Pre-arranged draws were not unusual at the time (see I Zaitsev vs Karpov, 1966) but whether or not people in power during the Soviet era ever arranged decisive results remains a controversial topic in chess history. Most allegations just seem to be sour grapes from those finishing badly in a tournament. However, I was struck in this case because the GM had always seemed highly respectful toward Karpov and was berating himself for initially defending him "until it became so obvious". I wasn't there and don't have access to things like the amount of time used, but the claims of being pressured have surfaced many times.

Unfortunately, serious research is difficult because any Googling winds up with Fischer's absurd claims about pre-arranged Karpov-Kasparov matches, and as one who had access to the inside of Kasparov's camp during these matches I know for a fact that nothing was pre-arranged.

To my mind, the best known candidate game is:

Kasparov vs Tal, 1987

Actually there is some truth to this. Keres was ordered to be executed (like Vladimir Petrov) by the Red Army after learning about Keres' support of the Germans "liberating" Estonia. However, Botvinnik saved his life by talking it over with Stalin and so Keres got to live.

Those were facts, however, the rumor is Stalin agreed to Botvinnik's plea, but ordered him never to become World Champion. This is still disputed among historians.

<The reason that Keres never played for the crown is shrouded in mystery. He participated in eight candidates events and came second in four of them. The turmoil of World War II and the annexation of his small country Estonia by the Soviet Union certainly played a role in keeping him from reaching the very top. Keres had participated in German tournaments during the war, and when the Red Army liberated the country, Soviet authorities planned initially to execute him. Botvinnik interceded by talking to Stalin and Keres was spared. Many experts assume that after the war the KGB applied pressure on Keres, since the Soviet government urgently required a pure-bred Russian to keep the prestigious title. When asked why he never became world champion, he replied: "I was unlucky, like my country.">

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

Considering its the one of the most popular sites for chess news among fans and professionals, how can they not take their articles seriously?

<acirce> Maybe I should have taken Chess Cafe's word, which respected/non-corrupt USCF officials run, instead :-). Here is the other side of the story by Taylor Kingston at chess cafe.com

However, I haven't run into one source that disagrees that Keres was arrested and then dismissed of his crimes. So maybe quoting <the rumor is Stalin agreed to Botvinnik's plea, but ordered him never to become World Champion.> instead of <Soviet authorities planned initially to execute him.> to explain how chessbase is rubbish.

<After the war Keres faced the threat of arrest, for the crime (by Soviet standards) of having played in Nazi-organized tournaments during the German occupation of Estonia. He was under virtual quarantine during the investigation. Eventually he was cleared, but he got no match with Alekhine, and was absent from some major post-war tournaments.>

but <according to eye witnesses, didn't seem to be concentrating> This is talking about Giorgadze, right? Was Karpov concentrating? IMO, this statement is not a saying a whole lot.

<And he never claimed there was anything but circumstantial evidence. So Karpov must be presumed innocent.>

It is my understanding that Botvinnik had Jewish background.

Well, let's ignore the apparent fact the several GMs were of the opinion that Tal indicated he had lost on purpose (which would suggest he wasn't over the moon about having to do so). The circumstances under which the game took place (Kasparov having to win to secure a share of first prize) make it more conceivable that Tal would have been pressured to throw the game.

<In any case, if superstars were somehow involved in an arranged game, it would be easier to use a knockout TN, which would draw less suspicion.>

Frankly, I couldn't disagree more.

<Kasparov didn't have need of such favors, he demolished opposition easily enough and at that time Tal wasn't considered a serious threat to any top player.>

This was Tal's only defeat in the tournament, one in which he was only competing because Hübner had withdrawn after round 1. He was meant to be covering the event as a journalist.

<Kasparov had handled him before without difficulty, see the 1980 Soviet Championship.>

Beside the point, as my argument hardly rests on the notion that Kasparov was incapable of defeating Tal. And the 1980 game was not from the Soviet championship. I'm not sure what the event was though. I can't find it in the book Fighting Chess.

<Overall, Garry was 3-0 against him.>

Yes, that blitz game he won.

I'm not saying that it's not reasonable to place Fischer as the second best player of all time(although i disagree), but to say that there is a huge gap between him and the rest doesn't make much sense to me unless you think there is an even bigger gap between Kasparov and Karpov.

Your objections to Karpov seem to be based more on personal taste than anything else. I also disagree with <Karpov dominated competitively but has produced far fewer masterpieces at the board.>. Karpov has produced many masterpieces by anyone's standard, and in his long career, i'm sure he has produced more than Fischer did in his relatively short one.

I'm sure you've already seen the following articles, but for anyone else who hasn't, Jeff Sonas published 4 articles on chessbase looking at various statistics to determine who the greatest player of all time was.