As black can't play 1...c2-c4 and Botvinnik never opened, against Alexander, with 1.c2-c4 as white, the above quote of the day appears to be another descriptive to algebraic transcription error.

The man:

<There was never any sense of strain because you always knew where you stood with him. He viewed himself with the same dispassion as he did others. and was his own sternest critic. If anything went wrong in his life, or if he made an error of judgment, he was always ready to admit-not always rightly-that he was to blame. He was never sorry for himself. even when he was ill. nor did he expect others to be sorry for him; neither did he encourage others to be sorry for themselves.

Hugh himself used to say that he did not particularly care for people, did not particularly mind when they were not there. and could get on perfectly well without them. The first statement was manifestly untrue, but it may well be that he was more interested in ideas than in people; and he was certainly far from being a sentimentalist. There was plenty of Irish toughness about him, and his realistic attitud e to life sometimes bordered on ruthlessness. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, he was a true and staunch friend in good times and in bad. He had a particular gift for putting himself on terms with the young. with whom he talked as though they were his contempories. To my son, when he was at school at Cheltenham, he showed particular kindness, but to aU of the children he was always ready with practical help and encouragement. There are not many of one's friends, however fond of them one may be, of whom it can be said that one is invariably glad to see them arrive, sorry to see them go, and looks forward eagerly to seeing again. I am sure all Hugh's friends felt the same about him.>

< I would guess that he was more uneven in his play than either Atkins or Penrose. but more dangerous than either of them to the very best players. His victories against Euwe, Botwinnik, Bronstein, Pachman, Gligoric and others are evidence of this. When one remembers that he combined chess with a career of outstanding distinction in the professional field, and that he always put his profession first, it is astonishing that he should have been able to maintain himself as England's leading player over a period of some 25 years.

While in his youth his reputation was that of a dangerous and dashing combinative player, his style matured as he grew older and he became much more of a strategist. Although he had a wide and pretty complete range of opening knowledge, and kept himself up to date with developments, he was not himself much of an innovator. He liked to rely on well-tried openings like the Ruy Lopez, which he would cheerfully playas Black or White. But Golombek and Hartston are much better qualified than I am to analyse his style. The remarks that I venture below are based only upon the personal experience of scores of serious games played over the years.

Hugh liked to be attacked. He preferred an active defence, and he was a most dangerous counter-puncher when in difficulties. He had excellent judgment of the kind of positions that could be defended, and he defended them with great resource. Thus, like Muhammad Ali, he appeared to leave himself wide open and to invite me to attack him. His instincts were to accept any gambit that was offered to him, and his instincts were usually right. That no doubt was one reason why he won the large majority of games that we played. Another was that he was a much more complete player.>

It's in the landscape shape rather than the more common portrait and the pages are a light green. (Descriptive.)

Just noticed they have a discrepancy in one of my stock 'demo-board' games. B H Wood vs C H Alexander, 1946 I'll go there after this to see if I can get it sorted.

HeMateMe mentions "The Imitation Game".

Alexander is introduced to Turing as a winner of the British Chess Championship.

Alexander then smugly adds: "Twice!"

The second was not until 1956 11 years after the WWII ended. Appears they did a quick Google search and saw:

"... In chess, he was twice British chess champion." and ran with that.

Winning Hastings in 1953-54, unbeaten first on tie-break, alongside with Bronstein, defeating both Soviet players, GM Bronstein and GM Tolush, may be his most prominent result, equivalent of a grandmaster title. For this tournament win, IM Hugh Alexander could / should have been awarded the GM title!

Hastings was both in status and strength a major international contest, the edition of 1953-54 had three GMs, several IMs / national champions and was much stronger than some of the previous post-war year editions. It was Alexander’s second win at Hastings after 1946-47 ahead of Tartakower, and already in Hastings 1937-38, Alexander tied with Keres for second place behind Reshevsky but ahead of Fine and Flohr (always ten players, top players mixed with some less stronger ones from the hosting nations).

Winning a strong tournament (including an individual gold medal at board one at the Chess Olympiad), was then the main criteria to be awarded a GM title by FIDE, there was no universal rating / ranking.

To compare with following Non-GM winners at Hastings, when IM Viktor Korchnoi and Fridrik Olafsson triumphed two years later at Hastings in 1955-56, ahead of GM Ivkov, followed by GM Taimanov, then Darga, etc. (ten players again), the winners both got an upgrading, Korchnoi became Grandmaster (one of three in the year 1956, the others were O'Kelly for Ostende international invitation tournament that year, and Larsen, at the Chess Olympiad), Olafsson became International Master (he got the GM automatically soon afterwards in 1958 when qualifying as a Candidate).

The next Non-GM winner at Hastings was Wolfgang Uhlmann at the Christmas Congress 1958-59, he also got the GM title for this achievement. All Hastings winner during the 1960s already were grandmasters. Only since officially introducing the Elo rating / ranking by FIDE in 1971, the GM title depends on defined norms (perfomance in an event), and a minimal rating (the definition of these requirements changed several times).

However, Alexander (retroactively with a Peak World Rank #24 according to Chessmetrics) did not got it from the FIDE, and died just three years before FIDE started to award Honorary Grandmaster titles for a few selected strong players (in total, there had been around 30 distinguished players to be given the GM Hon. title in the years between 1977 and 2003 based on previous results, mostly made during the 1950s and 1960s).

< He held Mikhail Botvinnik (+1, -1) in the 1946 Anglo-Soviet Radio Match, and won Hastings (1946/47) while finishing equal first at Hastings (1953/54).>

The first part needs context! It says:

< He held Mikhail Botvinnik (+1, -1) in the 1946 Anglo-Soviet Radio Match,...>

Really?!?!?!?! He held Botvinnik why? To prevent him from crossing the street against the traffic light?

Were they gay lovers?

Did he hold Botvinnik for immigration purposes?

Or was it a mere draw?

Or did he lift MB off of the floor and hold him overhead in a feat of strength?

Really?!?!?!?! He held Botvinnik why>

Denham succeeded Alexander as head of 'section H' (cryptanalysis) in GCHQ in 1971.