Examples of Soviet cheating in FIDE competition: Petrosian-Korchnoi match, 1971

"There is significant suspicion that Karpov and Kasparov pre-arranged the results of Games 23 and 24 of their 1987 World Champion Match"

I doubt that anyone seriously could suspect something as silly as that :-)

"In Game 24, an extreme blunder (Kasparov is given Mate in about 5 moves) is "missed" by both of them. This happens not just once but TWICE!!"

So where did both miss a mate in five moves in that game?

To begin with, what would Karpov have to gain by pre-arranging Kasparov's keeping the title? And, if the stuff about both missing a mate in five moves twice in game 24 had been anywhere close to have happened (which it of course didn't, just look at the game), how could such repeated blunders have been a strategy to avoid the idea that it had been pre-arranged? Wouldn't many missed mates in few moves have made it all seem more suspicious than if they hadn't missed all these mates? Why not just draw the last two games instead of missing lots of mates? Or why not just lose in less spectacular fashion, if Karpov had pre-arranged with Kasparov to lose the last game for some very unclear reason? 

The first 22 Games in 1987 were all Draws -- the most likely outcome was 12 - 12, and Kasparov would remain Champion. The pre-arrangement of win-loss for Karpov would not change this result. However, in London, someone made a surprising bet that Karpov would win Game 23 plus that Kasparov would win Game 24 -- they obtained very good odds. Therefore the very likely result of the Championship remains unchanged -- but there would be a financial difference!

Roman Dzindzichashvili helped Karpov with his preparation and is a friend. Watching the videos, it becomes clear that these are not normal games (though it needs careful analysis by a GM). Look at Roman's analysis. Similar things happen in Game 23. (There were not 2 missed mates -- actually the Mate becomes possible because Karpov moves a Knight -- if the Knight is not moved, a Draw will result. Kasparov does not want to reveal "the Mate", but makes a "blunder" because the move he makes would allow that Knight to move back into Draw Position. Karpov "misses" this Draw-forcing move even though Kasparov's position has now improved). Then again, perhaps both of them really did not see the possibilities.

Importantly, the ability of Roman to point out these amazing anomalies appears to indicate how very difficult it must be to pre-arrange a "win" or a "loss". Accusations have been made of "arrangeing results" of games during the Soviet era, but where is the proof? It is all hearsay evidence. I noticed that there is talk of a Game between Botvinnik and Keres which is supposed to be "pre-arranged", but those analysing the game regard it as being hard-fought. Analysis given by Roman makes it look as though it should be possible to discover if Games have been "pre-arranged" -- as far as I know, no such evidence exists for Games during the Soviet Era. It should be possible to obtain such evidence by analysis of the Games themselves, but no one produces such evidence.

i take this to mean that claims of cheating by Soviet Chess players to be essentially not true.

I stopped reading here. If you can't even correctly report the result of the first 22 games of a World Championship match...

Yes, after 22 Games each player had won 3 Games, with 16 Draws, giving them 11 points each. It does not change the facts concerning Games 23 and 24.

In Game 24 --

-- at Move 31 Karpov (Black) plays Nc5 X a4.  (a horrendous blunder). Then, after White (Kasparov) takes Black's (Karpov) Rook, white wins with Qb1 - b5. How could Karpov miss this? But Kasparov misses it also, and blunders -- he plays Qb1 - d1. Karpov can still save the Game by Na4 - c5

However, Karpov blunders for the second time with Nc8 - e7. Now Kasparov proceeds to win the Game about 30 moves later. All other moves in the Game are reasonable ones.

Similar strange events occur in Game 23.

The importance is that there were rumours that these 2 Games had been pre-arranged: that is why they have been analysed by GM Roman  Dzindzichashvili. One can either accept this as "normal blunders", though they have gone mostly unnoticed. Or feel that they represent reasonable evidence of pre-arrangement.

Most of this Forum is about supposedly pre-arranged Games. But those Games been not been analysed in a similar fashion. Seeing as these are serious claims, made on what various people may have said, for myself I take little notice of them until similar evidence is supplied.

This is evidence that a Grand Master cannot "throw a Game" without serious inconsistencies in the resulting Game.

"How could Karpov miss this?"

Maybe because he had 20 seconds to decide what to play. Not to mention the tension of the moment, and exhaustion at the end of this their 120th match game 1984-87... The win was also complicated enough for Kasparov to miss it as well. Kasparov later gave the winning line for white as 33 Qb5! Kh7 34 Nc6 Qa8 35 Qd3+ f5 36 Qd8 Nc5 37 Qe8! f4 38 Kg2 Qb7 39 Bh5 Ne7 40 Kg1! which isn't particularly obvious if you are tired and low on time.

It is clearly incorrect to suggest that difficulties were attributable to legitimate fears.  In 67, Fischer withdrew from the interzonal because he was convinced of the other's superior skills (no Bobby was winning the tournament), in 1970 he insisted on a large fee because he knew the competition had improved and winning would be problematic (won by 3 1/2), he delayed the Spassky world champ because with Boris's prior winning record winning would be questionable (after a strange default and game, Fischer completely dominated the first half and coasted for the remainder.   The most logical explanation for 1972 was that Fischer had legitimate fears about winning- he had no support system, no close family, and mental illness was already beginning to show in 1975

It is clearly incorrect to suggest that difficulties were attributable to legitimate fears.  In 67, Fischer withdrew from the interzonal because he was convinced of the other's superior skills (no Bobby was winning the tournament), in 1970 he insisted on a large fee because he knew the competition had improved and winning would be problematic (won by 3 1/2), he delayed the Spassky world champ because with Boris's prior winning record winning would be questionable (after a strange default and game, Fischer completely dominated the first half and coasted for the remainder.   The most logical explanation for 1972 was that Fischer had legitimate fears about winning- he had no support system, no close family, and mental illness was already beginning to show in 1975

I rather can spot mental illness when someone posts repeatedly the same text.

Can we trust NETFLIX and chess movies?

Bump for Santero

Karpov is disingenuous about the conversation referred to in the OP.

The conversation with Soviet Sports authorities concerning the chances of defeating Fischer involved Karpov and Korchnoi, and took place ahead of their Candidates Final in 1974, not ahead of the Korchnoi v Petrosian meeting in 1971, and was one of the main reasons why Korchnoi decided to defect to the West. Since Korchnoi said that he considered Fischer unbeatable, whereas Karpov - always supremely confident - said he would be able to defeat him, all the support of the system went to Karpov, and they put pressure on Korchnoi to allow Karpov to win. Probably the worst thing they could have done! If there was one thing on which Korchnoi thrived, it was adversity.

The seeds of the enmity between Korchnoi and Petrosian were sown back at the Curaçao Candidates in 1962.

Can you name a player who beat Korchnoi that Korchnoi liked?

SmyslovFan: Hahaha, not off the top of my head!

Interesting thread, I only want to say that in 1948, not only Botvinnik crushed Keres, but also did the same with Reshevsky, Euwe and Flohr. Maybe Sammy, proud of American chess, was a soviet agent? Even if Keres would managed to tie his particular match with Botvinnik, he wouldnt have won the tournament, but Smislov.

I think there's very little doubt about Botvinnik's victory in the 1948 World Championship Tournament - he won all his minimatches convincingly. Let's remember that we're talking about human beings and not robots. Far too often we take a 'Best Games' view of players abilities, and conveniently forget that they were prone to making terrible blunders just like everyone else. For a couple of examples, look up the 'Rubinstein Trap' which Akiba fell into twice in the space of two years (against Euwe and Alekhine), or the game where Petrosian blundered his queen away in one move against Bronstein in the Amsterdam Candidates in 1955. The list is very long.

Keres, our case under advisement, throughout his career had such 'unbelievable' blow-outs more than once. Specifically with reference to The Hague-Moscow 1948 tournament, in one of the games Keres had to play Botvinnik when the byes (due to Reuben Fine not participating) meant that Keres had had a six-day lay-off between games. Botvinnik had warned about this (that one player would get this extra-long break in the schedule) before the tournament and predicted that whoever was unlucky to draw that starting number would be at a competitive disadvantage in his next game, having had the normal competetive rhythm broken. Keres waved away Botvinnik's misgivings, but fell victim to this quirk: On March 18 he drew with Reshevsky, on March 25 he played Botvinnik and sank without a trace, he lost in 23(!!!) moves. Furthermore, having played in Nazi tournaments, Keres had been punished by the Soviet authorities and not been allowed to play high level tournaments (he wasn't allowed to go to Groningen in 1946, for instance), and this obviously was another big factor in his less than brilliant showing - although he wasn't directly coerced into losing to Botvinnik. Most of us would probably suffer from having a spell in the Gulag hanging over our heads.

It is easy to make "mistakes" when there is a gun at your head.

I rather see a wannabe conspirationist authority pulling "facts" out of his butt.

I have a four-part blog about the circumstances surrounding the Keres-Botvinnink games from the 1948 championship match.  The key point was that Estonian Keres cooperated with the Nazi occupation.  Such accusations often resulted in execution.  Therefore, the games are suspect.

I saw a bear today. Therefore the games must be suspect.