If I come across with such position, playing White, and being behind and not being a grand master, I take the Knight to break even!

24.gxf6 Nxf6
25.g4 Bd6
26.g5 Bxe5
27.dxe5
<if black wants to save the knight: 27....Nd7 28.g6 Kf8 29.Rxf7+ Ke8 30.Qh5 Nf8 31.Qh8 and mate next move>

As far as I can gather, Chekhover had the reputation of being a "straight shooter." Hard to imagine a guy like that agreeing to throw a game beforehand.

There is another problem with this theory. If - as some people have said - that many of the Soviet players routinely PRE-ARRANGE their games ... why hasn't one person ever come forward to expose such a plot?

I did not go to chess club today, I got caught up in analyzing this game.

Its now almost 01:30 AM in the morning, (Monday / Oct. 24th); I have been working on this game since about 10:30 AM Sunday morning ... which is shortly after I got out of bed.

I know what others have said about this game, however, I have been working to look for the truth myself. Since many of the books that I have that reference this game are AT LEAST 10+ years old, it is quite obvious none of them have had the chance to check things with the latest chess engine.

Thus far I CAN tell you two things:

a.) The move 25.g6+ was NOT a mistake, but it was also NOT the best move. (Different sources have given 25.Qh5+ and 25.gxf6 as being best. Both are better than what was played in the game, but - so far - my analysis seems to indicate that they are NOT seperate tries, they transpose into each other.)

#1.) No offer of proof. No "smoking gun," or affadavit or even the name of the Soviet master that can corroborate his assertion that this game was pre-arranged.

[ Probably the best move was:
>/= 25...Kf8!; 26.Qxe6 Ne5;
27.Qh3!,
After hours of work, several strong
programs pick this as being best.

(The tournament book gives:
RR27.Rxf6+!? gxf6; 28.Qh3 Bc5!;

The tournament book gives 28...Bb4;
here, but that loses badly.

29.Qh8+ Ke7; 30.Qh7+ Ke6;
31.Qh3+ Ke7; 32.Qh7+, "=" )

27...Nf3+!;
Not just a mindless machine move,
if Black does not give back some of
the material, he will get badly mauled.

28.Rxf3 Bxf3; 29.Rf1!! Ke8;

This is probably forced.

(Or Black can try:
29...Qd6; but this seems to
just transpose back to the main
variation in one or two moves.)

30.Rxf3 Qd6; 31.Bf5, - Fritz 12.

24.Ne5xf7
"I had overlooked a simple way to win: 24.Nxd7 Nxd7 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26. Qh5+ Kf8 27. Qh8+ Kf7 28.g6+ Kf6 29. Qh4#."

25.g6+ Kg8
"This facilitates the attack. Stronger was 25....Kf8 as Vukovic recommended in "Sahovski Glasnik". According to him white has to be contended with a perpetual. However, I found a win later:
26.Qxe6 Ne5 27.Rxf6 gxf6 28.Qh3 Bb4 29.Re1 Bc8 30.Qh6 Ke8 31.de5 Bxe1 32.Qh8+ Kd7 33. Qg7+ Kc6 34.Qxf6+ Kc7 35.e6"

"I played very strong in the first rounds then I lost momentum as in the VIII. USSR Championship. Flohr picked up and we shared the first 2 places. Half of a point behind us was the 66 year old Lasker. [...] The tournament drew a lot more spectators than Moscow 1925. On the first day 5,000 tickets were sold, already. G.K. Ordschonikidse donated a car to me and after consultation with Lasker and Capablanca I was awarded the title "GM of the USSR""

just to add this:

Botvinnik in his comments of
Botvinnik vs Lilienthal, 1936

After MANY pages of discussion of the various methods that he used to evaluate the games for his book, he gives us the following paragraph: "One further criteria should be obvious: A game has to be real. Adams-Torre, New Orleans, 1920; with its multiple queen sacrifices and last-rank mating tactics, is one of the classics of chess literature. But it is almost certainly a fake."

Whoa! Let me stop you there, sir. Where's the documentation? (I have never seen it. And I cover this topic - in some depth - on my web page for Adams-Torre.)

He concludes his paragraph by writing:
"Alexander Alekhine's infamous five-queens game with Nikolai Grigoriev was debunked long ago. Enough doubts have been raised about the sacrifice-studded Botvinnik-Chekover, Moscow, 1935; to disqualify it."

Before the move 19 Nd1: < A very familiar type of position has been reached. White has <hanging> pawns at d4 and c4 and is more or less compelled to play for a King'a side attack, which has, however, under the circumstances,every chance of succeeding. White usually works for d4-d5 or f4-f5 in such positions. Botvinnik tackles the problem in an altogether different way: he brings his QKt over to the King's wing, where it decisively strengthens the attack. Each of his next few moves deserves an exclamation mark.>

On the move 22 Ng5: <The piano of the opening passed into a crescendo in the middle game and now becomes a fortissimo of attack. Throughout the next ten moves sacrificial combinations are always in the air; the black king's stronghold is smashed open with titanic power>

At the end of the game Euwe remarks < Though Botvinnik is primarily a position player, and though his construction of the game differs vastly from that of Alekhine, his play reveals, in his discernment of attacking chances, the greatest possible resemblance to the brilliant style of the world champion.>

An alternative to 19...Ra7 is the pawn sacrifice 19...b5! 20 cxb5 axb5 21 Bxb5 Ba3. There are three justifications for this:

1. White's a pawn and d4 pawn are both isolated and this gives Black at least partial compensation for the pawn.

2. White's 19th move Nd1 withdraws the knight to the back rank and disconnects the rooks, and this suggests Black's opening lines

<Nov-24-17 Toribio3: This is a masterpiece!>

Botvinnik comments (freely translated) ib 24.Nxf7:

<Unfortunately I missed a more simple way to win:

24.Nxd7 Nxd7 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Qh5+ Kf8 27.Qh8+ Kf7 28.g6+ Kf6 29.Qh4++.

I'm guessing self-embarrassment by Botvinnik is the ticket here, especially given how analytics-focused he always was.