half point.
For the fourth time Keres lost to Botvinnik. It was even not a surprise anymore but let us say Keres played better than in the previous games against the Russian. After much attack and counter-attack both players got into time trouble and Keres made the last mistake with 38.Rd1?, instead the necessary 31. Rf3, and lost immediately a pawn. The last part of the game became boring with some weak endgame play by Keres.
Round 16
Euwe with his favorite Spanish defense managed to achieve an drawish position against Keres with white piece. The variation was already used twice during this tournament, White was always slightly better but his opponent had difficulty to find some counter-play until the Dutch decided wrongly on move 30 to sacrifice a pawn for nothing much. Probably lost Euwe made a terrible blunder which finished the game immediately.
The game between Reshevsky and Smyslov was the same as their 6th round encounter. White played with an extra pawn but at the cost of weakening his position. Once the position became dangerous White gave back the pawn and made few exchange to finally reach a draw endgame.
Round 17
Botvinnik was satisfied with a peaceful draw against Euwe. The Dutch went for an exchange variation of the French Defense which didn’t give to much expectation for a victory.
Smyslov with White went for a Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange variation with the usual prospect of minority attack on the Queen’s side. Everything went according the usual plan and with the help of an not too much inspirited Keres, White managed to build enough threats to force Black to commit decisive mistakes.
Round 18
Smyslov with Black chose the King defenses and Botvinnik decided for the fianchetto system with g3. White obtained a strong center and eventually won a pawn. It was looking very simple for him but Smyslov put a strong resistance with fought back in the endgame to secure his third draw against the Russian.
It was obvious that Reshevsky made some good homework by improving the Keres-Euwe’s game of round 16. Despite some weakness, the American built a solid attack on the King’s side. After a couple of tactical moves and some incredible 31. c3?, Black sacrificed the exchange and eventually won the game.
Round 19
Reshevsky built a nice position against the Botvinnik’s French defense. White delayed to castle and launch immediately a strong attack on the opponent King’ side. Playing very precisely the American used a lot of time and on crucial moment could not find the killing move (29. Rge3) to blow up the Russian fortress. In difficult time trouble, the American could not avoid the collapsed of his attack and after missing the salvaging 39th move he resigned few moves later.
Smyslov improved once move the game Keres- Reshevsky of few days before with the strongest pawn sacrifice 12. c4 then followed by 14. De4. At this stage Euwe took 90 minutes of thinking but could not find the right continuation. It took only 10 more moves for the Russian to close the fight.
Round 20
They was an unanimity regarding the play of Keres against Botvinnik. Some journalists talked about “Indian sign” or third rate amateur or suspicious blunders…In fact all can be resumed with this quote : “useless to bet on Keres the result is known before the game” And indeed it was as predicted with the 4th loss in a row. This time Keres hold better than usual and manage to reach an interesting Knight endgame before the “expected blunder” in a loss position anyway, gave to the Russian the projected victory.
In an equal position, Euwe tried to force his way to the Queen’s side but created instead a lot of weaknesses which Reshevsky was please to fixed once the treats disappeared. White went then on the defensive and the American showed some first class endgame play which gave no chance to his opponent.
Round 21
Before the game Reshevsky knew that only a full point against Smyslov could let him in the race for the world title. The American played with authority but the Russian answered with safe moves which minimized any dangerous situation. Even with a rooks endgame 3 pawns versus 2 pawns in favor of the American, the experts were unanimous to declare the game as a dead draw.
During those last days of the tournament Euwe was like a mouse for the cat. In other words the Dutch was psychologically dead. Once more with White against Keres, he built up a superior position till the critical position was reached on move 29. Without any explanation he missed the winning move 29. Bxg7 then another winning maneuver with 31. Rd8 and finally blunder with 34. Qd4??.
Round 22
With a draw sufficient to win the chess championship of the world, Botvinnik went for it without any risk and hesitation. After 14 moves the Russian offered a dawn to Euwe which was accepted by the Former world champion Dr. Euwe. By the same occasion the only World Champion living was the first to congratulate the new World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik.
In contrast the game Keres-Smyslov was a hard struggle. Somehow in the middle game Keres managed to find some little advantage but Smyslov showed some extraordinary defensive skill. He annihilated all threats and push back the Estonian who at the end was quite happy to safe his game.
Round 23
With the race for the title being over, and after the pre-celebration the tension went to a lower level. Of course the interest for the vice –championship title was still open. Both games Reshevsky-Keres and Smyslov-Botvinnik were very peaceful and both of them concluded fast with the same the same result: draw.
Round 24
For Reshevsky a match between an Russian and An American was always something very special. Of course he could not accept the peaceful draw offered by his opponent when he had still a theoretical change to finish second. So he tried hard to overcome his opponent and of course took unconsidered risks which end of the day pay cash but not as he was expected. The Russian without panic was just waiting the fatal mistake which came move 24.
Smyslov was brave to repeat the same opening he lost against the Dutch few rounds ago but with huge improvement. The Dutch, out of form, overlooked some tactical and let his young opponent to score an important victory and secure his second position.
Round 25
Since Euwe had long since condemned himself to the last position, the only question was how Reshevsky and Keres would finish. The answer might have been anticipated but the execution was certainly unexpected. The major surprise of the this last round and probably one of this tournament was the success of Keres over Botvinnik. So Keres had to defeat the new titleholder for the first time in their thirteen meetings!.
Botvinnik missed completely his opening development after that Keres selected some rare gambit line played long ago. White gave up a pawn but managed to secure some advantage with an open position and strong Bishops. On move 16 Botvinnik chose a dubious exchange and after more inaccuracies and then resign after 39 moves.
The American journalist H. Kmoch said that Reshevsky won a coffee house game. Reshevsky played well, but Euwe showed no concentration at all. This tournament was a too long nightmare for the old Dutch master.
| Botvinnik | Smyslov | Reshevsky | Keres | Dr. Euwe | Total | |
| Botvinnik | —– | ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ | 1 ½ 0 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 0 | 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ | 14 70% |
| Smyslov | ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ | —- | ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ | 0 0 ½ 1 ½ | 1 1 0 1 1 | 11 55% |
| Reshevsky | 0 ½ 1 0 0 | ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ | —- | 1 ½ 0 1 ½ | 1 ½ ½ 1 1 | 10½ 52,5% |
| Keres | 0 0 0 0 1 | 1 1 ½ 0 ½ | 0 ½ 1 0 ½ | —- | 1 ½ 1 1 1 | 10½ 52,5% |
| Dr. Euwe | 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ | 0 0 1 0 0 | 0 ½ ½ 0 0 | 0 ½ 0 0 0 | —- | 4- 20% |
There was no doubt that Botvinnik was in deadly earnest about winning the title.
Kmoch said: “The high caliber of his play was unparalleled by any other competitor. Observers report that he is a man with a tremendous weight on his shoulders, a man conscious of his mission. But there is at least one other competitor in the tourney he feels the same way and he is Samuel Reshevsky.
Vasily Smyslov has proven to be a surprise. Many people felt that he would do badly and might be last. Actually he has twice held Botvinnik and Reshevsky to draws as well as defeating Euwe on both occasions.
Paul Keres persisted in his inexplicable performance. It seems incredible that in four games with Botvinnik he has been unable to score a half a point. With a miserable 1-3, he almost lost his chance for second.
Smyslov continued to show fine form. His steady and solid play has earned him high regard among chess fans everywhere. Of Dr. Max Euwe, the Dutch was completely outclassed in this group. One can only repeat that he seems out of plays in this company. His only win came in the third lap but actually his presence hardly alters the outcome of the tournament.”
The British Champion, Harry Golombek, was the correspondent for the BCM:
“No other player in the tournament has been able at all to rival the consistency with which Botvinnik has produced a series of great games one after the other. He has, indeed demonstrated quite clearly that he is the best player in the world with a full right to the title of world champion.
Reshevsky and Smyslov have both played well without ever seriously challenging the leader. Reshevsky has a lack of practice and it mus be remember that he cannot be classed as chess professional. Smyslov has enhanced his international reputation by his achievements in the tournament. Smyslov’s greatness lies in the faculty for position play I his extremely fine technique dealing with endgame. Keres has been a disappointment. He has produce some of the most beautiful game of the tournament and some of the worst. This inconsistency is no new trait of character. He has been greatly handicapped by a complete inability to oppose Botvinnik with any likelihood of success (0-4 and one victory once the matters were over). But of course, the most startling failure is that of Dr. Euwe. Flohr believed that Euwe is not playing weaker than in his best years, but his opponents have improved their play considerably. The explanation for the collapse is psychological…He is also the oldest player and therefore, doesn’t possess the stamina of the others.
The Soviet player and journalist A. Kotov wrote (BCM and CHESS) that: “It is rare to find in the chess history a grandmaster who, like Botvinnik, has scored such brilliant success in matches and tournament. In the last twenty years pf playing he failed to top tournament on only three occasions. Only a man gifted on victory can achieve such outstanding results…Botvinnik is amazing resourceful, his plan abound energy and daring. Lately the press of many countries has referred Botvinnik as “the unofficial champion of the world”. Now he is the official champion. In the struggle of the world’s five strongest grandmasters he proved his superiority, winning first place in brilliant style
Botvinnik has vast knowledge of openings, and I consider him quite invulnerable in the early stages of the game He has all the qualities needed for the complicated struggle in middle games of all types and varieties. And he has an excellent technique which enables him to realize the slightest positional advantage in the end game..
Brought up on the principles of the greatest Chigorin, Russia’s greatest chess player Mikhail Botvinnik has realized his ambition of transferring the chess crown to Russia…”
Moskovsky commented Botvinnik’s life in CHESS: “This is the laboratory ofthe Central Scientific-Research Institute of the Electrical Industry where all the electrical machines and instruments produced in this country are proved and tested. Here Botvinnik carries on the scientific work on the subject of the stability of synchronous motors which earned him his masters degree in 1937. Scientific work takes a lot of Botvinnik’s time. That was why he did not play chess for over a year and took no part in the U.S.S.R. championship of 1947.
I had to give up scientific research for a time to play in the Chigorin tournament,’ said Botvinnik. Besides, after a year’s interval I had to try out my strength, particularly before the struggle for the world title. But let us leave chess until you come to my house.’’
Mieses doyen of chessmasters born in Germany but living in England published in the BCM an open letter which contained an interesting opinion:
“… FIDE decided, therefore, to stage an “Elite Tournament.” – Their first step was, of course, to get in touch with the chess authorities of Soviet Russia, for it is generally conceded that Russia plays to-day the leading role in the chess world. The reply came promptly. The Soviet authorities stated that they intended to send Botvinnik, Keres, and Smyslov as their representatives, but with the condition that only the two Americans. Reshevsky and Fine, as well as the former world champion Dr. Euwe, should be permitted to take part. Failing this, Soviet Russia would ignore the whole undertaking. In addition, no substitute was to be admitted in case one or the other of the participants should retire. This was an “ ultimatum,” and, to the amazement—not to say the indignation—of the chess world It was accepted without qualifications by the FIDE.
As everyone knows, Fine did not take part in the tournament, and the FIDE’s sensational Elite Tournament was reduced to a regrettable farce. Truly, it deserves no other description when, apart from the U.S.A. and the U.S, the rest of the world was represented only by Dr. Euwe, who, in addition, happened to be entirely out of form: thus the F.I.D.E. has failed lamentably. ..
One may regret the severely one-sided standpoint of the Russian authorities, but to blame them would be wholly unjustified. Their task is to further chess life in Soviet Russia and it was, therefore, their understandable wish to bring home the chess title to Russia. They could not be expected to exhibit any special retard for the interests of the rest of the chess world. …
If anyone could complain of the attitude of the Russian authorities, it would be Botvinnik himself. For, although he won the race “in a canter” and has emerged in most brilliant fashion as Champion of the World, the whole tournament was from the beginning but a “torso “ and from the sporting point of view was definitely a failure.
To call Botvinnik the strongest player in the world on the strength of this latest success would be unwarrantable.
In my opinion, this distinction does belong to him; and in a tournament of not five, but eight, or better still ten matadors, I would have given the odds of three to one against any of the other players. To win the championship in a tournament which would have commanded universal approval would have been fully convincing and acceptable to all. Botvinnik was denied the opportunity to accomplish such a glorious deed, and for that, he has to thank the undue caution of his own home supporters.”
