Sure. Anything is possible. But the closest he said to a real accusation about the 1951 match was that he was put under pressure (no suggestion from whence this pressure came), and it was (paraphrasing) up to Bronstein whether to submit to the pressure or not. Such an accusation by its nature cannot be proved or disproved, since (i) there is no accused (ii) there is no evidence.

Bronstein's claims about the 1953 Candidates were a little more concrete, but at the expense of plausibility. You can see discussion here

Robert James Fischer

Thanks for the links-

Surely this is an interesting question in general, due to the history of the Soviet government and the Soviet chess players.

Now <Kortschnoi> was a lot more vocal and categorical and specific in his claims that he was "hard done by" the Soviet government-

Which tried to block his chess career at every turn after he defected?

I just think that "life as a Soviet chess star" has been double edged-

You would get piles of help and institutional support-

But you might also be expected to "toe the party chess line" as well.

I know that <Spassky> complained that he was regarded as a "pro-western outsider" when he was coming up in the ranks.

Anyways I will read the links now you posted.

Has anyone written a full length book study on this general topic?

Do you know of one?

I will also ask <Eyal>.

The notion that Botvinnik was a part of an effort to pressure his opponents seems absurd. The Wikipedia bio makes this clear.

"Botvinnik wrote that before the last round of the 1935 Moscow tournament Soviet Commissar of Justice Nikolai Krylenko, who was also in charge of Soviet chess, proposed that Ilya Rabinovich should deliberately lose to Botvinnik, to ensure that Botvinnik took first place. Botvinnik refused, saying "... then I will myself put a piece en prise and resign". The game was drawn, and Botvinnik shared first place with Salo Flohr."

Considering this occurred during the height of Stalin's purges demonstrates that Botvinnik was prepared to die before violating the purity of his art.

Not necessarily; not at all. Surely had he done so many people would have laughed it off as the wishful thinking of a deluded old man.

< The notion that Botvinnik was a part of an effort to pressure his opponents seems absurd.>

...and in all likelihood it is; that in no way means such an effort didn't exist.

<So both players showed courage in the face of evil. And there is virtually nothing to these stories.>

<Shams><Not necessarily; not at all. Surely had he done so many people would have laughed it off as the wishful thinking of a deluded old man.>

I think he did tell the story after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which made its lack of detail all the more telling. It's not as if fair-minded people would find it impossible to believe that the Soviet authorities might have preferred one chess master to another. As it stands, the "story" he told...well, it sounds like the wishful thinking of a deluded old man. Or, worse, someone who wants to cast doubt on a match without any evidence for his charge. The Zurich charges really do sound like wishful thinking/delusion.

<Boomie: When Kortchnoi defected, Bronstein refused to sign a letter of condemnation. >

Suppose they brought that letter to you, <ChessGuy>. Would you have had the guts to say "I don't sign collective letters"? I doubt I would.

<He lost his stipend and was prevented from competing in international events for a year.>

So did Botvinnik.>

Bronstein I'll give you, but Spassky was living in France by then, so it would have been the height of absurdity for him to have signed the letter. Korchnoi even called him a "one-legged defector."

<H said he would write his own letter of condemnation and sign that. The gummint didn't let him do that. >

Botvinnik was a genius, I tell you!

It was 1951. Have you heard about Stalin?>

Bronstein had to come from behind to catch Boleslavsky (his future father in law) in the candidates tournament and then win a playoff match with him. If Bronstein didn't want to play Botvinnik, all he had to do was throw a game. Botvinnik would have been thrilled to play a match with Boleslavsky, whom he owned.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Which led me to do some research:

http://www.chessbase.de/newsdetail....

<A game attributed to Stalin (C.N.s 3533 & 4133)

Page 368 of the Dictionnaire des Echecs by François Le Lionnais and Ernst Maget (Paris, 1967) had an entry for Stalin with the following illustrative win over ‘le chef de la Guépéou’, who was named as ‘Yejov’:

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nbd7 6 Be2 a6 7 O-O e6 8 f4 b5 9 a3 Bb7 10 Bf3 Qb6 11 Be3 Qc7 12 Qe2 Be7 13 g4 Nc5 14 Qg2 O-O 15 Rad1 Rfe8 16 g5 Nfd7 17 Rd2 e5 18 Nf5 Ne6 19 Nxe7+ Rxe7 20 f5 Nd4 21 f6 Ree8 22 Bh5 g6

23 Bxg6 hxg6 24 Qh3 Ne6 25 Qh6 Qd8 26 Rf3 Nxf6 27 gxf6 Rc8 28 Rdf2 Qxf6 29 Rxf6 Rc7 30 Nd5 Bxd5 31 exd5 Nf8 32 Bg5 Nh7 33 Rxd6 e4 34 Be3 Rce7 35 Bd4 f6 36 Bxf6 Nxf6 37 Rdxf6 Resigns.

The Dictionnaire marked the occasion as ‘Moscou?, 1926?’ and used the conditional tense to indicate doubts about the game’s authenticity (‘la partie suivante qui aurait été gagnée par Staline’). A source was mentioned: Freude am Schach by Gerhard Henschel (Gütersloh, 1959).

Although the year 1926 has now stuck to the game, it seems to be based on a misreading of Henschel’s book (pages 86-90). True enough, ‘1926’ is the only date to appear on those pages, but its context had nothing to do with when the game (‘Stalin – Jechow’) allegedly took place. Indeed, Henschel’s own claim was that it was much older, for the first sentence of his item affirmed that Stalin had played it ‘kurz nach seiner Flucht aus der sibirischen Verbannung’ ('shortly after his escape from Siberian exile', page 86), whereas two pages later Henschel’s book (published, it will be recalled, in 1959) stated that the game had been played about 50 years previously (‘Wenn wir bedenken, dass die Partie schon vor rund 50 Jahren gespielt wurde ...’ – 'If we consider that the game was played around 50 years ago ...').

As regards the genesis of the game, Henschel stated on page 86:

‘Die hier aufgezeichnete Partie ist uns nur durch einen Zufall bekannt geworden. Ein alter Mitarbeiter Lenins, dessen Name leider nicht bekannt ist, hat sie aus der Erinnerung aufgeschrieben.’ ('The game recorded here came to our attention only by chance. An old associate of Lenin, whose name is unfortunately not known, noted it down from memory.').

Henschel’s book is replete with errors of all kinds (Fischer is misspelt ‘Fisher’ throughout) and needs to be handled with great circumspection. Was it really the first place where the alleged Stalin game appeared in print? >

So, a hoax?

Stalin, who, not having any interest in chess, hides himself behind curtains of the playing hall.

<Capablanca and Stalin (C.N. 4950)

In C.N. 4950 Francis E.W. Ogle (Medwood, NJ, USA) referred to reports that Capablanca complained to Stalin that Russian players were cheating in a 1930s tournament in Russia, and in that same item we commented that the Cuban’s widow, Olga Capablanca Clark, had mentioned the subject to us a number of times. For example, on 26 July 1989 she wrote to us:

‘It is little known, I believe, that Stalin came to see Capablanca play, hiding behind a drapery. This happened in Moscow in 1936. Capa had mentioned it to me en passant, so I am a bit hazy about the details, such as who had accompanied Stalin – seems to me it was Krylenko. However, the gist of this encounter remains quite clear in my mind.

Capa said to Stalin: “Your Soviet players are cheating, losing the games on purpose to my rival, Botvinnik, in order to increase his points on the score.”

According to Capa, Stalin took it good-naturedly. He smiled and promised to take care of the situation.

He did.

From then on the cheating had stopped and Capablanca had won the tournament all by himself. This was an important conquest, proving to the world that Capablanca returned to his own great form.

As he told it to me Capa added: “I had promised you to be again the best chessplayer in the world. So I have done it for you.”’

Olga and José Raúl Capablanca

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

So count me as a "no" vote for the authenticity of the Yezhov v. Stalin game.

Re Stalin watching from behind the curtain, this particular trope seems to show up quite a bit in literature about the USSR in the 1930s, which of course doesn't mean it never happened. But Capablanca's complaint doesn't seem to jibe very well with the course of the tournament.

In the first half of the tournament Botvinnik played five Soviet opponents, scoring 2 wins (one of which won the best game prize) and three draws. Apart from Botvinnik himself, Capa also played five Soviets in the first half, scoring 3 wins and two draws. Riumin was kind enough to present the Cuban with a free queen in round three.

Capablanca vs Riumin, 1936

Botvinnik got a superior position against Capablanca in Round 7 but blundered and lost.

Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1936

Hmmm, maybe that was the day Stalin was behind the curtain...

In rounds 8 and 9 Botvinnik played draws against Soviet opponents. If the Soviets were going to throw points Botvinnik's way, that would have been a good time to do it.

At the halfway point (after 9 rounds) Capablanca was a 1.5 points ahead of Botvinnik.

Capablanca did a lot to assure himself first place by drawing with Botvinnik in Round 16. Still, going into the last round, Capa was still only a half point in front. But Capablanca won a legendary ending from Eliskases, while "Old Bolshevik" Levenfish held Botvinnik to a draw...

Capablanca vs Eliskases, 1936

Levenfish vs Botvinnik, 1936

<Yagoda was found guilty of treason and conspiracy against the Soviet government at the Trial of the Twenty One in March 1938. Solzhenitsyn describes Yagoda as trusting in deliverance from Stalin even during the show trial itself:

Just as though Stalin had been sitting right there in the hall, Yagoda confidently and insistently begged him directly for mercy: "I appeal to you! For you I built two great canals!" And a witness reports that at just that moment a match flared in the shadows behind a window on the second floor of the hall, apparently behind a muslin curtain, and, while it lasted, the outline of a pipe could be seen.

Yagoda was executed by shooting shortly after the trial.>

Seriously, though, I've often heard that he told them he wouldn't sign a collective letter, but this is the first time I've heard that he said he would write his own letter. What is your source?>

I found this in Wikipoopia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botvin... in the Political Contorversy section.

Bronstein did what he thought proper: convince the world that Botvinnik is not invincible.

If Bronstein's goal was to knock Botvinnik off his high horse, and he knew he was the only one who could do it, why should he step aside?

You have the right to be wrong, absolutely. Or, to put it more clearly, to the degree that you feel Bronstein should have followed your logic, you should follow my logic and not criticize him in this regard.