Perhaps, except that it's already been used twice before:

Reti vs Rubinstein, 1923 (Sep-25-06)

Lasker vs Reti, 1924 (Apr-09-07)

Interesting to think about Bogolyubov, since that's not done much. The general image seems to be of a over-optimistic beer-drinking buffoon. As his record against Reti shows, he was obviously a very strong practical player but never quite achieved the aura of greatness.

If asked for an "Immortal Game" from each of the great players, you would have an embarrassment of riches for Lasker or Capablanca or Alekhine or Fischer. Now, think of an immortal game by Bogolyubov. For that matter, just off the top of your head name a <win> by Bogolyubov that is well known. Here's one candidate I thought of--but I couldn't even remember Black's name before looking it up.

An ardent Nazi, too, which is why FIDE didn't name him a grandmaster in its first (1950) list. I saw a copy of a letter of his from the 1940s signed "Heil Hitler!" As to his place in history, Edward Winter's Chess Note No. 5515 ("Bogoljubow and Immortality") contained this:

<After Bogoljubow’s death a tribute by E.J. Diemer was published on page 221 of the August 1952 CHESS. Below is an extract:

‘The last time I saw him was in Freiburg, ten days before his death. On 6 June he won a lightning-chess tournament organized among the members of the Freiburg team, for whom he had played at top board since 1950. The next day, he helped Freiburg beat another local team by 8:0 and the same evening he beat the well-known Berlin master Mross (in the last tournament game of his life) to help Freiburg register a 4½-3½ win against a team (Berlin-Eckbauer) which had successfully defeated Luxembourg, Cologne, Basle and Lucerne.

I had a conversation with him then of rare seriousness. As if conscious of the nearness of his end, he spoke, on this last occasion, about – Chess Immortality. I discovered at this late hour in his life, and I pass it on as his closing thought, that Bogoljubow wanted his chess to be regarded as an art and himself as an artist. He feared, he said, that not one of his games, even from the great tournament at Moscow in 1925, the zenith of his career, would be deemed worthy of inscription in the scrolls of immortality. So high did he set his ideals. And so sceptically did he look back over his 40 years of masterly endeavour. Luckily the chess world will not share his pessimism. Countless masterpieces of play remain to assure him the immortality he sought.’>

3. I don't think Bogo really understood or believed in point 2. And that meant that he sometimes tried to hang on to his classical pawn structures for a little too long{. This worked well against opposition from lower down the food chain. But the stronger players of his day were nimble enough to dance around his pawn centres and seriously embarrass them.>

Statistically, Bogo did rather well against the hyper-moderns of his times:

Bogo - Nimzo +7 -6 =5
Bogo - Reti +15 -7 =4
Bogo - Tarty +10 -7 =8
Bogo - Breyer +2 -1 =0

My impression was that Bogo was numbered among the hypermoderns in the 20s, correctly or not. He was fond of the Nimzo-Indian.

<Phony Benoni> This is probably his most famous win -- I think Reti included it in Masters of the Chessboard.

Bogoljubov vs Mieses, 1925

Silly you, I mean, silly me.

<I guess that was just how he concluded his letters, sort of the way other people use "Sincerely yours.">

<Efim Dmitrievitch...was a true chess professional in every sense of the word. He had no other interests except chess. He did not like Fascism, because of the persecution of the Jews, since he had a lot of friends among them....So, the torment of Bogoljubow...by FIDE should remain as a heavy burden on its conscience, because the organisation was in fact blackmailed by the Soviet dignitaries...>

In later memoirs, <Bohatirchuk> further claims that <Bogo> stopped wearing his Nazi Party badge after a wounded soldier tore it from his person during a simul display, and that <Bogo> owned a radio that he secretly used to listen to Allied broadcasts. <It was not a secret at all that E.D. did not like the Bolsheviks, but I think only a few people knew that he was treating Hitler's wild ideas with at least equal revulsion and contempt.>

This actually gives Black *three* ways of attacking. He has play on each of the semi-open b- and g-files, and he has a pawn mass rolling in the centre. White has nothing much in return: his semi-open centre files become a liability rather than an asset, as Black threatens to create and push a passed pawn.

My belated answer:

It isn't easy to play the French well. I spent ten years losing with it before I began to understand it properly. Active counterplay is crucial for Black: sit still behind your rock-like fortress and you're toast (or you're Petrosian, and you're going to win the ending anyway).

But it's hard to strike the right balance between activity and solidity. Sometimes I almost despaired of ever getting it right -- you can try to memorize book lines, but what you really need is a feel for plans and piece placement and pawn breaks.

Sometimes, in my despair, I was *unfaithful* to the French, and tried something else instead, like the Pirc. Madame F. does not look kindly on such transgressions.

But I persevered. And these days I can't seem to stop winning with the French: I do so much better with Black that my club team have me playing black in every match.

I don't pretend to have penetrated the inner mysteries yet ... but all that losing experience seems to work in my favour now. Somehow, I find that I know what to do in the French, even though specific plans vary hugely from one game to the next.