I found the answer on Wikipedia (for so far it can be considered as credible): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_Rubinstein
Shortly: At the beginning, Rubinstein was not able not raise enough money and when he found the money, the match was scheduled for october 1914 but WW1 war already there...

Keano wrote on 02/19/07 at 14:43:37:

Just for my information: was Lasker afraid of Rubinstein or could Rubinstein not offer enough money for organizing the match (or was it both?)

A similar poll was organized in July last year (it means before Bronstein died) and interessingly enough the poor Bronstein was nearly forgotten by the participant who gave the preference to Korchnoi, Pillsbury, Keres and Rubinstein!!  See:http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1153198747

I suppose the terms of the question suggest to me that one is somehow to focus only on the match itself. And Bronstein drew at least, whereas Korchnoi when it really came down to the wire, had his moment and lost. Korchnoi was stuffed in Merano, and truly in Moscow never came that close against someone he really should have had too much for at that time. Botvinnik in 1951 against Karpov in 1978: I don't know. Had he been playing much recently? He had ups and downs of course when he spent more time on his work.

Perhaps too one feels that these timeless matches were a bit unfair on Karpov, whose stamina for them was always questionable, and that maybe that was why Korchnoi came so close in 1978?

I'm not disagreeing with you, to be honest. They're very similar stories; the outsider against the political darling of the time; the way they both came so close and lost with such extraordinary blunders.

I suppose perhaps I feel too that Bronstein was introducing something new into chess in a way Korchnoi wasn't. Korchnoi was an amazing fighter, terrific opportunist and fabulous endgame player (very like Lasker of course). But Bronstein had a magical quality to him - so clearly outgunned in the endgame, and yet able to survive against the great man because of his middlegame inventiveness. Looking at the 1948 games they could be from the 1930's easily. I don't think Bronstein's games could.

In the end though I suppose it's a silly game and people just vote for their favourites. I dare say Bronstein scores for his recent death and his literary charm.

I do think Schlechter deserves more of a shout, assuming we're speaking of the match itself. He played very bravely and well, although of course the game he did win was a little lucky. I've never heard this story of Andrew's about him being pressured to lose. What's that about, Andrew? There were stories he needed to win by two up, to be sure, but I thought those had been demolished.

It was a tough choice between Korchnoi and Bronstein, but I chose Bronstein.  Both came so close...

On the other hand, I might have chosen Keres ahead of either of them had he been on the list (maybe Keres was never an official challenger, though?  That must be it).

Good points, Prince-Nez. What I had against Korchnoi, I suppose, was exactly that he had tried and failed so many times pre-1976. But perhaps you are right. He was the Topalov of his time, in a way – a great leap forward in strength once he gathered a dedicated team around him.

He really should have won in Baguio. Some of the points he lost were incredible. And then at the end he ignored one of my fundamental theories about sport: if you have come back to equalise after being a long way behind; this is exactly the moment your opponent will gather himself for his last fling. Now is the moment to act with maximum vigilance, and allow him to exhaust his last resources before going for the kill. 

It depends on the sport of course, but in general I am sure this is a principle worth bearing in mind. See the 1979 Cup Final.

In other words, don’t play the firkin’ Pirc. Draw again in the Nd2 Tarrasch, THEN go for it with White.

I’ve read since it was Keene’s idea to play the Pirc, but I wonder. They say Korchnoi was very chipper when he got back to 5-4, but when it became 5-5 he became very quiet. ‘The next game decides. It’s just like a lottery.’, he was quoted as saying. Did his nerves let him down – could he not bear for such a tense situation to drag on beyond one game?

I saw Korchnoi in Port Erin 2005, when they put on a rendition of the song from Chess which the challenger sings after the match for him (Chess is based on Baguio of course). He sat through it in the front row and seemed to enjoy it, but I would have given a penny for his thoughts. What must it be like to sit down at the board knowing you may be world champion when you get up, and never make it, and have to remember that moment all your life, never mind being reminded of it by amateur operatic societies performing in your honour?

I am reminded of Doug Sanders, who famously missed a three-foot putt to win the Open and lost the play-off the next day. Shortly before his death 30 years later he was asked whether the wound had healed. ‘Oh yes’, he replied. ‘These days I only think about it every 30 minutes or so.

'One of the greatest ever' - well, it depends how many you admit to that category of course. But I think it's already clear he's destined to be a Keres or Rubinstein, maybe at best a Smyslov or Euwe, rather than a Karpov. Arguably he's been unfortunate in the times he's lived in - it's clear that he found the whole Kasparov breakaway and associated political turmoil deeply offputting, (and perhaps also the hoopla surrounding New York ’95 – it’s clear he found Kasparov’s behaviour there disillusioning) and has more or less made a decision not to worry too much about the whole world championship thang. That might be the same thing as you mention about the magic ingredient, or perhaps something slightly different. And naturally history will remember the consequences of that decision rather than the reasons, however understandable. It’d be interesting to see what approach he took to all that if he did win in Mexico.

woofwoof wrote on 02/13/07 at 15:28:00:

Was there a match Krams-Leko? I must have slept through it.