In article ,
wrote:
As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face.

Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
collusion that could take place. It seems hard to argue that a
player who is not [based on results in the previous Candidates and
Interzonal] among the top six [WC, top 2 from prev Candidates, 3
qualifiers from IZ] in his own country could have been a more
serious challenger to Botvinnik than Petrosian [or Keres, Geller,
Tal (when fit), Korchnoi, Spassky, ...]. It's at least as arguable
that the effect was to give high-level opportunities to players of
other countries, thus reducing Soviet dominance.

Of course, one feels sorry at the personal level for
[Bron]Stein, who were deprived of CT places by the rule, but I
don't think there's a serious claim that either was likely to
become WC in 1963 or 1966.

[...] Until 1971, I think there was still a
respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
Soviet hegemony than anyone else,
I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
far as I can find in my references.

Having lost narrowly to Tal [+2 -3 =5] in 1965, he beat Geller
[+3 -2 =4] in the 3rd-place play-off. In 1968-69, he was smashed by
Spassky [on his way to the WC], but then equally smashed Tal, again
in the 3rd-place play-off. That's not a *bad* record! Better than
Fischer prior to 1971 .... He had a decent record in tournaments
in that time, too.

In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.

OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.

I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?
"Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
things!
No, just recognizing the facts.

Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham