I agree with your choice of 26. Be3 even though that is white's 'good' bishop. His only choice really was to trade the dark square bishops and try to get some counterplay by possibly sarcifiring the a-pawn to double pawn blacks b-file for whites rooks on the vacant a-file.

Well, do you know that Bogulyubov is the cousin of Alekhine?

Last but not the least, even an amateur (a very beginner maybe) will not attack and destroy the opponent's side at where his king is castled to make it easier for his opponent to attack his king. On the other hand Bogulyubov did not even exploit the possibility to attack the opponent's king, he somewhat had an open "B" file at where his opponent's king was located, instead he brought all his pieces to kingside to ensure that his king's movement is clogged. He even puts his knight into "a1" square for what purpose? To make sure that his knight is safe and to limit more his king movement or to make sure that it is away from the battleground to make it easier for a helpmate.

I am sure that very good theories are already existed during that time and it shows that Bogulyubov doesn't even have any of it. Normally when the position is hopeless it is resignable even at the amateur level.

The only thing Bogulyubov beats were all good chess theories to achieve helpmate game.

<New York Times, 22 September 1929, page 6 of the sports section:

‘WIESBADEN, Sept. 21 – The eighth and last game of the first series of tests in the world’s chess championship to be played at Wiesbaden proved to be a sharp and lively contest.

As the player of the black pieces, I, this time, decided in favor of an immediate development of my queen’s bishop, but achieved only a half satisfactory result inasmuch as the pawn formation adopted in the centre by E.D. Bogoljubow, the challenger for my title, in the fourth and sixth games – P-KB3 and P-K4 – again seemed to serve his purpose. Indeed, the preponderance of White in the centre threatened to become so menacing that I decided, for the time being, to dispense with castling, which would have exposed my king to direct attack.

I therefore initiated a demonstration on the queen’s wing, beginning with P-B4. In my opinion Bogoljubow should have countered this sortie with P-K5, which would have netted him a promising game. His move, B-Kt2, was a bit passive and as a result he soon was confronted with grave decisions.

In order to prevent Black’s attempt to gain elbow room, PxP PxP P-K4 etc., he elected to play, on his 13th move, P-KB4, which immediately changed the entire constellation on the centre of the board.

His move enabled Black to initiate an interesting king-side attack by advancing his rook’s pawn. Perhaps White might have withstood this attack a bit longer if he had played bishop to queen’s bishop’s square on his 17th move, whereupon Black probably would not have castled on the queen’s side, which otherwise suggested a safe undertaking.

After Q-K4 [sic – Q-Kt4] on his 17th move, he only had a choice between several evils during the remainder of the game.

The score now is four to two, a result which was reached in my match with José R. Capablanca only after the 21st game. If the present championship match also would call for only six victories one might possibly count on a relatively early termination, but it requires the absolute majority of 30 games, that is 15½ points, counting drawns [sic]. It may therefore be assumed that only about one-third of the match thus far has been carried out.

The ninth game will be played in Heidelberg Oct. 3.’>

These tables look good:

http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezqa...

I am dazzled by the overwhelming information (tables). I'll never again utter a word of disrespect towards the great Bogo.

This game was played on Sept. 19, but the next game in the match was not played until Oct. 3- Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1929

This was a scheduled break, arranged so that <Alekhine> could attend the 6th FIDE congress in Venice.

<perifdious>

You wrote: <perfidious: <sevenseaman> Indeed; the champ could accept a challenge from anyone willing to put up the gold under the London Rules, promulgated in 1922, though Alekhine managed to artfully elude Capablanca after their 1927 match.>

That's not quite accurate. As it turned out, de facto if not de jure, the World Title holder could accept a match from anyone under any agreed upon conditions. <Alekhine> proved by example that the world champion was not bound by the London Rules. <Alekhine's> 1929 contract with <Bogoljubov>, and contracts with subsequent challenges deviated from the London Rules on a number of provisions, most notably the lack of a $10,000 dollar purse.

In addition, with regard to the $10,000 provision- the London Rules were explicit that the title holder could accept a challenge for a lower sum. They stated that the champion "need not defend" his title "for a lower purse than $10,000 U.S. dollars."<"American Chess Bulletin" Sept-Oct 1922, p.150. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.188> That wording leaves the door open for the champion to play anyone for a lower sum.

Finally, <Alekhine> definitely singled out <Capablanca> as the one opponent he would hold to the full $10,000 dollar purse guarantee- just as <Capablanca> had held <Alekhine> to this provision.

It was a case of resentful "tit for tat" more than a case of "artful dodging."

<perfidious> On the other hand, here is some rare footage that may shed further light:

More on the proposed <Alekhine-Capablanca rematch>:

"In a letter to the <<<American Chess Bulletin>>>...Dr. Alekhine... confirmed the report that he had agreed to meet Capablanca during 1929 in a return match, or, as he termed it, a 'match-revanche.'"

<Alekhine: "It is perfectly evident that the match in question, in order to justify its denomination- revanche- must be played on <<<absolutely the same conditions>>> as the first one- namely the rules elaborated by Capablanca himself in London, 1922.">

I'm generally not on Alekhine's side, but he was right on that point. If he'd lost the title back +0-1=15, that would hardly seem comparable to what they went through in 1927.

<However, in Weisbaden in July 1929, Alekhine and Bogoljubov agreed to play to a maximum of 30 games, with a winner needing at least 6 wins.>

No, not quite. There was no Maximum Number of Games in the match. Like 1927, it was an Unlimited Match. But whereas 1927 required 6 Wins only (in theory, a match like that could be over in 6 games), this match required 6 wins AND 15.5 points. (One or the other isn't enough.)