Ajedrez

Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927
Edward Winter
(2003)

Signatures on the London Rules (1922)

This feature article focuses on the conditions for the 1927 world title match, and particularly on whether they contained a 5-5 clause.

Several times in Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors Part I it is stated that if a 5-5 score had been reached in the 1927 world championship match betweenCapablanca and Alekhine the contest would have been drawn. Scepticism about this has been expressed, and Kasparov has acknowledged (in his interview with Hanon Russell at the Chess Café) that the claim may be unfounded. Here we provide an overview of the issue.

The Buenos Aires match was the only one played under the London Rules, which had been agreed upon on 9 August 1922 by Capablanca, Alekhine,Bogoljubow, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar. They were published on pages 133-134 of the November 1926 American Chess Bulletin and pages 125-126 of the January 1927 Chess Amateur . We believe that the first book to reproduce the full text was our 1989 volume on Capablanca. Clause one of the London Rules stated: ‘The match to be one of six games up, drawn games not to count.’ Thatplain wording, coupled with the absence of any reference to a 5-5 condition elsewhere in the Rules, might suggest a quick end to the matter, but there are complications. We first discussed a possible 5-5 condition 18 years ago (C.N. 880), when the late Božidar Kažić of Belgrade informed us that during the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match in Baguio Max Euwe had told him regarding the 1927 event: ‘It isnot true about 5-5; it is the imagination of journalists.’ The previous year (i.e. 1984 – C.N. 728) we had quoted a letter written by Capablanca to Julius Finn from Buenos Aires on 15 October 1927 which concluded: ‘Should the match here end in a draw, I suggest that the next match be limited to 20 games, the winner of the majority to win the match. Please attend to this for me.’ The complete textis given on page 203 of our Capablanca book, together with an extract from a similar letter which the Cuban wrote the same day to Norbert Lederer: ‘You have no doubt kept track of the match and have seen that no matter what the final result it is evident that another match should be played. I have spoken to Alekhine, who agrees with me. … If this match [i.e. the 1927 one] should end in a draw itmight be advisable to limit the number of games to 20, the winner of the majority to win the match. If someone should win, then perhaps we might keep the same rules.’ An apparent contradiction between the two above-mentioned items (C.N.s 728 and 880) suddenly dawned on us in 1988, prompting us to comment in C.N. 1775: ‘… When the winner of an unlimited match is the first player to win six games, itis mathematically impossible for the outcome to be drawn. There would thus seem to be three possibilities: a) Capablanca’s remark to Finn was careless; b) Capablanca was thinking of possible future deadlock in which he and Alekhine might agree to abandon the match as a draw; c) Capablanca and Alekhine had a prior agreement that if the match reached 5-5 it would be drawn.

Possibility c) wouldappear unlikely owing to the lack of documentary evidence – notably in the London Rules, which made no reference to a drawn match or a 5-5 condition. However, Clause 21 reads: “Any of the foregoing rules may be modified by mutual consent between the players and the contributors to the purse, or the referee in case of inability of the contributors to be present or to be represented, but suchmodifications shall in no way establish a precedent in future cases.” It will be recalled that Capablanca wrote to Finn on 15 October 1927. The score stood at 3-2 in Alekhine’s favour, the games played on 13, 14 and 15 October all being short draws. Between 13 October and 21 November the result was one win each and 17 draws. Capablanca’s victory on 15 November reduced Alekhine’s lead to 4-3, so the 5-5...