The Final Round of the Curaçao 1962 Candidates Tournament

@tpr said ^

"So Averbakh is lying 40 years later in 2002?"

• So Fischer was lying all the time and

The difference is that the facts support Averbakh's assessment. They do not support Fischer's assessment.

for no real reason did not play the candidates' tournaments he was qualified for by winning interzonals?

He had no real reason to avoid it.

I respect your investigation and your conclusion, but I also respect the investigations of the late Jan Timman and Johannes Fischer
https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-candidates-tournaments-1959-and-1962.
It seems: no conclusive proof, so not guilty versus guilty, but hard to prove.

If Fischer won interzonals and then refused to play candidates' tournaments he did so maybe without proof, but not without reason.

@tpr said ^

I respect your investigation and your conclusion, but I also respect the investigations of the late Jan Timman and Johannes Fischer
https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-candidates-tournaments-1959-and-1962.
It seems: no conclusive proof, so not guilty versus guilty, but hard to prove.

If Fischer won interzonals and then refused to play candidates' tournaments he did so maybe without proof, but not without reason.

Thank you for linking the article by Johannes Fischer. I shall take a look and see whether their conclusion is justified.

@tpr

Let us start by summarizing Fischer's claims:

Claim 1: Soviet players [Petrosian, Geller, Keres and Korchnoi] purposely colluded to eliminate Fischer.
Claim 2: Korchnoi lost his games to Petrosian, Geller and Keres in Cycle 3 deliberately.
Claim 3: Soviet players gave each other advice during the games.
Claim 4: Petrosian drew with Keres in a winning position. (Supporting collusion against Fischer).

Johannes Fischer's article does not address Claims 2, 3 and 4.

He doesn't mention the fact that Fischer accused Korchnoi of deliberately throwing games, that Fischer accused the Soviets of giving advice as well as Fischer's accusation against the Petrosian-Keres game.

(People water down what Fischer actually said to try to make him seem more reasonable)

All that leaves is the fact that Petrosian, Korchnoi and Geller drew all their games in less than 22 moves.

This is the basis on which he makes the following statement:

All this leads to the conclusion that Fischer's claim that the Soviet players were willing to manipulate the candidates tournaments to give no western player the chance to challenge the world champion was justified.

1. Why aren't Korchnoi and Tal involved in this plot? They are Soviet too. Johannes said Soviet players. I guess Korchnoi and Tal are 'western players' who are being colluded against by the 'Soviets'!

2. Making short draws cannot possibly stop a 'western player' from challenging the World Champion. As you said yourself in another discussion, to win the Candidates you have to win games!

Paul Keres defended himself against Fischer's attacks by pointing this out:

Keres: "These perfectly understandable tactics, Bobby Fischer uses as the basis for an attack on his fellow-contestants. If they draw with each other, how does that harm him? Elementary mathematics shows that a draw can only benefit the score of someone in the lower half of the table. Draws do not win!"

Keres himself agreed that his short draws were 'no adornment'.

Keres: "Admittedly these quick draws are no adornment to any chess contest. In my opinion, they are a symptom that the event is over-protracted. A monster tournament of 28 rounds is nothing (or the International Chess Organization as organizers to be proud of. That the players try, in effect, to shorten it a little, seems to me wholly natural-chess players are only human."

Elliot Hearst (from Chess Life magazine) pointed out clearly that short draws cannot stop a competitor from winning:

Hearst: "It's true, also, that Fischer's poor start, and the immediate rise of four Russians to the top of the scoretable, made it rather convenient for the Soviet stars to continue their point-splitting course. If Bobby had won his first few games, draws among the Russians would have been the worst possible course for them to follow, since that procedure would have placed them further and further behind the American."

The idea that Soviets drawing games ensures they will stop western players from becoming champion is false.

So why did Fischer persist with such a clearly false argument?

In my opinion because his belief was based on multiple points which were each individually untrue.

All of his four claims have no evidence.

Some people do believe in clearly false things even though there is no evidence for those beliefs.

If you don't agree then this would imply that no one is wrong about anything.

It's just psychology, emotions cause people to overlook and ignore the implications of facts and also make irrational arguments.

I've already addressed Fischer's other claims in my blog.

And remember, first it was claimed to be against Fischer, then Johannes Fischer waters it down to just against 'Western players' of which Korchnoi and Tal are apparently grouped with.

And then finally I showed that The 'Soviets' - (not accurate as Korchnoi or Tal weren't involved) could not reasonably keep the World Championship to their selves by just drawing games with each other.

@danthedestroyer317 said:

Kortchnoi who famously defected to Switzerland from the Soviet Union and likely refused to collude with the other Soviet players in Curaçao

As a matter of fact I've read Victor Korchnoi's Autobiography, Chess Is My Life.

He didn't 'likely refuse' because he was never asked to do such a thing.

@tpr

For some historical context:
Moscow 1936
Stalin: “How do you like my tournament?”
Capablanca: “It’s terrible; your players are cheating.”
Stalin: “What do you mean?”
Capablanca: “When they play against each other, the Soviets make quick draws and they get to rest.
When they play against me, they fight on and on just to make me tired.”

@tpr

Why do you ignore everything I wrote lol.

I do not ignore.
I give historical context that collusion was widespread in the Soviet Union long before 1962.
It also shows Capablanca thought differently from Keres regarding
'Elementary mathematics shows that a draw can only benefit the score of someone in the lower half of the table.'
Keres was certainly right about
'That the players try, in effect, to shorten it a little, seems to me wholly natural-chess players are only human.'
For such a long tournament in a hot climate additional rest days from short draws are beneficial.

By the way Fischer's article 'The Russians Have Fixed World Chess' has its title wrong:
Korchnoi was the only Russian: Geller was Ukrainian, Petrosian Armenian, Tal Latvian, Keres Estonian

@tpr said ^

I do not ignore.

You addressed absolutely nothing I wrote in my comment above, as it customary for you.

Address my comment please. Where is the evidence that the Soviets colluded against Fischer at Curacao?

Stop trying to avoid this simple question.