MASTERS OF CHESS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 120, 17 November 1936, Page 18

MASTERS OF CHESS

FORM AT NOTTINGHAM

ANALYSIS BY ALEKHINE

EUWE FALLS AWAY

The Nottingham masters' tournament, at which Capablanca and Botwinnik tied for first place, will live in | chess annals as an event of altogether exceptional importance, writes Dr. A. Alekhine, world's chess champion 1927-35, in the "Manchester Guardian." Not since the memorable Hastings Congress of 1895 has any committee been so-successful in organising a tournament in which every one of the leading players of the day has been included. At Nottingham the.present world champion, three ex-champions, and the most brilliant representatives both of the older and the younger generation accepted the invitation to engage in a stern contest which lasted nearly three weeks. How far has this contest, this demonstration of trie art of chess, come up to the general expectation? Has it been on the whole a success or a disappointment? Will it contribute to the advance of the art and to its popularisation? My own answer to these questions, which must be being asked by every amateur of chess, would be a decided affirmative, and I shall try here to justify it. Let us take first the purely sporting aspect. The principal problems which exercised the big assembly of spectators at Nottingham were these: (1) Euwe's play, as the new world champion; (2) the present form of the past champions; (3) the competition of the younger generation with their predecessors. Provisionaly, at all events, •Nottingham provided the following solutions to these problems. EUWE'S FORM. Euwe's result, to begin with, certainly cannot satisfy the champion, himself or be completely satisfactory to his many admirers, for at the moment at which I am writing he has little chance of a higher place than third. i<"or any other player that might be regarded as a worthy record, but for a new champion it incontestable represents a slight setback. "On tho other hand, how difficult a task, both from the sporting and the psychological point of view, the holder of the title has to face at his first appearance as champion! He not only feels that all eyes are upon him, he can see it. His every move is eagerly discussed and analysed by the amateurs of the whole world. Still more closely is he watched by fris opponents, whose great ambition is play against the man. who is supposed, for the moment at least, to be invincible. Complete success in such conditions is only rarely attained (exceptions were Capablanca's triumph in London in 1922 and my victory at San Remo in 1930), and Dr. Euwe may take some consolation from the fact that his illustrious predecessors scarcely did belter at their own debuts as champions. Steinitz was never a specially brilliant tournament player, though as a match player he was pre-eminent; and Laskpr on his first appearance as champion in 1895 had to content himself with third place, just as Euwe may. It must also be borne in mind that since his exceedingly tiring match for the title, in October-December, 1935, Dr. Euwe has been obliged to devote himself entirely to his professional duties as a teacher of mathematics, and consequently he has had no, real training for Nottingham. It is therefore only fair to await further performances of the champion before passing final judgment on his possibilities as a tournament player. CAPABLANCA AND LASKER. The play at Nottingham of his predecessors in the championship permits of more definite assessment. Capablanca's result confirms the unanimous opinion formed on the occasion of his recent victory at Moscow, that after a period of lethargy as a player the great Cuban master is now recovering his past form. After a rather unequal beginning (such as he has, indeed, experienced at his best times) ho played the second half of the tournament with a great deal of temperament, especially against inferior players, giving a general performance worthy of his standing. I find it almost impossible to criticise Lasker, such is my admiration for him alike as a personality, an , artist, and a chess stalwart. I can say only one thing. Lasker at sixtyseven is still Lasker, not, perhaps, as a practical player but certainly as a , leader of the chess world,/with his ' thoroughly youthful energy,' his fight- ' ing spirit, and the incomparable depth , of his conception of the problems of the chessboard: His example is an , example alike for our own day and for chess players of the generations to | come. ■ . Since I cannot escape from saying , .a few words about myself on this occasion, . I will confess that I am far from .being satisfied with my play at i Nottingham, especially from; t;he sport- . ing point of view. In the first half , of the tournament I threw away at least 1J p.oints, losing a drawn position against Reshcvsky and a superior position against Capablanca, and wrecking an absolutely won game , against Tylor; and I played in general ', without a real will to win. I had at ! least the. satisfaction of playing some , good games .towards the end of the tournament, and especially of beating i the only player who. has yet beaten , me—Euwe. . . But I hoped for much more at ( Nottingham, and I account for my case , by a psychological phenomenon to , which beaten champions have at all times been subject: after a defeat'(and, above all, a defeat which, like mine by Euwe last year, was completely • unexpected) some time is needed for ' the player to recover the fighting strength lost through the shock of defeat. This happened to Lasker after 1 his match with Capablanca at Havana 1 in 1921, and also to Capablanca; who ■ ook seven or eight years afXer the : loss of the title to recover his past form. The future will show whether ! I shall be able to regain, my form of 1 the period 1929-32 and to be success- i ful at the return match for the title I in October, 1937. j BOTWINNIK AND BRITISH. ' The great success of the most reprc- i sentative of the younger players. Bot- i winnik, champion of the Soviet Union, , was not unexpected/for he. had al- \ ready shown his quality at the two i great Moscow tournaments of 103,5 and 1936. But his score at Nottingham confirms his position as one of the likeliest candidates for the world title. My own opinion is that ho has , the' best of chances of becoming champion in a few years' time. Apart from his great talent as a player,' he has all the sporting qualities needed for success—coolness, endurance, arid, .above all, a keen sense of opportun- 1 ity; last, not least, youth. (

In comparison with the strong and precise play of the Soviet champion the other young players produced relatively little impression. Fine and Reshevsky are, ■no doubt, extraordinary technicians.- especially when their age is taken into consideration. But my_ feeling.(l may be called old-

fashioned for saying so) is that their chess is a little too businesslike, and not enough of an art. Flohr's result i» not up to his quality; 1 feel sure Unit it is mainly duo to over-plnylng—for years past lie has attended too muny tournaments and played too much. After some months' rest he will do much better.

The British masters of today are greatly handicapped in international contests by the fact that, with one exception, they are purely amateurs, and consequently are not , professionally compelled, like most of tho foreign masters, to keep up to date with the constant progress in chcsti theory. None the less they all played interesting games and games worth attention. I may mention especially the pretty games played by Tylor and by Alexander against Tartakower, tho interesting end games of Sir George Thomas against Fine and myself, and finally the hot contest between Winter and Capablanca.

I have rarely.■attended'a tournament so pleasantly organised, with everything needful done to assure the best output from the competitors, and I think all my. colleagues will agree with me.in this. The British Chess Federation and all those who have made possible the success of the great Nottingham tournament have deserved well of the chess world.