Alekhine-Bogoljubov Rematch (1934)

Alekhine (FRA) – E. Bogoljubov (GER) 15½-10½

During the match Alekhine-Bogoljubov, on October 1st, Capablanca sent a new challenge to Alekhine and informed him about a deposit of $ 500 to guarantee the challenge according to the London rule of 1922. On November 29, 1929, Alekhine answered with his acceptance “in principle” with a schedule between October 15 and December 15, 1930. On December 3, 1929, Capablanca wrote a second letter to Alekhine

Dear Sir:

I received your answer dated Nov. 28/1929 to my letter dated Oct. 1/1929. I understood from Dr. Lederer, before I left New York, you only required such a letter from me in order to carry out the arrangements for the match in accordance with the long conversation you had with him on the subject. Your answer of Nov. 28 puts a different aspect on the whole matter and I am sending a copy of your letter in order to find out from Dr. Lederer if the arrangements can be carried out on the dates you mention.

As soon as I have an answer about it from Dr. Lederer, I shall, I hope, be able to give you a definite answer as in place for the match, etc.

Dr. Lederer may perhaps write to you directly. I hope he does so, as it would save time.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) J.R. Capablanca.

J.R Capablanca was still trying to organize a match despite the fact that on June 1 1930, he sent a letter to Alekhine stating that the match could not be organized in the US on the dates chosen by Alekhine and as he doesn’t want to play in Cuba he will try to try o find a venue for the Winter 1930-1931. . On June 12, 1930, Alekhine sent a long letter to Capablanca telling him that despite he is entitled to demand the $500 for the match which failed to be organized, he is ready to extend the deadline for another challenge till February 15, 1931. On June 18, 1930, Capablanca answered on more to Alekhine.

Dear Sir,

I find a clerical error was made in my letter of June 1/1930. My proposal for the match is for the Winter of 1931-32 rest of the letter. Of course, I shall have no objection to your playing any one else before.

All I wish is to fix in a definite manner our match, as well as the approximate date and to have an official stake-holder and an official referee so that the interpretation of the London Rules 1922 will be in time out of our hands, thus avoiding any further postponements and delays. If you agree to this, you might suggest the stake-holder and the referee for the contest. Mr. Rueb I don’t know personally. Mr. Tauber I don’t know and no one would be more satisfactory to me as stake-holder, but as I expect to find the money in the United States, I believe that both the stake-holder and the referee should be Americans. You have been in the States several times and it should be easy for you to name two satisfactory officials.

With regard to the rest of your letter, I wish to point out that my letter of Oct. 1 was written at your own request in accordance with the verbal agreement we had made with Dr. Lederer in New York. Your answer disregarding the agreement, as I told you in my previous letter, put the whole matter in a different light. And therefore there could be no question over forfeit involved in an agreement which you yourself did not recognize, Also wish to call your attention to paragraphs 5, 6, 11 which may clear the fact that the forfeit of Five Hundred Dollars is not only deposited as a guarantee of good faith after both the referee and stake-holder are named or appointed.   

Your interpretation of article 10 can not, in my estimation be considered for one moment. There is nothing in paragraph ten, which could be interpreted as you suggest.

As regards Cuba, certainly would not make an offer after you had declared in a definite manner that you would not play there, and as to the fact of your contention that it would not be equitable for a man of the North to produce the mental effort required for a match in a place like Cuba, I must remind you that Chigorin, a Russian like yourself, and Steinitz, of Prague, played in world’s championship matches in Havana against Gunsberg, a Hungarian. These facts in themselves make your contention a sound. Every day during the winter season there are one hundred thousand Americans who come to Cuba because of its winter climate. That in itself would be a sufficient argument against your contention. However, should there be in your mind any doubts as these different points on which we agree, I should be glad to leave the main for a decision in the hands of M.W. Shipley of Philadelphia, who is the President of the Board of Referees of the American Chess Federation, whose integrity is well known and who has acted in the same capacity before.

Faithfully yours,

(Signed) J.R. Capablanca

On June 13, 1930 Capablanca informed Lederer that he withdraw his deposit of $500 which was holding. Few letters were exchanged then on February 20, 1931 Capablanca issued a very sharp open letter to Alekhine:

Dear Sir, —The enclosed was released yesterday in the press. I now await your answer before taking any further steps.

Faithfully yours, JR. Capablanca

Whereas, you won the World’s Chess Title in championship play with me at Buenos Aires at the end of 1927;

Whereas you agreed during the course of that march to play a return match with sne in the United States in the winter of 1928—29, and confirmed this by a public declara tion to the press of the world immediately after winning the title;

Whereas, together with all of the leading tournament players in the world you are signatory to the London Chess Rules adopted in 1922 and

Whereas these rules required you as Champion to accept any bona fide challenge for your title within one year from such challenge, the match to be played anywhere the London Rules were complied with;

Whereas, in accordance with this provision for the title challenge, 1 addressed you on 8 October 1928 a formal challenge in proper form under the London Rules, which challenge you rejected on the grounds that you were previously engaged for another championship march during that year;

Whereas twenty-nine months have elapsed since my challenge of 1928 without receiving a return match with you;

Whereas in the spring of 1929 you entered into an agreement with my representative in New York, Dr. N.L. Lederer, to play a championship march during the spring of 1930. and whereas although all the conditions of this agreement were fulfilled on my pan you failed to live up to your part;

Whereas since the Buenos Aires match I have repeatedly challenged you to a return match and made every reasonable effort for an opportunity to regain my title, and whereas you have persistently delayed such a re-encounter with me in defiance both of the official m and the tenets of good sportsmanship;

Whereas such an attitude on the part of the reigning champion is inimical to the interests of chess and to the prestige that the World’s Chess Title carries, I now hereby issue a final call upon you to accept my challenge for the playing of a match for the chess championship of the world, to be played under the London Rules of 1922 either in the United States or Cuba during the winter of 1931—32.

And now declare that, in the event of your failure to accept this challenge to appear against me, I will be compelled to claim the Championship of the World by default and will be prepared thereafter to meet all corners for the title in free and open competition.

And then another letter was sent to the FIDE President Dr. Rueb.

Dear Sir, —Enclosed a copy of a letter released today for the press. It is evident that in order to avoid such a situation as has arisen, it would be essential that some recognized body have control of the championship question, and I have no doubt that steps may and should be taken for a definite agreement between the title-holder and the International Chess Federation over which you preside.

Should I be successful in once again obtaining the ride I propose to discuss such an arrangement with the Federation.          In my opinion, a few changes should be made in the present London Rules in order to simplify matters. My idea is that the champion ship matches should be limited to sixteen games, the winner of the majority to win the title; that is to say as soon as eith player has made eight and a half points the match is over. There should be two four-hour sessions for each game with an interval of no more than an hour and a quarter with absolute restriction making analysis impossible during the interval. A game to be played every other day. Should a game not be finished in the two sessions it should be continued the following day in the same way until it is finished and the following day after a new game started. In this way a match would be over in thirty days at the utmost and, consequently, the expenses of such a match could be accurately calculated. Under the present rules a match could last forever; therefore, it is not possible to calculate the exact cost of a match. The Federation should be ready to guarantee a championship match at least once every two years. Should there be no challenger and should the Federation consider that no opponent had a fair chance of success against the title-holder, the Federation would then have the right to arrange either a tournament or some other affair of any other character which would keep the tide-holder occupied over a similar period of time. The title-holder would receive for this work exactly the same compensation that he would receive were he to be successful in a champion ship test. In this way the most advantageous program for the benefit of chess could be worked out in cases where the tide-holder would stand head over shoulders as com pared to his possible adversaries. To facilitate such a scheme the financial considerations should be modified as follows.

$8,000 instead of $10,000 to be the minimum purse that the Federation would have to guarantee every two years, besides the traveling and living expenses of both players during the course of the match. Of this sum, the champion should receive 25 percent as a fee and the remaining $6,000 should be divided in the proportion of 60 percent to the winner and 40 percent to the loser.

I should he very glad to enter into such an agreement with the Federation if the Federation were willing on its part to have a committee of three persons acceptable to me, which committee would have absolute power to decide any questions relating to the championship. This committee would have to be made up of men of independent means, able chess players not recognized candidates for the championship and known to be men interested in the welfare of the game. The following names come to my mind: Sir George Thomas of England; Dr. Oskam, Holland; and to represent America, which I think would be advisable, such a man as Dr. N.L. Lederer. The American representative, if not able to be present at a meeting, should have the right to name someone else to represent him. Sir George Thomas, besides being a man of independent means and an excellent chess player, is a thorough sportsman of irreproachable character, as you well know. Dr. Oskam you know better than myself. The fact that he is a lawyer would be of advantage for such a committee. Dr. Lederer you also know about. He is a man of independent means, conversant in organizing and directing international tournaments. He is also in consequence well acquainted with all the leading players, a helpful condition for such a task.

I should like you to consider and study carefully all the points involved in this Letter so that if agreeable to you we may discuss it at length upon my coming visit to Holland in July to play my match with Dr. M. Euwe…

Both Masters continued to argue for another year with letters and interviews published in England, Germany and USA. Both of then were still hoping that something will happen but the fact that both disliked each other didn’t help. In 1932 ACM print a statement by the champion: “I’m hopeful that everything will be in order for a match next winter probably in the USA.   “

FIDE was also definitively interested in the matter and his President Dr. Rueb was quoted in the Time Weekly of August 13, 1931:”…Facts make it more clear that arrangements for the World Championship should be taken over by the FIDE, representing the whole chess public, which is not less interested in the matter that are champion and challenger themselves.”

The BCM announced in his issue of October 1933 that Bogoljubow has challenged the World Champion Alekhine for another match. The money could come from governmental support as Bogoljubow is known to be appreciated by the Nazis.

During a simultaneous blindfold given in Holland in February 1934, Alekhine said the match is likely to be organized by the State of Baden with Baden-Baden, Munich and Nuremberg as venues. “I hope to win the match to avoid another one and then I could consider a match with Dr Euwe, Flohr or Kashdan who are the great masters of the future.”

In March the program is announced. The match versus Bogoljubow will start April 1st and will begin in Baden Baden for 3 games then the match will move to Willingen for three game then to Karlshure and the rest in various centers. The conditions for the match were the same as in 1929: higher score in 30 games.

 Alekhine (FRA) – E. Bogoljubov (GER) 15½-10½

Germany 1st April 1934 till 14 June 1934

There is no doubt that Alekhine was at his peak after the 1929 world championship match against Bogoljubow. However, he was still reluctant to discuss a possibility of him meeting Capablanca again. The same can be said about Nimzowitsch who had displayed impressive performance at 1929 Carlsbad Tournament beating all the eminent chess players including Capablanca and Bogoljubov. It took Alekhine several years to get determined on defending the title again. The news bringing the name of the challenger became a ground for debates. Once again, it was Bogoljubov. A brief glance at his recent chess achievements explains much of the confusion. He had won only minor tournaments since 1929 and none of the highly ranked ones! For the most it meant only one thing: Alekhine wanted to retain the title and run no risks. At no stage of the match did Alekhine face any notable resistance. It enabled him to experiment with new openings and tactic moves. The match ended after the 26th game with only 3 games won by Bogoljubov. Alekhine scored 15½ points winning 8 and drawing 15 games. Could the challenger expect this failure? Considering his optimistic character, this is not likely. Quite possible Alekhine hoped to use this opponent feature. Thus did he portray his own and opponent’s approach to chess back in 1929: “I may agree that we share some common in understanding the essence of chess play but we totally differ in the views towards life and battle principles as well. He keeps his opponent as a trial field for applying his art and never tries to research on his opponent. He hopes for a miracle when a precise knowledge is required. This leads to an unexpected fiasco that may ruin one’s self-confidence. Bogoljubov needs this confidence more than anything else. His main target in struggling is his personal satisfaction…”

Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Game 4

Game 5

Game 6

Game 7

Game 8

Game 9

Game 10

Game 11

Game 12

Game 13

Game 14

Game 15

Game 16

Game 17

Game 18

Game 19

Game 20

Game 21

Game 22

Game 23

Game 24

Game 25

Game 26

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Alekhine ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½
Bogoljubov ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 ½

 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
A. Alekhine ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 0 1 ½
E. Bogoljubov ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½

 

If the world wide interest was not as much than in the past, Ex-world champion E. Lasker followed this time the match as …a journalist. His views and analyzed were always much appreciated:
“In reporting the tenth game (“Telegraaf” Amsterdam, 1st May), Nimzowitsch refers to Bogoljubow’s psychic state. After the eighth game Bogoljubow asked Nimzowitsch:

“Do you believe that one can be hypnotized?” No. It is sheer nonsense,’’ replied Nimzowitsch, but Bogoljubow insisted that it could be done, at least to some extent.

This conversation not only throws a light upon Bogoljubow’s frame of mind, but also gives rise to a new and interesting line of thought. A loser undoubtedly assumes an inferiority complex in relation to the winner. That is a trait of human nature. The loser frequently does not comprehend the correct reason for his loss. Zukertort never understood why he was beaten by Steinitz, the question puzzled him so much that it lost him his mastery and hastened his death. Of course Alekhine did not draw Bogoljubow’s attention from the board in order to fatigue his powers of perception. The scientific explanation, therefore, does not apply. Bogoljubow, it seems, believes in the art of subjecting one person to the will of another by sonic extraordinary power.

I believe in Magic. Perhaps Bogoljubow believes in Black Magic. I believe that all Magic is white. Magic tending to a sinister purpose loses its power. There is Magic in the creative faculty poets and conspicuously equally in Chess Master.

The question is: can Bogoljubow’s bad play be explained as resulting from a spell of Black Magic? He appears to think so, but although he may be pardoned for feeling this way, he is mistaken.

The rational explanation of Bogoljubow’s failings is not far to seek. Bogoljubow, like everybody else, is subject to fatigue following strenuous work over the Chess Board. Of the tasks set to a Chess master he can do some easily, but others wear him out. The tasks which fatigue a master most readily depend in the main upon his train ing. From my examination of the games it appears to me that Bogoljubow either did not train enough or did not train systematically in the matter of complicated combinations.

Alekhine, relying upon his tremendous imagination and the accuracy of his far sighted combinative powers, took liberties with Bogoljubow, and Bogoljubow failed to punish him for it, therefore Alekhine continued to take these such as great philosophers possess, and the creative liberties. It was a hazardous road to victory, but easy because Bogoljubow seemed to lose his bearings in complicated positions. Had Bogoljubow detected the flaw in Alekhine’s imaginative maneuvers and driven his advantage home, Alekhine would have had to play faultlessly and yet aggressively, a difficult task.

The conditions of the match tempted Alekhine to try his luck in complicated positions because he could afford to lose a few games without losing his title. The success of his strata gem is to some extent due to his opponent’s belief in witchcraft.

Of Alekhine’s strength it is difficult to judge. In this match he gave many chances, but no one exerts himself more than is necessary to achieve the desired result. This law is abundantly proved by Chess history and holds good equally in other fields of endeavor. Since Bogoljubow had a weak spot, Alekhine attacked it. In this he showed himself a brilliant tactician, which was sufficient to ensure his victory.

Alekhine’s style is much easier to judge than his strength. He is the very embodiment of the gambler. He delights in making an experiment, curious to see the outcome of it. He would be content to do so for ever, delighted to think that his own skill and his own imagination are the cause of all that happens on the board.
Theory in general does not appeal to him, it is something to be revolted against, to be pooh-poohed and ridiculed, but he is subdued by Steinitz’ s theory. He acknowledges that, though he does not love it. That Alekhine, if he chooses, can adhere to the classical style as delineated by Steinitz, there is no doubt. When he played Capablanca, who springs from the line Philidor, Mason, Schlechter, and whose strength lies in logical endeavor which avoids uncertain experiment, Alekhine, in order to combat the man of theory, wielded the weapon of theory very adroitly. He is therefore strong as well as imaginative but he will need every ounce of his strength in his future encounters.”

BCM also reported the match and the world championship’s future in its issue of July 1934: “The result was generally anticipated…nothing having occurred during the past five years to suggest that the challenger had any chance of defeating the holder of the title…it may be describe as a good sporting affair, though with too much of the exhibition element about it to satisfy admires of the rigor of the game….The press coverage was for most of the part, less than any previous championship matches…Bogoljubow got himself very frequently into difficulties with his clock…” and compromised four games.

Many years later H. Kmoch also remembered (from Chess Café):

“The years 1925 through 1928 marked the crest of Bogoljubov’s career. When he played his two matches against Alekhine, in 1929 and 1934, his strength was already beginning to wane slightly. But even when he was at his best, he was never as good as Alekhine.His tragedy is that he never accepted that fact.In the 1934 match he thought he had solved the puzzle: Alekhine was hypnotizing him! So he armed himself with dark eyeglasses. The glasses helped only for a game or two, but then they became annoying–to Bogoljubov. Next he decided that Alekhine’s drinking was what accounted for the difference. So during the next three games, which were played in Mannheim, Bogoljubov stopped giving Alekhine odds of hard liquor. Alekhine’s practice atthat time was to have a few quick drinks at the bar during each game, and in Mannheim Bogoljubov matched him drink for drink.Amazingly, it worked, but again only for a game or two. Bogoljubov lost this match, as he had lost the first one in 1929, without ever figuring out why.”