From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: STOP BASHING ALEKINE (hyde reply)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:20:06 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <Bw2up1.Ix8@cs.dal.ca>, hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.214138.10452@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
> |> 
> |> the thing i don't like is that capablanca was no saint when it
> |> came to defending the crown.
> 
> 	Champion six years, one defense.  But remember,
> 	nobody thought he could be beaten, so financial
> 	backers for a challenge were hard to get. Only Lasker could
> 	have put up a reasonable fight vs Capa before 1925, and
> 	he wasn't interested.  A tournament was held to determine the
> 	challenger, and Capa duly played his strongest opponent.
> 	The same cannot be said for Alekhine.
>

you're wrong. rubinstein challenged capablanca right after his winning
the title from lasker. capablanca basically dodged the challenge since
rubinstein was a TUFF opponent. a group of grandmasters even convened
in london to set some ground rules about the title.

they said that the world champ HAD to defend his title within a year
of winning it. of course the "chess machine" didn't listen.

in fact, capablanca didn't even defend his title until six years after
winning it. he accepted a challenge from ALEKINE!!!!

at the time, everybody thought "big deal"...Alekine hadn't won a single
tournament game from capablana....ever. sound like much of a challenge?

capablanca was making his token defense. he took the match lightly and
got his butt beat. serves him right!

of course alekine then proceeded to do the same thing that lasker and
capablanca did...not defend the title except under situations that he
knew he could win.
 
> 
>  how many defenses did he have in
> |> his years of holding the title???? That's one of the reasons 
> |> that FIDE came into being...becuase capablanca he didn't like
> |> to risk it to ANYBODY!!!
> 
> 	No.  Alekhine was the inspiration for the current system
> 	of selecting candidates.  Capa may have played only once, but
> 	it was against the best opponent. Your claim is ludicrous, for
> 	Capa never thought he was risking his title by playing a
> 	match.  Alekhine showed him wrong. Alekhine hung on for years
> 	when he was only (at most) first among equals, and dodged many
> 	dangerous opponents.  I agree, however, that Capa did not pursue
> 	the rematch with as much eagerness as has been portrayed.
>

no. there was talk about some governing body LONG BEFORE alekine...
and capablanca was the inspiration.
 
> 
>  at least alekine would play saps who
> |> didn't stand a chance! that's better than nothing!
> |> 
> |> what about lasker???? again, what did he have, six defenses in 
> |> 20 years???
> 
> 	FIDE says you should defend once in three years,  Six in
> 	twenty sounds like the correct amount to me. Actually,
> 	I make it eight matches in twenty seven years (Janowski twice
> 	(not counting the four game match), Marshall, Tarrasch twice,
> 	Schlecter, the Steinitz rematch, and Capablanca.  Not bad for
> 	a man who got his PhD in the period, which also included a little
> 	interruption called WWI.
>

actually, my comment should have read 27 years.

here are laskers defenses...

1896 steintz rematch
1907 marshal ...hey, that looks like *11 YEARS*
1908 tarrasch ...who lasker said he "lacks fighting spirit"
1909 janowski
1910 janowski ...he was not even in lasker's league..and lasker
              gave him *2 TITLE SHOTS*
1910 schlecter "the drawing master" he was a real threat to lasker,
               but lasker dealt with that threat which i will talk
               about later
1921 capablanca....again, *11 YEARS* between defenses. 



 
>  and he usually stacked the deck in his favor so that
> |> he wouldn't lose.
> 
> 	Justify that. He played anybody who had the money.
>

he only played people who he knew he could beat...except possibly
frank marshall, even then i think lasker was a favorite.

against capablanca, he wanted to RESIGN THE TITLE rather than lose, but
the money was too great so he played and got beat.

now for stacking the deck in his favor...in his match with schlecter
who was a real threat...schlecter had to beat lasker by *2 POINTS*.

did you read that?!?!?! *2 POINTS*

after 9 games, schlecter was ahead by 1 point, with one game to go. so
the drawing master had to play for a win even though he could have
fallen on the football and run out the clock. instead the drawing master
played for a win and LOST!!! so after 10 games, lasker was declared
the champ because the score was tied. 

the tenth games was even considered an easy draw, but schlecter HAD to 
play for blood! why??? because he had to win by 2 points!!!

you didn't see lasker run to schlecter for a rematch did you??? (like
he did with janowski).
 
> 
> |> 
> |> so anyways, don't go bashing alekine unless you do so in the same
> |> breath that you bash capablanca and lasker...and what about the
> |> worst of them all....sir howard staunton.
> 
> 	First point, he was never knighted.  Chess players did not
> 	get knighted in those days - the first may have been Sir Harry
> 	Golombeck, probably in the 1970's.
>

i was of the impression that howard staunton WAS knighted...but not as
a chessplayer but rather for his work as a shakespearean actor and
scholar. i think he was also of noble birth.

on this point, i may be mistaken. could somebody look it up. i've got
very little information in my library on staunton.




as far as your comments go about the morphy staunton accounts being
yellow journalistic creations of fredrick edge...you may be right 
since all of my information was taken from sources which either
directly or indirectly draw from those accounts.

i'm waiting for somebody to post a different account of the morphy-
staunton affair.





of course, back to my ORIGINAL POINT...don't bash alekine for his evils
as world chess champion unless you also do it to others. he acted exactly
as others who won the title did...

they fought like grim death to win the crown, and once it was theirs, 
they did everything in their power NOT TO LOSE IT!!!!

don wedding



 
> 
> 
> 						Bill Hyde
> Department of Oceanography
> Dalhousie University,
> Halifax, Nova Scotia
> hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
> 
> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> don wedding
> |>