Was This Game Lost on Purpose?

@Duchess64

1970 were the days of the Soviets, they were very concern about Fischer
so as a group they did everything to stop him, but at the same time, they had very strong players like Taimanov (or Geller)

@Duchess64

I'm not strong enough to judge the moves but according to the internet the game was fixed.

An article about cheating here

http://www.anusha.com/keres-bo.htm

When I played through the game, exchanging twice at f3 struck me as dubious because it develops White's queen. On the other hand, each exchange tends to reduce the force of the advance of White's kingside pawn majority, which it doesn't seem Black can prevent. So, I guess that the double exchange might well be necessary.

The next move I wondered about was 14...Be5, which seems to end up simply wasting time (compared to 14...Bxf4) because the queen leaves e7 only to soon return there.

I then wondered whether Matulovic had played the Queen's Gambit Accepted much, and a database search indicated that he had.

Then I looked up the opening in a database. It had several games involving 14...Bxf4 (most of which were draws) but only this one game with 14...Be5. It is curious indeed that the latter was tried on such a pivotal occasion.

Well Taimanov went on to the next round and got massacred by Fischer so karma paid him a visit for buying games.

What is known for a fact is that Matulovic arrived very late and blitzed out his moves.

Levy, Liberzon, Timman, Korchnoi and Barden amongst others all report money changed hands. (amounts vary)
Apparently Liberzon actually states in his book that Matulovic confessed to taking a bribe.

@Duchess64

Well I just watched the documentary on that and it would seem strange to play for a win with black while using the Pirc but it is a fighting defense and I guess someone could win with it because it is a fighting defense but it was obviously dubious to play that defense after his comeback....
He was down and came back and uses the Pirc in the pivotal game?
I don't think he gave up or threw the match...I think he used a fighting defense that didn't work out.

The Pirc is playable at any level but not many study it to the point of winning with it regularly.
The Pirc always gets a bad rap and that is unfortunate.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

100% right...
It boggles the mind why he did what he did but playing a fighting defense as black and winning would have been a huge victory.
Maybe he was cocky...
Or paid?
I think Karpov was always better than Korchnoi.

I don't think that, from the moves alone, we can tell the difference between 'Matulović threw the game because of bribery, 'Matulović, a known wildcard, threw the game because it didn't matter to him' and 'Matulović, a good but not super grand master, had an off day against one of the top players of the era'.

It may be possible to say more if you were there. Politically speaking... it's possible. It's hardly a foregone conclusion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Timman's The Art of Chess Analysis includes the third game from the match between Portisch and Smyslov to determine a replacement in case one of the qualifiers for the candidate matches were to withdraw. (Since no one withdrew, the match was suspended with the score 3-3.) Here's the game, won by Smyslov (Black).