At the end of 1927, the chess world had a new champion.
Alexander Alekhine had defeated Jose Raul Capablanca at Buenos
Aires. A few months later, Capa sent the following letter to the
president of the International Chess Federation (FIDE). FIDE had
been formed just four years before and Alexander Rueb was its
first president...

(The Russell Collection #424)
From: J.R. Capablanca
To: A. Rueb
Date: February 10, 1928

Dear Dr. Rueb,

On my arrival in New York Dr. Lederer showed me some of the
correspondence he had with you, and asked me to write you a letter
giving you my views on the question of the Championship, and
with modifications in the rules in the light of the experience of the
last Championship match in B.A.

In regard to the Championship Match I wish first of all to call your
attention to the fact that before I won the Championship there were
no fixed rules for it, nor were there any specific obligations on the
part of the champion to play a match unless he felt like it.

As soon as I won the title, although there was not at the time any
international body which could make or enforce any rules, I myself
took upon me the responsibility of drawing up a set of rules which
would put the Champion under the obligation to defend his title
under certain conditions. Evidently that move on my part was not
of any personal advantage to me, but rather to the contrary. In
drawing up these rules I looked upon the matter from a purely
objective point of view. I must state here that I submitted these
rules to Mr. Walter Penn Shipley of Philadelphia for his personal
approval, and that his answer was that in the light of previous
experience he had no objection to the making of these rules except
one which he modified slightly in the champion's favor. He
furthermore added that he thought, for the time being, that no
better rules could be made. This is evidence in itself of the spirit
that I put into the making of those rules.

In the light of the last experience at B.A. I can only think of two
modifications that should be made. These modifications are as
follows:

A limit must be put to the number of games to be played in a 
match, and in my opinion the limit should be sixteen games. Thus
the rule modified would read: The match should be of six games
up, but if after sixteen games no player has won six games, the
player having won the greatest number of points shall win the
match and the championship. Of course in case of an even number
of points the match is to be declared a draw and the champion
retains his title.

The second modification is with regard to the time limit which I
think should be changed to 30 moves in two hours with two 4-hour
sessions a day, with an intervening lapse for food and rest of about
1 1/2 or 2 hours, with the provision that no analysis of the games
be made during the lapse under penalty of forfeiting the game.

The reasons for these modifications are that without a limit to the
number of games it is quite possible that the match may never be
finished, or that it may last so long as to make the result merely
dependant on the physical and mental endurance of the players. In
other words, it would depend on who would be exhausted first, and
not on who was the better player. This does not take into
consideration the cost of the match, which evidently is greater the
longer it lasts.

The time limit should be changed because the technical knowledge
of the openings and the general knowledge of the game is so far
advanced that with playing time of only five hours practically every
game comes to an adjournment or can be made to come to an
adjournment, and as a consequence the practical result will often
depend, not on the actual ability of the players to win the games
over the board, but more so on his ability to analyze for hours a
given position, (in which analysis he may easily obtain help from
other players or from books), combined with his capacity to stand
work for an unlimited number of hours without impairing his
capacity for work the following day.

No other condition, to my mind, should be modified; nor would it
be practical to play a championship match more than once a year.
Even under these modifications, giving a definite limit of sixteen
games, a championship match is an affair of about 2 1/2 or 3
months according to the distance to be travelled by the players.
Certainly a preparation of four weeks before a championship match
should not be too much for the majority of players. The sixteen
games will take one month to play, making thus already two
months. Furthermore the players, or one of them at least, will need
eight or ten days to get accustomed to the climate and food of the
country where the match is going to take place. If you add to all
this the time employed in travel, which may vary from twenty-four
hours to twenty-five or thirty days, you will see that a
championship match would be, as I stated, an affair lasting from 2
1/2 to 3 months.

In this account no consideration is taken of the fact that after a hard
match the players may be so exhausted as to require a certain
amount of time in which to rest up, thus making their usefulness
void as far as earning powers are concerned.

I am making all these considerations on account of the matter of
the purse, which to my mind, not only is not excessive for a
championship match, but rather to the contrary. Of course, I realize
that in Europe at the present moment (largely because of the
after-war conditions) it would be difficult to raise a purse of that
size, but you must consider that such a thing is only temporary, and
that when a man gets to the top of his profession throughout the
world a fee of some seven thousand dollars, which is all that a
champion can win in a match, cannot, by any manner or means be
considered excessive for some three months of his time, the more
so as he is not able to win that much but once a year, and that even
only in theory, as in actual practice he does not earn it but once
every two or three years at best. You must consider furthermore
that the standard of living in some of the countries on this side of
the ocean is so much higher than in Europe that that sum means
practically nothing.

In fact under actual circumstances, and this you know as well as
anybody else, no chess master has been able through chess to
obtain sufficient money so as to make his standard of living of any
consequence. The very few who are able to live on a more or less
higher standing do so through sources of money made totally
outside of chess. If you will take the trouble to consider the mode
of living of the large majority of the so-called grand masters of
chess you must come to the conclusion that there is no other
enterprise in life in which men who excel to such an extent in their
profession must live and do live under such standards. It is the
obligation of the men governing the affairs of chess to put forward
their best efforts to raise the standard of living of the few men able
to excel so much in that profession, and not, as is intended, to
reduce their earning capacity, thus lowering this standard instead of
raising it.

You must not lose track of the fact that it is only through the ability
of these very few men that chess has reached the high standard of
the present day and that should conditions become such that only
men engaged in other walks of life can occasionally devote their
attentions to chess, chess would cease to advance and would finally
deteriorate.

Do not overlook that the great masterpieces of chess have been
produced only by the very best players of their time, never by
dilettantes and that it is to those masterpieces that the chess lovers
at large look forward.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Dr. Alekhine, Mr. Kuhns
and Dr. Lederer.

With the kindest regards, I am,
Very sincerely yours,
/signed/ J.R. Capablanca