Or did Bronstein feel free to finally tell the truth after all these years?
I have ordered his book: http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Notes-David-Bronstein/dp/3283004641/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443963738&sr=1-1&keywords=david+bronstein+chess+secret+notes
I did find an interesting statement from Averbakh, in an interview with Kingston ...
Kingston: I would like to go back a few years further now. Hague-Moscow 1948 - there has long been suspicion that Paul Keres was coerced to lose to Botvinnik in the tournament, so that Botvinnik would be assured of winning the world championship.
Averbakh: That is something very difficult to prove ... either side very difficult to prove. Of course, it is rather funny that Keres lost four games, then won the last one when the contest was over, when it was certain that Botvinnik would win the tournament. But we cannot prove anything from this.
A perfectly practiced non-committal answer from the consumate Soviet chess insider! A simple, "It never happened" would have sufficed. But perhaps he could not say that a keep a straight face. ;^)
That's the crux of the argument, that Keres lost 4 in a row then won a meaningless game.
But the games really do speak for themselves. Botvinnik didn't throw the last game, he didn't want to play. He offered a couple of early draws and got crushed. Before that, most will admit that Botvinnik was both the better player and had a playing style that caused Keres huge problems.
Every game contains errors.
But in 7 games leading up to the 1941 Absolute Championship, Keres record with Botvinnik was 6 draws and 1 loss in 7 games. It boggles the mind that Keres could not get a single draw in the first 4 games.
Keres played three games against Botvinnik before the 1941 Absolute Championship, all draws. After that he scored +1-7=5 over the following dozen years, during Botvinnik's peak. The one win being a game Botvinnik didn't want to play, after he already had become World Champion. In the second half of the 1940s Botvinnik was the clearly best player in the world, but when Keres won AVRO 1938 Botvinnik was nowhere near as strong as a decade later.
But in 7 games leading up to the 1941 Absolute Championship, Keres record with Botvinnik was 6 draws and 1 loss in 7 games. It boggles the mind that Keres could not get a single draw in the first 4 games.
What was Fischer's record against Spassky before 1972?
What was Fischer's record in classical time controls against Petrosian before he won four games in a row against Petrosian in 1971?
If you want to talk about games that were thrown, take a look at the blunders that Taimanov made against Fischer. Clearly, he was throwing the match!
This is a clear case of Soviet cheating!
Another interesting thread as usual, Jamie. It was a nice read and I picked up a few things I didn't know.
What to say about Botvinnik? While respecting him a lot as a chess player and world champion, if you start from the basic assumption that the man was a Soviet lapdog and acted accordingly, a lot of what might or might not have transpired becomes more obvious and plausible . I could choose stronger language to describe him as a human being, but I choose not to.
To set the scene.. Somewhere around the mid-eighties I had the pleasure to play Bronstein. (I wasn't always NobodyReally 
). We had a very interesting game and our postmortem quickly turned into a monologue from his side. He was showing me game after game and dozens of studies, straight from memory. After shaking of a large crowd of kibitzers, I was smart enough to invite him to dinner. (I'll pick up the check 
). Some hours later, when he felt comfortable enough, he starting talking about what happened in the past.
I'm no chess historian by any means but I did have some knowledge of what machinations were at work, in the USSR, in that era. What the man told me was beyond belief for someone who lives in the western world. I'm not going to go into details, but anything one might belief could have happened, most probably actually happened. If you get my drift. If I'm any judge of human nature I have to say that I felt he was totally honest and sincere with me.
The next day before the round he came to me and asked me to keep what he told me the night before to myself. And I always did.
So obviously, I take strong exception to someone calling the man "a notorious liar".
NR.
p.s. Of course these games were rigged. For instance that Nimzo-Indian game. Even as a 1700 player I would be deeply embarrassed after a game like that. Taking cxd4 (totally illogical) and later on Re7 followed by Qc7. I bet you any amount Keres wanted the world to know that he had to throw that game.
Did you ask Bronstein how his second bullied competitors at Budapest pretenders tournament? THAT was cheating if anything.
Another question: who has written 1953 Zurich tournament book and a few others?
What was that person's impact on Bronstein's life?
The book I have is by Bronstein... "The Chess Struggle in Practice: Lessons From the Famous Zurich Candidates Tournament of 1953."
There is a lesser known book by Najdorf that I would like to purchase.
To whom are you referring? Tell me more about Bronstein's second.
If you want to talk about games that were thrown, take a look at the blunders that Taimanov made against Fischer. Clearly, he was throwing the match!
This is a clear case of Soviet cheating!
Ah, but he was playing Fischer, who had just destroyed the Interzonal field.
I don't think Keres was in fear of Botninnik, as he was in fear of a permanent vacation to Siberia.
Remember, I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence, with respect to Soviet chess behaviour over decades. One can call Soviet insiders who let loose with an occasional truth "liars." One can argue that any single game is a fluke. But it is the pattern of collusion and manipulation that I find disturbing.
The book I have is by Bronstein... "The Chess Struggle in Practice: Lessons From the Famous Zurich Candidates Tournament of 1953."
There is a lesser known book by Najdorf that I would like to purchase.
To whom are you referring? Tell me more about Bronstein's second.
That was Boris Samoilovich Vainstein - General of Security Service, the head of planning department NKVD USSR.
He and Bronstein were very close, Bronstein lived in his house.
He was a talented chess writer and published some books under his own name (e.g. about Lasker) and some under Bronstein's - including the famous "Zurich 1953", which provides many strategy insights and is considered one of the best chess books in Russian.
In 1950, when Boleslavsky leaded full point ahead two rounds before the end Vainstein approached him and asked "To let David catch up". Then Boleslavsky made two draws in clearly better positions and Bronstein won twice, including the game vs Keres, and actually that game is mush fishier than the ones from pretenders' tournament.
Another known and documented case of pressure exercised on Keres was in 1953, when he was asked by the head of delegation to make a quich draw with Smyslov.
Keres was not a puppet, so he REFUSED and played to WIN with a massive attack, however, his plan was refuted by Smyslov
http://www.chess.com/blog/Blunderprone/zurich-1953-keres-vs-smyslov-rnd-24
What I mean is that you cannot hide anything with so many people involved, but there are NO KNOWN WITNESSES of such talks in 1948.
(so your article is misleading)
And of course it was impossible for Botwinnik to have a hand in any such actions.
However, some other Soviet players, namely Bronstein, played off board at full (at his match vs Botwinnik as well - just read the memories). Bronstein is a poor loser, a cheat who had neither shame nor conscience.
"In 1991, Botvinnik was interviewed and said that there was an official order from Stalin that Smyslov and Keres were ordered to lose to Botvinnik to make it easier for Botvinnik to win the world title. Some sources (Averbakh) say that the USSR leadership wanted Smyslov to be the world champion because he was clearly Russian, while Botvinnik was Jewish. However, Botvinnik was a Communist and Smyslov was not." - Bill Wall
"Botvinnik was interviewed and said that there was an official order from Stalin that Smyslov and Keres were ordered to lose to Botvinnik to make it easier for Botvinnik to win the world title."
Pure fantasy from a flawed source:
http://polarbearspalaver.blogspot.ru/2011/06/blacklist-of-active-known-chess.html
I should say that Bronstein is a notorious liar.