I can understand  Reti-Alekhin  this game my favorite game in the history of chess, this is always at the top of a talk I thank you in the successful management Chess.com always and God bless this site.

The games speak for themselves.

I believe Alekhine to be the best player chess has ever produced. You must think, in his era there were no chess programs, only players. In our day and age, there are computers and so much material to study and produce excellent players with those 2 things combined. Anyway, I love how Alekhine lets Bogo clear his back rank to obtain a queen position at the time, the first time i saw that game i was apalled that someone would do that. Now i understand a bit more it was JUST a queen position....

I think Alekhine was better than me for sure but I really do not see that those two games were historical,I have seen many stronger games - - - .

Wow, truly Alekheine was a superb player. I still prefer Tal though. =)

nice article

al was quite a good player but i think it shouldn't go unmentioned that Reti usually lost games because he was an idealist (in this game he did not go for the draw because it would have achieved nothing in terms of gaining more knowledge about the position). it is said he once lost a won game because he started going through an endgame composition over the board and all through the night instead of thinking about the game.

the second game was pretty amazing.

Its a novelty!

I absolutely love the 2nd game (Reti, Richard vs. Alekhine, Alexander).

Thanks for great article

Alekhine did not know he was worse than Capa, what a crock, he kicked his butt al lover the board for the world championship, you huckleberry.

The Reti game is a classic, Re3 is Morphy-esque.  Alekhine was a marvel and his games are great learning tools . . . BUT, he hid from Cappy for a reason - he could never have matched Capablanca over the board and they both knew it. 

i think the re3 move in thte reti game might be my favorite move in chess history, its up there with frank marshal's Qg3 in the golden coins game. 

very nice!

In the end he was a great chess player. The games will live forever.

Well Alekhine is long dead: his games can be learnt from. May be Pythagorus beat his wife: who knows? Still, in euclidean space you'd better believe that the theorem that goes by his name is true...

every time I see the name of Alekhine I go in goose pimples. He was yes a good player, but he was alcholized in the last part of life, antisemitic and avoided to play against Capablanca to make a revenge and to play against Nimzowitch at the top of his form. Maybe a good player but really a bad bad man, really not worthy to be remembered.

Very nice: a display of superb positional understanding from which these deep combinations flow [to convert the positional advantage into a win] (and, of course, spotting those incredibly complex combinations!) - but -many people are have the following concerns about brilliancies, and so do I:

Will computers deflate the games? Has someone run say rybka 3 on the critical moves long enough? May be there was a more routine win in both games? May be both sides made mistakes (objectively speaking)?

(Engines do sometimes deflate all the mystique and often deflate some of it ... There are exceptions, e.g. R. Byrne - Fischer 1963-64: that one, including the losing mistake of Byrne (15.Qc2 ??)was well understood (the '??' is objectively speaking) long before chess computer programs became good enough to only confirm it...)

Mr. Becerra, tkanks for posting. Hope you continue to help us ( simple "mortals", morons ) to understanding the game of games. Peace and Harmony.