The western favourite theory says that soviet authorities coerced Keres to lose games to Botvinnik during the 1948 Hague–Moscow match tournament. Unfortunately, while this hypothesis is plausible, it has not been proved, as there are other plausible alternative hypotheses.
I defend the neutrality and objectivity of historical research and I am against politicizing the history study. To my mind, the fame of Keres has been used for political propaganda during all regimes — up to the present day. I suggest an alternative paradigm concerning Keres, Alekhine and Fischer: to consider the life of a genius in totalitarian societies.
I suggest a new hypothesis that Botvinnik intentionally lost the last game between Keres and Botvinnik in 1948 because Botvinnik had already earned the title. It is not excluded that soviet authorities regarded the last round as a competition between the soviet and the western coalitions. The result 1–0 in the game Keres-Botvinnik secured the three first places for the soviet bloc.
I am of the opinion that concerning “Keres mystery”, Valter Heuer and Taylor Kingston have been the only authors aware of the methodology of history and scientific rigidness. I also stress that from the collection of essays and memories (in Estonian)
Paul Keres: Mälestusi, materjale, kirju [= Paul Keres: Memories, materials, and letters] (2015) Editor: Paavo Kivine. Tallinn: Olympia.
one of Kingston’s important critical essays from 1998 has been left out, while the other one from 2001 has been published partially, without noticing the reader. Essential critical sections of Kingston’s paper have been dropped out without informing the reader and probably without the copyright holder’s consent.
Artificially, an impression has been left as if it has been scientifically proved that Keres was forced to lose to Botvinnik. In that way, a real scientific breakthrough has been hindered because it is difficult to achieve financial support for studies if it is claimed that everything is proved already.
I submitted an essay about these things to the Estonian scientific culture journal "Akadeemia" in 2017. My paper was not published, and the journal did not inform me about the decision. Only in 2021, four years later, the journal admitted that they decided in 2017 that they “cannot publish it”. They gave no reasons.
I also submitted the shortened version (1/3 of my paper) of the essay to the Estonian culture newspaper "Sirp", which promised to publish it. However, they did not, and they did not answer the letters anymore. Finally, I published that essay as a "preprint" in several places, for example, on Figshare: doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14443760.v1
The essay, however, is written in Estonian.
It seems that even after more than a half of a century, the "Keres mystery" is highly politicized, classified and censored, it is used as a political propaganda again without regard to scientific objectivity and rigidness.
I defend the neutrality and objectivity of historical research and I am against politicizing the history study. To my mind, the fame of Keres has been used for political propaganda during all regimes — up to the present day. I suggest an alternative paradigm concerning Keres, Alekhine and Fischer: to consider the life of a genius in totalitarian societies.
I suggest a new hypothesis that Botvinnik intentionally lost the last game between Keres and Botvinnik in 1948 because Botvinnik had already earned the title. It is not excluded that soviet authorities regarded the last round as a competition between the soviet and the western coalitions. The result 1–0 in the game Keres-Botvinnik secured the three first places for the soviet bloc.
I am of the opinion that concerning “Keres mystery”, Valter Heuer and Taylor Kingston have been the only authors aware of the methodology of history and scientific rigidness. I also stress that from the collection of essays and memories (in Estonian)
Paul Keres: Mälestusi, materjale, kirju [= Paul Keres: Memories, materials, and letters] (2015) Editor: Paavo Kivine. Tallinn: Olympia.
one of Kingston’s important critical essays from 1998 has been left out, while the other one from 2001 has been published partially, without noticing the reader. Essential critical sections of Kingston’s paper have been dropped out without informing the reader and probably without the copyright holder’s consent.
Artificially, an impression has been left as if it has been scientifically proved that Keres was forced to lose to Botvinnik. In that way, a real scientific breakthrough has been hindered because it is difficult to achieve financial support for studies if it is claimed that everything is proved already.
I submitted an essay about these things to the Estonian scientific culture journal "Akadeemia" in 2017. My paper was not published, and the journal did not inform me about the decision. Only in 2021, four years later, the journal admitted that they decided in 2017 that they “cannot publish it”. They gave no reasons.
I also submitted the shortened version (1/3 of my paper) of the essay to the Estonian culture newspaper "Sirp", which promised to publish it. However, they did not, and they did not answer the letters anymore. Finally, I published that essay as a "preprint" in several places, for example, on Figshare: doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14443760.v1
The essay, however, is written in Estonian.
It seems that even after more than a half of a century, the "Keres mystery" is highly politicized, classified and censored, it is used as a political propaganda again without regard to scientific objectivity and rigidness.