This is game 4 of the match. Keres had the white pieces in the even games, Spassky in the odd games. This is the first e-pawn game - if you don't count game 2, where the opening was also a Ruy Lopez - Smyslov defense.

With White's King on the black square g1, 35...Qg3 threatens 35...Qxf2+ 36 Qxf2 Bxf2+ with check so that in reply White cannot leave the bishop alone and stop Black's a pawn by 37 Nc3

Keres plays 36 Kf1 so that on 36...Qxf2+ 37 Qxf2 Bxf2 won't be check, making 38 Nc3 possible.

Spassky then forces White's King back on to a black square by 36..Qd3+

With 37 Ke1 White's King is on a black square again so that 37... Qd4 threatens once more 38...Qxf2+ 39 Qxf2 Bxf2 with check so that White can't ignore the B and play 40 Nc3 ro stop Black's a pawn.

With Black's Queen on d4 Keres can't play his K back to the white square f1 as then on 38 Kf1 Qd1 is mate, and 38 Ne3 is not adequate as 38...Qb2! wins.

If at move 37 the White King goes to the black square g1 instead by 37 Kg1, 37...Qd4 will threaten still 37..Qxf2+ 38 Qxf2 Bxf2 (with check and so preventing 39 Nc3 to stop Black's a pawn). On 38 Kf1 Qd1 will be mate, and 38 Ne3 will have lose to 38...Qb2.

One difference is that with his K on g1 instead of on e1 White has the option of letting the f pawn go by 38 Kh1, but then both 38..Qb2 and 38...Qxf2 seem to win.

Really?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is especially important for chess history, which is riddled with innuendo, half-truths, rumor, and unsubstantiated lore. As a TV "Spock substitute" I'd assume you to be familiar with this logic.

I know what you mean though, this kind of charge has been made concerning other Masters within the Soviet system as well.

I think "where there's smoke" there is usually some fire, and we certainly have Bronstein and Korchnoi leveling charges against the Soviet Chess Committee in some of their writings.

He cares about quaint notions such as "hard evidence" and "facts."

He has also done a great deal of hard work to discover the *actual* state of evidence in this controversy, both sides of it.

<The Keres-Botvinnik Case Revisited: A Further Survey of the Evidence>

Taylor Kingston

I myself have got the feeling that authors like to write about Keres' not-so-good games with a tragical undertone. Like "he doesn't feel normal" or words to that effect. How could they possibly know how Keres is feeling? (Keres was the man with a golden heart, I respect him)

I think <Marmot PFL> was being sarcastic (he quoted Chernev and THEN he said that "Maybe this was yet another game that Keres was ordered to lose.")