Apparently there's a little known clause in FIDE's rejection of the Botvinnik Rule:  Botvinnik himself was grandfathered in.  That means, he still had the right to challenge Petrosian in a rematch if he wanted to.  He declined (and this time he was right to because Petrosian woulda beaten the old champion in '64 too!).  Botvinnik cited health reasons for not challenging again, and when you consider how old he was, he probably was telling the truth!

Botvinnik retired because FIDE had changed the rules so he wouldn't get a return match...

That only B enjoyed this is of course due to 1) that he was the first fide champ and 2) he was soviet and thus had the support of the soviet and other eastblock delegates in fide's congress.

"Moreover, Botvinnik was especially selective in who was invited to the 1948 AVRO tournament at which he won the title."
I agree with Smyslov_Fan and largely with TalJechin here. The AVRO tournament was of course in 1938, not in 1948. The five strongest players participated. Maybe Fine should have been replaced by Najdorf, but I do not think Najdorf would have stand a chance. Something one must know, is the agreement of 1939. The plan was, that Keres would play a match against Euwe - which actually took place and Keres won. The other match would have been Fine against Botvinnik. The winners were expected to play again and that winner against Alekhine. So the match-tournament of 1948 was indeed the best solution; pity that Fine withdrew.
Not so long ago I read a comment by Kortsjnoj on Keres and the conspiracy theory. I think Kortsjnoj came close to the truth. After 1945 until 1948 Estonia suffered more from Sovjet occupation than it had from Nazi occupation - with the exception of the jews of course, who were exterminated. It is likely, that Keres had to fear transportation to the mines of Siberia. According to Kortsjnoj it was Botvinnik who prevented this. One can imagine, that these events were not encouraging Keres to perform well against Botvinnik.
Fact is, that Keres was not allowed to participate in the Staunton tournament in Groningen, immediately after the war.
I must say, that this theory looks probable to me, considering the characters of Botvinnik and Keres and the political circumstances of 1945-1948.

Quote:


Well, the comparison between Keres and Tal limps a bit since the latter resulted in an all Soviet WCh showing off the total Soviet domination. While Keres was a risk for that dominance, since he'd played in Nazi Germany and not being a true Soviet communist etc, so naturally they would prefer the devoted Botvinnik and probably did tell Keres that famous: 'if Botvinnik doesn't win it should not be because of you...'

I looked at the games Keres-Botvinnik some years ago and got convinced that some of them looked very suspicious. And I definitely don't believe Keres would normally play below par just because he had a dry position to play. All top players know that sometimes against weaker players you need to take some risks to win in such cases, but they all know how to draw these against their peers!

On the other hand, I don't believe Botvinnik asked for any unfair priviledges. And thus I don't consider him any dirtier than any other Soviet World Champion, surely they all had connections and took advantage, except perhaps Tal, who fell ill just before the return match in '61 and Botvinnik denied him time to recuperate, which could be another sign who the athorities wanted...

But other than that, I don't think a return match is unnatural or unsporting. If you really are a stronger player than the champ, it shouldn't be so hard to beat him twice. Historically, both Steinitz and Alekhine got return matches and Capa surely regretted he didn't have one stipulated in the contract...

When reading Sosonko's Russian Silhouettes, I got a very favourable impression of Botvinnik. Ultra serious and with bone hard principles, and not one to ever forget an injustice but not unsporting or devious...

Besides, wasn't it B who made sure Kasparov got a fair chance in his first match with Karpov?

I'd like to toss in a word (or as is my habit, a ream of words ) on Botvinnik before it really starts to snowball.

Botvinnik did not hand pick those who played in the 1948 match-play tournament for the World Championship.  The 1948 tournament ranks as one of the all-time greatest contests, despite what GM Larry Evans was to write nearly fifty years after the fact.  Botvinnik won every single mini-match of the tournament, and did so in extremely convincing style. 

The tournament was originally planned for six players to play five-game matches against each other and the winner would be declared champion.  Given the circumstances, this was most fair for all concerned.  Euwe, as the last living World Champion plus the other top five players were invited.  Reuben Fine declined his invitation.  Smyslov, Keres (about whom so much has been written) and Reshevsky were all there, but the clear favorite was Botvinnik. 

Botvinnik lost only two games in the entire tournament, to Reshevsky and Keres.  He finished three points clear of second place (Smyslov) despite having relaxed in the last series of games. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I have played through the games of this tournament about three times now.  Botvinnik's performance was absolutely amazing, and any claims to the contrary strike me as irrelevant griping.  I am sure he received help from the Soviet Union in the form of the best training facilities and comfortable lodgings, but I am also certain that he won the match fairly. 

Keres, who seems to be everyone's favorite victim in this tournament, beat Smyslov 3-2, lost to Botvinnik 1-4. (The score itself created the controversy because people in the West couldn't believe a player as strong as Keres could be dominated.  But as GM Evans says, just look at the games! )  Keres lost his match to Reshevsky 2-3, and beat Euwe 4.5-.5.  Maybe that last result should be analysed!   (Euwe's performance was so abysmal that when he left the Hague where the first half of the tournament was held, he was called "Ik no winnik" -- "I don't win" as a play on Botvinnik's name.)

The conspiracy theories revolving around Keres having to throw games do not match the facts either of this tournament or his subsequent career.  Keres had an exploitable weakness which even non-Soviets took advantage of.  He was not good (against the very best in the world) in relatively dry positions.  He would make absolutely reckless moves that would blind lesser lights, but were butalized by the very best.  His last game against Smyslov in 1953 is a case in point.  Yes, I know what Bronstein has to say in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but Bronstein's comments about the Zurich tournament are not supported by any other player, including himself in earlier writings!

There is one final point to make about why Keres was supposedly singled out to lose games.  There have been those who said that Keres was encouraged to lose because he was Estonian.  Yet a decade later a player from the next Baltic state over won the right to play Botvinnik for the title.  He was not reprimanded, he was glorified for his crushing defeat of Smyslov and others.  Of course, I am talking about Mikhail Tal.

I do not defend the horrors of the Soviet system, but there is no evidence that Botvinnik was complicit in any scheme to throw matches.  The worst that can be said of him is that a) he was overbearing and b) he actively lobbied for the "Botvinnik rule" which granted him a re-match within a year of losing any match.

I expect that this suggestion will be met with howls of derision, but I've been leafing through The Sorcerer's Apprentice this evening, and Bronstein makes no secret of his contempt for Botvinnik.  Could Botvinnik, in fact, be the weakest world champion?

Note that Botvinnik played five matches for the world championship, but only won two of them.  And likely only qualified to win the two he did because of the absurd rule he made up that guaranteed him a rematch should he lose the title (do you really think he could have made it through all the candidates' matches to challenge Smyslov or Tal?).  Moreover, he was especially selective in who was invited to the 1948 AVRO tournament at which he won the title.  In his match with Bronstein, which he drew, he won the final two games after Bronstein was comfortably ahead.  Was Bronstein coerced?  Bronstein also notes that Botvinnik won all his games in that match after adjournments--Bronstein all his at the first sitting.  No one would question Botvinnik's powers of analysis, but he certainly was fallible at the board (same as in his matches with Tal).  Botvinnik was not above avoiding players either, especially Najdorf and others.  Botvinnik also had the ruthless Soviet machine in his corner, which bent over backwards to support him and his claim to the championship.

Just some rambling thoughts...

Bronstein also says he met Petrosjan for the first time in Tblisi in 1942 in the sorcerer's apprecentice.