No. If you say Alekhine was murdered by British intelligence, or that a 1980s Kasparov cabal somehow rewrote history to shorten Steinitz's reign, you get labeled a troll.

These obviously both happened, back in 1966 I met the leader of the death squad from MI6 that did Alekhine at some random tournament in California.

<...If I controlled the delete button, you'd be gone from this site.>

- To re-write the re-written chess History,

- to prove that Steinitz reigned longer than Dr.Lasker,

- that Nimzowitch was outperformed by all of his contemporaries,

- that Reshevsky should have been the Champion in 1935,

- to locate Alekhine's murderers,

- to create a new ratings system,

- to prove that Steinitz reigned longer than Dr.Lasker,>

Since the reign of Steinitz started in 1843 I don't know why we're even wasting time on this!

<- that Nimzowitch was outperformed by all of his contemporaries,>

This fish was a closet 1200 player that had some writing skills and turned them into a huge ego trip and woulda made millions today doing something else.

<- that Reshevsky should have been the Champion in 1935,>

MI6 paid him off to not try for a match with Euwe in 1936 so that they could set up Alekhine down the road.

<- to locate Alekhine's murderers,>

MI6 was way ahead of them, this had no chance from the beginning.

<- to create a new ratings system,>

Reshevsky will be number 1 without a doubt.

<- to ascertain that last 150 years of chess History has been a History of conspiracy.>

Someone also doesn't like to entertain the possiblity that British Intelligence (more likely British stupidity) had anything to do with Alekhine's death, even though they do admit it is British and Canadian GMs who promote the idea that Soviet Jews were responsible for his murder.

We also know that the British are the ones who branded Alekhine as anti-semitic at the end of WWII, and denied him entry to the annual Hastings tournament based on this accusation.

The timing coincides with the late 1940s, a time when the British were faced with loss of the overseas empire, despite winning the war.

The British were successful with quelling rebellion in the Far East by re-arming Japanese soldiers, to further pillage people who were tired of being pillaged in Malaysia. The French who also re-armed Japanese soldiers were not at all successful in Indo-China. The British crackdown on the Indian sub-continent also did not deter Ghandi and his millions of followers who led a successful non-violent revolt.

The situation in the Mid-East is a little more complex when examining results. Initially, the West feared the Soviets might dominate with influence in the region, but as things worked out, this isn't so.

Soviet influence was blunted by buying many friends in the region. You know, money talks and BS walks. The formation of Israel didn't only take place with Kibbutz minded Soviet Jews, American Jewish gangsters joined in by committing the usual atrocities to get people to leave a region, committing genocide, rape and land grab from Arabs who even had written deeds to their land.

In case you'd like to do some pre-internet research, I suggest you use the New York Times of the 1940s.

Well, for me, it is pretty conclusive. I mean the guy was shot several times, had a knife stuck in his back, and was hanging from a tree by a rope around his neck.

Unless it was suicide?>

Here's a case where the coroner came up with a verdict of "suicide":