Alekhine is the only world chess champion in history to have died holding the title. On the morning of March 24, 1946, he was found dead in his hotel room in Estoril, Portugal — a chess board still set up on the table in front of him. He had been world champion for the better part of two decades, interrupted only by a two-year period when Max Euwe held the crown. Nobody has ever claimed the title under circumstances quite like his: secured in Buenos Aires in 1927, defended through exile and poverty, lost and reclaimed, and then held until a heart attack (or something else) ended it without ceremony in a seaside Portuguese town. To understand how Alexander Alekhine got there, you have to go back to Moscow, and to the moment a Russian nobleman’s son decided that Capablanca would fall.
From Moscow to Paris — the making of a chess exile
Alexander Alekhine was born on October 31, 1892, into a wealthy Russian family in Moscow. His mother taught him chess at age seven. By sixteen he was already a tournament player of national standing; by his early twenties he had won the Russian chess championship and was being discussed in the same breath as the world’s elite.
The Russian Revolution changed everything. Alekhine had studied law and worked in the legal system of the tsarist government. After the revolution, the new Soviet authorities imprisoned him briefly on uncertain charges before releasing him. Chess probably saved his life: the Soviets were keen to establish cultural credibility internationally, and strong chess players had a kind of protected status.
He left the Soviet Union in 1921, moving to Paris, where he completed a doctorate in law and — crucially — became stateless, then French. His French naturalisation in 1925 was not incidental. It allowed him to represent a Western nation at international tournaments, to build a life outside Soviet control, and eventually to challenge for the world title on his own terms. He was an exile by necessity, but he made exile into an identity. He would spend the rest of his life using it.
According to Wikipedia’s account of Alekhine’s career, he won strong international tournaments throughout the early 1920s — Triberg 1921, Hastings 1922, San Remo 1925 — steadily building the résumé that would justify a world championship challenge. But there was one obstacle that he had never overcome: in every serious game he had played against José Raúl Capablanca before 1927, he had never won.
Two years of obsession — how Alekhine prepared
Capablanca’s invincibility was not an exaggeration. The Cuban had not lost a match since winning the world championship from Lasker in 1921. In serious tournament play between 1916 and 1924, he had lost a grand total of three games — and none at all for eight straight years. His opponents described playing him as a peculiar experience: the chess was correct, fluid, and crushing, but there was no aggression to grab onto, no moment of recklessness to exploit. He seemed to win with the same effortless inevitability that water finds cracks in stone.
Alekhine understood he could not out-Capablanca Capablanca. His preparation for the 1927 match, which he later said lasted almost two years, was built on a different theory: that Capablanca’s style had known patterns that could be forced into uncomfortable territory. He reportedly studied every published game Capablanca had played, catalogued his preferences in each phase of the game, and designed a set of opening variations in the Queen’s Gambit Declined that would steer the games toward structures the Cuban had rarely faced.
The match conditions, documented by Wikipedia’s account of the 1927 championship, were severe: first to six wins, with a prize fund of $10,000 guaranteed by a group of Argentine businessmen and backed by the President of Argentina himself. Capablanca had proposed these terms, apparently confident that no one could reach six wins against him before exhaustion set in. He also arrived in Buenos Aires with minimal preparation. He had not taken the match seriously enough to change his schedule significantly before it began.
Alekhine, by contrast, swam every day, controlled his diet, and arrived in Buenos Aires in what he later described as the best physical condition of his life.
Buenos Aires, September–November 1927
The match lasted 34 games, played from September 16 to November 29. Almost every game featured the Queen’s Gambit Declined in one of its Orthodox variations — a structure Alekhine had prepared exhaustively and that suited his strategic patience.
Capablanca won the first decisive game. Alekhine won the next two decisive games. The match fluctuated, but it never got away from Alekhine the way Capablanca’s team expected. The Cuban was playing the kind of chess he always played — precise, technically superb — but Alekhine was meeting it with preparation he had never encountered before. Alekhine arrived at positions where he understood the middlegame plans and Capablanca was working from first principles.
By the time the match reached its final stages, the score stood at +5 −3 in Alekhine’s favour, with 25 draws. He needed one more win. In Game 34, playing White, he converted a Queen’s Gambit Declined into a winning endgame and resigned Capablanca to defeat. The final score was +6 −3 =25. Alekhine had dethroned the most technically accomplished player the game had ever produced.
He later called it “the greatest psychological contest of my life.” What he meant was that he had not just outplayed Capablanca over the board — he had beaten him in the preparation room, in the hotel, and in the mind, across every single day of a match that lasted over two months.
Capablanca would spend the rest of his life seeking a rematch. He never got one.
Alekhine’s attacking genius in action
To understand what made Alekhine different from every other player of his era, it helps to see a game from before the 1927 match — a game that shows the style that had already marked him as one of the most dangerous players in the world.
In the spring of 1925, Alekhine played at the major international tournament in Baden-Baden. One of his games, against Czech-Slovak master Richard Réti, produced a position so complex that Alekhine himself would later call it one of the two best games he had ever played. Réti, the leading theorist of the hypermodern school and a formidable opponent at any level, could not cope with what Alekhine built from the Black side.
The game begins quietly — a fianchetto system for White, a solid pawn centre for Black — and then transforms, move by move, into something else entirely. After a long preparatory sequence where both players manoeuvre behind the lines, Alekhine launches the h-pawn toward White’s king: 22…h5, 23…a6, 24…h4. Two moves later, 25…hxg3 tears open the kingside. What follows is a combinative finish lasting twenty more moves, involving two knights operating simultaneously against White’s scattered forces, until Réti resigns in a position where his material remains but his position has completely collapsed.
| 1. | ||
| 2. | ||
| 3. | ||
| 4. | ||
| 5. | ||
| 6. | ||
| 7. | ||
| 8. | ||
| 9. | ||
| 10. | ||
| 11. | ||
| 12. | ||
| 13. | ||
| 14. | ||
| 15. | ||
| 16. | ||
| 17. | ||
| 18. | ||
| 19. | ||
| 20. | ||
| 21. | ||
| 22. | ||
| 23. | ||
| 24. | ||
| 25. | ||
| 26. | ||
| 27. | ||
| 28. | ||
| 29. | ||
| 30. | ||
| 31. | ||
| 32. | ||
| 33. | ||
| 34. | ||
| 35. | ||
| 36. | ||
| 37. | ||
| 38. | ||
| 39. | ||
| 40. | ||
| 41. | ||
| 42. |
Notice the three-move pattern starting at move 15: Alekhine’s dark-squared bishop oscillates between g4 and h3 for seven consecutive moves (15…Bg4, 16…Bh3, 17…Bg4, 18…Bh3, 19…Bg4, 20…Bh3, 21…Bg4). This is not indecision — it is provocation. Alekhine is goading White into a committal response while his own pieces find their ideal squares. When Réti retreats his bishop all the way to h1 on move 22 to escape the pin, the queenside suddenly becomes Black’s province, and the h-pawn starts rolling. The two ideas — patience and explosion — are not contradictory in Alekhine’s chess; they are sequential.
Open this game in PGN Base to step through every variation yourself — the knight manoeuvres in the final twenty moves particularly reward slow analysis, because the dual-knight attack is structured so precisely that removing either piece would cause the whole combination to collapse.
The first fall — Euwe takes the crown, 1935
Eight years after Buenos Aires, Alekhine’s title was gone.
Max Euwe, a Dutch mathematician and gifted technician, challenged Alekhine in 1935 in a 30-game match played across the Netherlands. The match conditions were identical to those of 1927: first to six wins. Euwe won +9 −8 =13. It was the only time in Alekhine’s career that he lost a match.
Alekhine blamed his defeat on poor health and acknowledged, more privately, that his drinking had become a serious problem by the mid-1930s. He had achieved the pinnacle of world chess and, in the decade that followed, had never quite maintained the physical discipline that had marked his preparation in 1927. His tournament results had remained strong — San Remo 1930 (14/15, one of the greatest tournament performances in chess history), Bled 1931 — but the consistency was not what it had been.
The chess world was briefly stunned. Euwe’s win was genuine: he had outplayed Alekhine in a series of endgames and prepared the openings more thoroughly than most expected. But the general sense — which Alekhine shared — was that the match outcome did not reflect the true balance of strength.
He spent 1936 and early 1937 recovering, training, and preparing. When the rematch was played later in 1937, across 25 games again in the Netherlands, Alekhine was a transformed opponent: +10 −4 =11. He won decisively, regaining the title before the year was out. He was world champion again, and this time he would hold the title until his death.
Death in Estoril — an unresolved mystery
Alekhine spent the Second World War in occupied France and later in Spain and Portugal, writing chess columns and giving simultaneous exhibitions to survive financially. His collaboration with Nazi authorities in occupied Europe — including articles in German chess magazines that contained antisemitic content — remains one of the most contested and uncomfortable chapters of his biography. He maintained until his death that the articles attributed to him had been written or altered by others; the historical record is murky enough that no definitive verdict has ever been rendered.
By 1946 he was in Estoril, a seaside resort near Lisbon, waiting for word on a world championship match against Soviet champion Mikhail Botvinnik that had been negotiated but not yet confirmed. According to ChessBase’s investigation into Alekhine’s death, on March 24, 1946, hotel staff found him dead in his chair, a chess board in front of him and an uneaten meal beside him. He was 53 years old.
The official cause of death was listed as a heart attack. A subsequent investigation, however, reported by a witness to the autopsy in a letter to Chess Life magazine, found a substantial piece of unchewed meat blocking his windpipe. Whether this was the result of an accident, a seizure, or something more deliberate has never been settled. Theories about assassination — by a French resistance cell, by Soviet intelligence, or by someone else entirely — circulate in chess history literature to this day. Canadian grandmaster Kevin Spraggett, who has lived in Portugal and investigated the case extensively, has published evidence suggesting that the Portuguese secret police PIDE manipulated both the crime scene and the autopsy.
He remains the only world chess champion to have died while holding the title. His death was unwitnessed, the evidence tampered with, and the question unanswered.
Alekhine’s lasting legacy
Alekhine gave his name to one of the most distinctive opening systems in chess: Alekhine’s Defence, reached after 1.e4 Nf6. The idea — inviting White to advance pawns into the centre and then attacking the overextended structure — was heretical in the 1920s and remains one of the sharpest tests of 1.e4 at the highest level today. Several other opening variations bear his name, including the Alekhine-Chatard Attack in the French Defence.
Beyond openings, his two-volume My Best Games of Chess (covering 1908–1923 and 1924–1937) set a standard for how players annotate their own games: not just explaining the moves, but revealing the thinking, the errors, and the moments of genuine uncertainty. The books influenced generations of players from Fischer to Kasparov.
His games also present one of chess history’s most instructive contrasts: Alekhine at his best combined the Romantic era’s love of combination with the Classical school’s positional discipline, producing a style that no single theoretical label quite contains. Modern engines and analysis tools confirm what Alekhine’s contemporaries already sensed — that his intuitive sacrifices were, more often than not, objectively correct. A position that looked like recklessness in 1927 turns out, at 40 moves’ depth, to have been a precisely calculated sequence.
For more on the figures who shaped classical chess, see our profile of Paul Morphy — The Prodigy Who Conquered Europe and Walked Away, the cluster pillar for champions and legends, and The Immortal Game — Anderssen’s 1851 masterpiece that defined Romantic-era chess before Alekhine was born.
Conclusion
Alexander Alekhine spent his adult life between worlds — Russian but French, brilliant but unstable, celebrated and condemned. He prepared harder than anyone for the match that mattered most, beat the most technically accomplished player in chess history, and held the title through a period of remarkable instability before dying alone with a chess board in front of him and a world championship match two months away.
Chess history does not offer many lives like his. Import the Réti–Alekhine Baden-Baden 1925 game into PGN Base to explore the combinative precision that made him world champion — and to see, in the knight manoeuvres of the final twenty moves, why Capablanca had good reason to be afraid.