Book Review: New York 1924 by Alexander Alekhine
A first-time reader's retrospective take on a tournament book now a century old.
New York 1924 by Alexander Alekhine seems like one of those landmark moments in chess literature that somehow has gone unnoticed by chess players of my generation. Just by counting reviews of the versions of this book available, it’s easy to see that Nimzowitsch’s book My System, which was compiled and came out a few years later, has had much more influence even on today’s chess-reading audience. I can still remember my first steps to learning chess when on /r/chess the most repeated suggestion for players looking to find a good chess book to read was invariably Nimzowitsch’s then-groundbreaking tome, and this in the 2010s! The times have changed, and the number of useful and easier-to-read resources (heck, you don’t even have to read) has since exploded like a big bang such that in a few decades, I feel certain that My System’s popularity will wane, perhaps deservedly-so.
However, I hope this is not the fate of New York 1924.
This book contains the backstory of the famous international tournament held in New York in 1924, and, notably, Alexander Alekhine’s analysis of all 110 games played at said tournament, featuring most of the strongest players at that time: current World Champion Capablanca, former World Champion Lasker, and future World Champion Alekhine (yes, three generations of world champions), Marshall, Reti, Maroczy, Yates, Lasker (Edward Lasker, that is), Janowsky, Tartakower, and Bogoljubow. Each round had five games, with one player taking a rest day. Based on the notes, we know that some of these games had been adjourned — some players poured their entire souls out over the board in this tournament during the day and analyzing at night before coming back to finish their deeds the next day.
In a way it’s fitting that this tournament would occur 10 years after the famous 1914 St. Petersburg tournament, and the author(s) of the book make reference to this moment a few times throughout. Also historically significant is the overlap of players at this tournament: Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Marshall, and Janowski were mutual participants!
Can a modern chess player learn anything from this 100-year old book?
Every player, winner or loser, brings something interesting and instructive to the table, whether it be tactics, endgames, opening, or middlegame innovation:
Lasker always fought for the win. His games contain fighting tactics and a certain staccato methodology in his playstyle, and in general he played a lot of sound and fighting chess, always extricating himself from dire straits for a draw, except against Capablanca in his single loss of the tournament.
Capablanca had a slow start and never caught up to Lasker, though he surged ahead of all others in the end. His opening play was always subject to Alekhine’s suspicions, though he usually turned it around in the middlegame. His endgames showcase the simplicity and elegance he was famous for.
Alekhine, while not yet nearing the height of his powers, offers much in the way of his analyzing his own games with self-effacing objectivity. This approach is instructive throughout the book. And he generally played very well. One of my favorite games in this collection is his draw against Marshall at Game 99.
Marshall caught fire in the second half of the tournament after a slow start. His tactically-complicated style didn’t serve him so well at the beginning, as Alekhine is quick to note, but he scored a whopping 4.5/5 in the last section of the tournament to clinch 4th.
Reti might have played the best tournament of his life, and more games were named after him in the opening with respect to his new take on 1.Nf3 in this tournament than any other. He took home the first brilliancy prize for his routing of Bogoljubow (who also suffered a similar indignity from Marshall who took home the second prize)!
The other players played amazingly in some games and each had some very beautiful wins and draws. But sometimes Caissa had the last laugh. I will finish the list by showing one tragicomic example of many.
Janowsky somehow drew a game with the White pieces after he had achieved this extremely striking position against Edward Lasker following a queen sacrifice and slow and steady reversal of a losing trend:
An unadulterated window into the Post-World War I chess theory scene
From a chess culture/history standpoint this book has some treats, and I definitely suggest that those interested in that aspect of it read every page and not just the games. There’s an entire chapter dedicated to the significance of the games contained therein as they related to the opening theory of that time in particular. Some interesting quirks of opening theory in 1924 I surmised is that the Colle-Zukertort System (so-called) probably predates the actual Colle System. In New York 1924, it’s simply referred to as a Queen’s Pawn Opening with no reference to Colle the player. Also, it’s evident that already in 1924, 1.b4 was known as the Orangutan Opening. Similarly interesting is that Alekhine(?) refers to the Slav Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6) simply as the “2…c6 Defense”.
There are also references to contemporary chess literature, such as Tartakower’s The Opening of the Future, in reference to Reti’s revived treatment of the move 1.Nf3.(Alekhine sarcastically cites this title with a slight irreverence in his analysis of some of the many games in which Reti’s first move was adopted). On a sidenote, while Reti had begun to introduce his then-radical ideas (1.Nf3/1…Nf6, followed by an eventual double-fianchetto of the bishops) perhaps a couple years earlier, this tournament is where the opening gained legitimacy, seeing as Reti managed to fell both Alekhine and Capablanca (!) with his namesake opening at this tournament. Also of note is the appearance of the use of this opening by multiple other players, including noted then-classicalists Alekhine and Capablanca employing Reti’s ideas right then and there. If you can’t beat them, join them!
While we’re on the subject of adopting openings named after other players sitting in the same room as you, there is also some unexpected humor hidden in the book. This quote in particular left me giggling:
“Three games were played with [Alekhine’s Defense] (Maróczy–perhaps because of his sad experiences with it–opposes himself obstinately to naming it so, and characterizes it as an anonymous “King’s Pawn Game.”)”
Note: if you have the 21st century edition as I do, the computer analysis checking Alekhine’s work is relegated (rightfully so) to an online PDF freely available online (though my edition of the Kindle version has an outdated link - you need to go here instead). The list of corrections is rather massive, and might take out some of the romance of reading this book, but to the credit of the publisher, this isn’t shoved down the throat of the reader — it’s available if you really want to see where Alekhine went wrong in every analysis (at least by 2009 computer chess standards). Instead of reading through all of this potentially old and exhaustive (and exhausting) computer analysis, my suggestion would be to do what I did: If you’re suspicious that Alekhine was way off, load the position in a Lichess analysis board and see what the engine has to say. You’d be surprised how close he is to the mark, even 100 years later!
Getting to know Alekhine the Analyst
In fact, as you read through the book, you begin to see Alekhine’s personality in his analysis of the opening phases — both with respect to the moves played, but also the players playing the moves. Consider this position and the following annotation, which is by now refuted and outdated, but nevertheless stated with both wit and conviction:
Clearly Alekhine was not a fan of Marshall’s constant sacrifices and gambits! You find this sort of critique of players whose moves didn’t suit his style all over the place, and the book is better for it, because at least he’s got something to say and with no Stockfish behind him to back it up.
Speaking of Stockfish, it must be stated that with the advent of chess engines, we find many holes riddled in the analysis of comparatively ancient books. This is no exception — but the real benefit of going through books like this has never been about the accuracy of the analysis or the opening theory discussed therein, but about learning the chess ethos of the analyst and studying their annotations to learn more about how they viewed the game, and perhaps about how they viewed others who played the game, and that is where the true value of New York 1924 begins to reveal itself.
Learning from Alekhine
There are a lot of examples from Alekhine of which we may learn:
Alekhine, more than any player before him, was the veritable student of them all. Because he regularly analyzed the games and exerted his effort at this, he gained a lot of insight into how chess may be played.
Consider the annotation he gives in this position:
The only way Alekhine could reliably say something like this is if he knew how Lasker approached the game. To be clear, Lasker does not appear to have ever been Alekhine’s main rival — that spot always belonged to Capablanca. But Alekhine seems to have intensely studied Lasker, and this could only have been to his benefit. If you want to become strong like other players, you should study them. But Alekhine also does this for many players. Chief target of his criticisms appears to have been Savielly Tartakower. Alekhine seems rather harsh with his contemporary but it’s because his expectations of Tartakower’s quality of play were not met — in other words, I think that Alekhine’s disappointment flows from a respect of the player for the games that he had formerly played. Alekhine’s criticisms sometimes border on scathing, but clearly he had a high regard for the players, if not for all of their moves.
The other main takeaway is Alekhine’s insistence on calculation and evaluation to determine the soundness of any particular idea or move. Alekhine’s analysis is often crystal clear, and I recommend that if one of his ideas ever doesn’t make sense at first, the reader is best served by trying to see what Alekhine saw. One method that comes up frequently in Alekhine’s analysis is reciprocal thinking. (If you want to know more about this concept, I found this video very enlightening). Alekhine often finds counterintuitive moves, usually containing some hidden prophylactic feature, and it may require you to play out a proposed sequence of moves without that move, in order to see why the move was necessary. This technique is one hallmark of strong players, and I find that Alekhine uses it a lot in his calculations and published analysis, New York 1924 being no exception.
What’s in it for you?
There is a lot to be gained from this book for the first-time reader. 110 games annotated by one of the greatest attacking players and analysts of all time can’t steer you wrong. Even where the engine spoils the fun, Alekhine’s style of analysis and treatment especially of the opening, middlegame, and endgame with a high regard for the initiative cannot fail to teach the studious reader.
As far as who this book is for, it checks many boxes.
To start, this was a monumental effort of a tournament with a lot of historical significance. Alekhine’s analytical efforts and prowess are similarly monumental. The accuracy with which he analyzed is still shocking today.
Alekhine is sometimes known as the father of modern chess analysis. Do you need proof? This book shows why. Do you want to learn how to analyze? Alekhine has given you 110 examples of how to analyze a game. How do you become a strong player? You analyze the games of those you wish to defeat (including your current self)!
Do you want to learn how to look for the initiative? Read Alekhine’s analysis and pay attention to how he tries to find a way to play for the win in every single position.
If you are a fan of the Ruy Lopez, Queen’s Gambit Declined, French Defense, or Reti Opening, this book features many examples of how those openings used to be played, and while the analysis of openings in particular is usually outdated, the concepts of how these openings have been played can still be beneficial for your general and thematic understanding of how these openings should be played.
Lastly, if you are a lover of “the classics” in chess literature, I get the feeling that no self-respecting book collector or reader could honestly go without this one, and in my opinion (admittedly, short-lived and only three years into reading chess books), this is veritably a classic of classics.
Highly recommended, for the above reasons, and so many more!
5/5
P.S. Though I had my eyes set on this book for a while, I was further compelled to purchase and read it due to GM Jesse Kraii’s review of this book for the Chess Dojo, and recommend that video as well, in case you’re wondering how a stronger player views this book:
Excellent review and thanks for prompting me to add it to my library as just purchased it 😃