On May 6, 12:20*am, help bot wrote:
On May 4, 3:33 pm, wrote:

* You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba toda
la información en el ajedrez ruso de la época y de forma privilegiada
según sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner to
serve his own interests.)
* This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that was
the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
work, not just by controlling information.

* Is there any information on just how all this was
supposedly accomplished? *I would imagine (but
have no way of knowing) that controlling ALL such
information was a daunting task, worthy of a small
army of men; apparently, Mr. Botvinnik was a real
"one-man army", in more ways than one.

I know for sure of two ways in which Botvinnik "controlled
information" about his opening repertoire, though neither could be
considered at all unethical. One, he simply did not play publicly for
long periods of time. For example, he did not play a single serious
public game between winning the world championship in 1948, and his
first defense of the title against Bronstein in 1951, nor between
losing the title to Smyslov in 1957 and reclaiming it in 1958. Two, he
would often have secret training matches, the games of which would not
be published.
Bronstein believes Botvinnik avoided playing in 1948-51 "because he
did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger."
Perhaps, though Botvinnik simply says he was busy working on his
doctoral dissertation, and that rather than reaping any advantage from
the layoff, the lack of practice hurt him in the match (see
"Botvinnik's Best Games," vol 2, pp. 11-12).
Even allowing, for the sake of argument, Bronstein's interpretation
of 1948-51, I don't see anything unethical in this. However, what the
Spanish writers seem to be implying, or believe that Bronstein is
implying, is that Botvinnik used his position and connections to gain
preferential access to others' games, and perhaps limit publication of
his own games, or suppress Soviet publication of games Botvinnik
considered important, e.g. TNs he might use from foreign games. I'm
sure the former is true, the latter I don't know.
Again, I would not consider the former course unethical, any more
than I'd consider it unethical for a wealthy American player to buy
more chess books and magazines than a player with little money could.
The latter kind of action runs counter to Western ideals of a free
press and free circulation of information, but wouldn't bother a
Soviet mind-set like Botvinnik's. Heck, probably wouldn't bother many
Western players, if they had the power. But whether Botvinnik actually
excercised that kind of control, I couldn't say.

* The one thing which all these Botvinnik-bashers
cannot ever seem to do, is "fit" his powerful chess
moves into their biased accounts in a way that
makes any rational sense. *For instance, the
dregs who maintain that all the other Soviet
players were "ordered" to throw their games, fail
to account for the fact that non-Soviets were also
losing to him at the very same time. *When that
sort of heavy bias creeps in, logic and reason go
out the window.

There is no doubt that Botvinnik was a great player in his own
right. The question is whether he would have risen quite so high for
so long without state support, preferential treatment, and unethical
behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).

Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html