thank you for the info.

Great...a powerful commendation of  Botvinnik. I also like him along with Fischer and Gary Kasparov.

It is correct to say allegations are not facts, at least not by definition. However, documented "facts" are also not necessarily facts, For example, the Soviets took years to reveal they had found the body of Hitler in 1945. They did not inform the world because it was the truth. If they hid the truth, revealed the truth, or lied about anything it was for the purpose of propaganda. That applied to any subject, including chess. These allegations are facts, empirically speaking.

NM Greenlaser:

'As for Botvinnik's opposition to cheating in his favor, it is easy to leave a record showing that. It is also easy to benefit from cheating without having to be an explicit part of it. Botvinnik's documented refusal to cheat is evidence that the Soviet School of Chess did cheat. His refusal to participate could not have been documented without that documentation being done for a purpose, to conceal his part in it and/or his desire to not owe favors to Krylenko."

"This again onother serious allegations ...allegations are simply what it is, not the fact."

warwind wrote, "World championship Match is highly politicized. There would always be allegations of cheating for both sides." In the 1948 championship tournament, Reshevsky was not accused of cheating. Later on, candidates tournaments were replaced with candidates matches due to cheating. The cheating, according to chess literature, was by Soviets, and has gone beyond allegation to fact, which is more stubborn. As for Botvinnik's opposition to cheating in his favor, it is easy to leave a record showing that. It is also easy to benefit from cheating without having to be an explicit part of it. Botvinnik's documented refusal to cheat is evidence that the Soviet School of Chess did cheat. His refusal to participate could not have been documented without that documentation being done for a purpose, to conceal his part in it and/or his desire to not owe favors to Krylenko.

NM Greenlaser:

"Botvinnik was an accomplished player, but his results in various tournaments were assisted by other Soviet players."

M. Botvinnik is a strong advocate of fair play and would always  protest vehemently any manipulations of game results by the Soviets.

In 1935 Moscow tournament for instance, 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 plan therefore was aborted and the game was drawn and Botvinnik shared first place with Salo Flohr.

Time and again M. Botvinnik would insist on fair play and prove his detractors false.

Soviet players did not assist him to win tournaments in fact as several records would show its the other way around... soviet players  work together  to bring down Botvinnik in tournaments and WCC. Botvinnik greatest challenges did not come from outside Soviet it's always been from within.

In the 1952 chess olympiad in Helsinki, the players voted among themselves for the line-up and placed Botvinnik on second board, with Keres on top board. Of course Botvinnik being the World Champion felt insulted. He protested and refused to play.

In that same year 1952, Botvinnik would win convincingly the Soviet Championship. In that tournament he completely annihilated every member  of 1952 Soviet Olympiad Team including Keres! In his book Botvinnik's Best Games 1947–1970, M. Botvinnik  wrote "those games had a definite significance for me". He went on to play board 1 in the 1954 Amsterdam Olympiad and won the gold medal.

NM Greenlaser:

"Botvinnik's victory in the 1948 World Championship may have reflected the fact or possibility that he was the best player. However, he was helped by others in that event as well. Certainly if Reshevsky had to engage in real contests with Keres and Smyslov and Botvinnik did not, it wasn't a real measure of who the best was"

World championship Match is highly politicized. There would always be allegations of cheating for both sides. We saw this in many championship matches...Topalov vs. Kramnik, Fischer vs. Spassky, KArpov vs. Korchnoi and so on. Eventually---only the better ,stronger and more prepared player would win the championship. Eventually--- It's  the battle over the chessboard that  decide the winner!

Botvinnik was an accomplished player, but his results in various tournaments were assisted by other Soviet players. Stalin asked Capablanca in Moscow how he liked the event. Capa told him Stalin's players were cheating by trying to beat him and not each other. The rest of the tournament was different. Botvinnik's victory in the 1948 World Championship may have reflected the fact or possibility that he was the best player. However, he was helped by others in that event as well. Certainly if Reshevsky had to engage in real contests with Keres and Smyslov and Botvinnik did not, it wasn't a real measure of who the best was. Many players see the moves of Keres against Botvinnik not representing the play of Keres. The is also literature discussing the match with Bronstein in 1951 that questions the tie result as arrived at due to pressure on Bronstein. Of course, Botvinnik's drawn matches in 1951 and 1954 can be regarded, if only at face value, as victories according to the rules. However, they do not have as much absence of suspicion as the Kasparov-Karpov and Kramink-Leko tied title matches.

NM Greenlaser:

" Botvinnik's lack of dominance has led to the phrase "primus inter pares' being applied to him (and Petrosian next). That means first among equals (or peers)."

I dont think Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik will agree to that statement.

By age 24, Botvinnik was competing on equal terms with the world's elite, chalking up successes in some of the strongest tournaments of the day: first equal with Flohr at Moscow 1935, ahead of Emanuel Lasker and Capablanca; and first equal with Capablanca at the great Nottingham 1936 chess tournament, ahead of Euwe and Alekhine.

From 1931 to 1952-- How many years would that be? Exactly 20 years! Botvinnik would dominate Soviet Chess and go on to win a total of six Soviet Championships, adding further titles in 1931, 1933, 1939, 1944, 1945, and 1952 .This is only tied for the most ever with Mikhail Tal!

After 20 years of domination of Soviet chess ...M. Botvinnik began to dominate world Chess ...from 1948 -1963!  Thats onother 15 years! 15 Long years of domination of World Championship Matches versus only the best players the world can produce...and won the Championship in unprecedented 3 times a feat that not even Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov would surpassed!

His impressive over all records can speak for itself!

NM Greenlaser:

    "When he (M. Botvinnik) beat Tal, Tal was clearly sick."

I dont think Tal himself will agree to that statement.

M. Botvinnik had agreed to a postponement of their match  if Tal would be certified unfit by Moscow doctors, however Mikhail Tal  decided to play.

Though some commentators agreed that Tal's play was probably weaker in the rematch, probably due to his health, they also agreed that Botvinnik's play was better than in the 1960 match, largely due to thorough preparation. Botvinnik changed his style in the rematch, avoiding the tactical complications in which Tal excelled and aiming for closed positions and endgames, where Tal's technique was not outstanding.

The result Botvinnik won the rematch convincingly 13-8. Technique over tactics, endgame mastery over opening trap, strategy over talent prevailed!

To quote NM Greenlaser:

"Botvinnik was great and contributed much to chess. He won the championship in a tournament in 1948. He then played seven championship matches with the following results: Bronstein 1951 - tie, Smyslov 1954 - tie, Smyslov 1957 - lost title, Smyslov 1958 - won title, Tal 1960 - lost title, Tal 1961 - won title, Petrosian 1963 -  lost title. Altogether in seven matches, he won two, both revenge matches. He was getting draw odds in these matches and kept the title in tie matches."

Onother way to look at this is  to include the match results in 18th World Championship 1948 where M. Botvinnik won in dramatic fashion his matches over Paul Keres, Sammy Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov and Max Euwe. A whooping 3 match pts. ahead of his nearest rivals. That makes it 4 match points.

His succesful revenge matches over Smyslov 1957 and Tal 1961 gives onother 2 match points and the unprecendented winning of the World Championship for the 2nd and 3rd time! Not even Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov will achieve the feat.

The tied match score with Smyslov 1958 and Bronstein 1951 should be considered as a match win for the defending champion as he had succesfully defended the crown. Thats onother 2 match points.

Altogether in 11 championship matches,  Mikhail Botvinnik won 8 championship matches.. Of his 3 lossess he had avenged the 2 in a revenge match against Smyslov and Tal.

His last loss to Petrosian can be understood from the fact that M. Botvinnik was already 52 years old and was in fact  comtemplating retirement  from World Championship cycle. We knew how the age factor can affect the players performance. We saw that with Karpov and again with Kasparov.

After the FIDE world championship cycle was established in 1948, reigning champions had to play the strongest contender every 3 years, and successful title defenses became less common. Even with this added challenge, Even when age factor started to blurred his games.... Botvinnik still held the world title longer than any of his successors until Garry Kasparov. Observers believed that Botvinnik could have been World Champion 8 years earlier had Alekhine did not continually duck challenges from stronger contemporaries.

Botvinnik was great and contributed much to chess. He won the championship in a tournament in 1948. He then played seven championship matches with the following results: Bronstein 1951 - tie, Smyslov 1954 - tie, Smyslov 1957 - lost title, Smyslov 1958 - won title, Tal 1960 - lost title, Tal 1961 - won title, Petrosian 1963 -  lost title. Altogether in seven matches, he won two, both revenge matches. He was getting draw odds in these matches and kept the title in tie matches. Except when he played Petrosian, he was guaranteed rematches, so he had to be defeated in the first match and beaten or tied in the next to lose the title. When he beat Tal, Tal was clearly sick. Many contemporaries of his say that his influence led his opponents to favorably influence Botvinnik's results. This is particularly discussed regarding Keres and Bronstein. Botvinnik's lack of dominance has led to the phrase "primus inter pares' being applied to him (and Petrosian next). That means first among equals (or peers).

Botvinnik was great and contributed much to chess. He won the championship in a tournament in 1948. He then played seven championship matches with the following results: Bronstein 1951 - tie, Smyslov 1954 - tie, Smyslov 1957 - lost title, Smyslov 1958 - won title, Tal 1960 - lost title, Tal 1961 - won title, Petrosian 1963 -  lost title. Altogether in seven matches, he won two, both revenge matches. He was getting draw odds in these matches and kept the title in tie matches. Except when he played Petrosian, he was guaranteed rematches, so he had to be defeated in the first match and beaten or tied in the next to lose the title. When he beat Tal, Tal was clearly sick. Many contemporaries of his say that his influence led his opponents to favorably influence Botvinnik's results. This is particularly discussed regarding Keres and Bronstein. Botvinnik's lack of dominance has led to the phrase "primus inter pares' being applied to him (and Petrosian next). That means first among equals (or peers). 

Thank you for the great info, I like Botvinnik too.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this. :)

I am using the Botvinik System when I am black. Simple but effective.

Thanks, great info, but my idol Petrosian has a +score against him?

It's certainly an impressive resume.  I find it most admirable that he managed to regain the WC twice, something which most players simply wouldn't have the determination to do.

hmmm,very interesting