London Agreement Chess
Category : Uncategorized
Already in Buenos Aires, Alekhine and Capablanca met immediately after their 1927 match to discuss the conditions of the possible Alekhine – Capablanca Rematch. According to Kasparov (Garry Kasparov On My Great Predecessors, page 405), Capablanca offered to limit the number of matches, but Alekhine was “fundamentally opposed to any rule changes” regarding the London agreement. London is boring, especially if you try to use chess.com for OTB tournament preparation and you get like, 7 in a row (with French exchange, slave exchange, kid attack, KID defense exchange, and the “Give me a draw now!” – Defense…) Thank you ThrillerFan. I started only two weeks ago with a view to opening in London, so it`s new. It is not new because, as you describe it, I am trying to reduce what needs to be learned. I want to understand London as I would at every opening. I have 8 chess books that are all 50 years old, and I searched on Google for recent things that are not mentioned in these books, and London was a thing I encountered with a good documentary. There were many other things. It seemed worthy to study. I wouldn`t pretend to use London all the time, but for me to learn its strengths and weaknesses, I have to play it, I can`t just not play the opening and I expect to know all its weaknesses. I hope to learn more modern things that have happened more recently than London.
I am very grateful to the person who gave me these old books, some were fun to read, others were boring as cardboard. Alekhine took up the challenge and said that “it is natural that the match can only take place under the terms of the London Agreement (1922), signed by both of us.” (Garry Kasparov On My Great Predecessors, page 406) Sending information or suggestions about the chess mysteries Bogoljubow had difficulties not only the sum of 10,000 “golden wall” but also the deposit of 500. Alekhine, however, signed, in an enviable presentation of hypocrisy, a match agreement that departs from the rules of London. Initially, the number of games was limited to 30 and the winner would be the first player to win six games. [Capablanca] offered to defend his chess crown for a $10,000 prize fund, almost a fairytale figure by mid-1920s standards. Without this sum, no candidate for the throne could imagine an audience with its majesty of chess. Capa cut herself off from everything through a golden wall, the newspapers wrote at the time, and in fact the stakes seemed incredibly high. As is often the case in this life, however, it has been a case of revenge is my; I`ll pay you back. When Alexandre Alekhine managed to find sponsors and fight for the crown, he agreed to give Capablanca a return match on the same conditions of Capablancas. @Ihavenothing sorry, there is so much to be said when it comes to such questions, it is usually years after the event that more information is known to the public that can insinuate opinions about such events.
The fact is that during the years 1993-2006, chess pros had a difficult approach, games where it was difficult to organize, many sponsors saw the chess scene boiling and were not interested in putting money in them with a seemingly widespread corruption in FIDE and a lack of organization inside the chess scene.