I do.  I have been playing through the Keres-Botvinnik games from 1948.  Not an honest one of the five.

My conclusions are based on the preponderance of the evidence.  It is not like the Soviets had never done something like that before.

Consider this recollection:

However, Botvinnik did later state that after the tournament's Hague
segment had ended and the Moscow segment was about to begin, he was  summoned to the Kremlin where no less a political figure than Andrei Zhdanov (in the presence of other major figures like Voroshilov and Suslov) told him "We are afraid that the American Reshevsky will become world champion.  How would you view it if the other Soviet players were to lose to you deliberately?"  Botvinnik claims that he originally rejected  this offer outright, regarding it as an insult because he had already  proven himself superior to Smyslov and Keres, but that when Zhdanov began insisting, he offered a compromise:  "Very well--let's leave the question open--perhaps this won't be needed." Zhdanov happily agreed, and added emphatically "We wish *you* victory."

In regard to the Candidates Tounament of 1962:

The Soviet Union does not exist anymore, the sins can be admitted. “Of course it was rigged,” Yuri Averbakh has recently said (in an interview with Jules Welling in the Dutch magazine Schaaknieuws). According to Averbakh, who was in Curaçao as a member of the Soviet delegation, it had been decided that Keres, being an Estonian, should not win, and neither should the Jewish Ukrainian Geller. It had to be the Armenian Petrosian. Why an Estonian and a Jewish Ukrainian (and the Jewish Russian Vicktor Korchnoi!) were not suitable and an Armenian was, Averbakh sadly fails to say, or Welling did not ask.

"According to Averbakh, who was in Curaçao as a member of the Soviet delegation, it had been decided that Keres, being an Estonian, should not win, and neither should the Jewish Ukrainian Geller. It had to be the Armenian Petrosian. Why an Estonian and a Jewish Ukrainian (and the Jewish Russian Vicktor Korchnoi!) were not suitable and an Armenian was, Averbakh sadly fails to say, or Welling did not ask"

Tim Krabbe', who refers the alleged statements by Averbakh, who has written the opposite himself, says among other things this:

"In his famous piece in Sports Illustrated in 1962, titled How the Russians fixed World Chess, Fischer has given this position as proof of the conspiracy..."

"To me, this draw proves that there was no conspiracy at all"

"what could those bad Soviets have been conspiring about? Fischer didn't even have a theoretical chance anymore of winning the tournament. And if Petrosyan was the designated winner, and Keres should not win, then what could have been easier than to make Keres lose this lost position, and give the point to Petrosyan?"

"The inevitable insight here is that Fischer only had a chance of still winning the tournament, if the three Soviet leaders kept playing draws against each other. And they did! But Fischer's form was not good enough to take advantage of this help. There is no reason to think that at Curaçao, there was anything going on beside Geller, Keres and Petrosyan having great respect for each other; not minding a few extra resting days, and Petrosyan being the luckiest - or perhaps the strongest. Fischer was never an issue"

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary15txt.htm

It did, and they should have known Petrosian was no match for Fischer, after Petrosian lost to Fischer 1-3 in 1970, in the USSR vs The World match.

But Petrosian was more politically connected that Korchnoi.

Who have I accused of being a "bad person"?  Perhaps the worst I said was that some were apparatchiks for the Soviet Government.

Yes, the Soviets developed a system for spotting talent and training young.  That is consistent with the philosophy that the welfare of State is more important than the welfare of the individual.  Ultimately, that system broke down and failed.

Krabbe, who wrote that in 2005, was mistaken.

It is not like this was something new.  The Soviets had perfected the drawing strategy in the 1952 Interzonal at Saltsjobaden, in which every single game between the Soviet entries were draws. Collusion and Soviet chess go hand in hand.

I think no matter how much " good " a govt , or political system may do it cant be considered good overall if the people living under that system are not free to leave ... Communist countries are infamous for the very fact that their citizens are NOT free to leave and Korchnoi is a prime example of that . 

The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Berliners from defecting into East Germany!

"It is not like this was something new. The Soviets had perfected the drawing strategy in the 1952 Interzonal at Saltsjobaden, in which every single game between the Soviet entries were draws. Collusion and Soviet chess go hand in hand"

That is the only example of that happening in such an event (the games between all the five Soviet participants being drawn), so it's not as if one can say that it was some sort of common thing or ever happened later.

When Alekhine died , 1946 , the correct procedure would have been for FIDE to have the most recent WC replace him , that would have been Euwe and then a challenger found to play Euwe for the WC .  Botvinnik had never beaten Euwe in 1946 and had a -2 record against him so he certainly didnt want to play a match against Euwe .  This is why he insisted on a tournament instead and got it as FIDE was already their pawn .... Botvinnik knew he could win a tourney , even with Euwe playing , being helped to 1st by soviet collusion ... 

Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.^[21]According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."^[22] In 1991 Botvinnik claimed that "during the second half in Moscow... it was proposed that the other Soviet players... lose to me on purpose... it was Stalin... who proposed this. But of course I refused!"^[23] In a 1994 conversation with Gennady Sosonko, Botvinnik said "...in 1948 I played well. I prepared with all my heart and showed what I was capable of."^[24]

"Botvinnik had never beaten Euwe in 1946 and had a -2 record against him so he certainly didnt want to play a match against Euwe"

Euwe won against Botvinnik in 1934 and 1938, I doubt Botvinnik feared Euwe in the second half of the 1940s. Euwe was closer to 50 than 40 and scored -12 in the World Championship 1948.

And yet he has an overall even record against Botvinnik ! The 48 tournament is also significant in that Fine declined to play ( he clamed because of academic reasons but those close to him have said his real reason was that he didnt want to face the soviet collusion/cheating ) .  Also , Najdorf should have been in this tourney but was excluded mainly because of Botvinnik's wishes . 

Soviet Chess Collusion: A New Paper

We agree on this

That is also why the Soviets fought the inclusion of Najdorf, boycotted the Prague 1946 tournament, and refused to play the tournament completely in the Hague.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-n-fide-competition-keres-botvinnik-1948-pt-2

Tal had a minus score against the other Soviets when he won the Candidates and drew 9 of his 24 games against Soviet opponents in his Candidates tournaments. It is making things too simple to state that Soviet players only drew or helped each other.

As said before, the study on alleged Soviet collusion bases it's statistical conclusions on Tal and Korchnoi being involved in a Soviet pact to stop Fischer from winning Curacao, but I don't find that all that believable. Just like their giving Reshevsky five times bigger chances than Keres and Bronstein to win a "clean" Candidates in the early 1950s. With such starting points the results get skewed.

It is also obvious that there were more short draws in international Soviet games between Keres, Smyslov etc than in national games where they faced weaker Soviets. Keres had no draws against Dubinin, Goldenov, Klaman, Ufimtsev, Alatortsev and Kasparian when he won the 1947 USSR Championship but drew much more often against Smyslov. This doesn't by itself mean that his games against Smyslov were pre-arranged, rather that draws were very common between the top players while they tried hard to beat the weaker Soviets that of course never were considered good enough to get to play international events.

"Botvinnik knew he could win a tourney , even with Euwe playing , being helped to 1st by soviet collusion"

"That is also why the Soviets fought the inclusion of Najdorf"

Euwe's great result during the decade was Groningen 1946, which was won by Botvinnik, after the latter lost to apparatchik Kotov... In his next International tournament, in 1947, Euwe finished with a minus score in an event won by Ståhlberg on +6 (Najdorf scored +3). So it's not as if Euwe was as feared as he is made to seem around then. In Mar del Plata also in 1947 he scored a stronger +4 but that was still far behind Najdorf and Ståhlberg on +11 and +10. And of course there were no Soviets in these comparatively weak tournaments.

The draw pact in Curacao was between Petrosian, Geller, and Keres.  Tal was known to be ill prior to the start of the competition.