Another completely separate question is whether any dictator has the right to rule the chess world. My personal answer will always be negative, but the USCF has apparently its own point of view on the subject. If you admit that great chess talent usually causes jealousy, envy or even blind hatred among miserable chess players, the explanation of cases like Alekhine or Fisher may lie not in the purity of administrative principles, but in much more bastard interests. Another more important difference is that Alekhine was a great chess player, and his games as well as his book are equally great. Denker was never a great player, and in my opinion neither his games nor his book are great at all.
Answers are welcome.
Anyway, I want to say a nice word about Denker s play. When he obtained a certain notoriety by losing a match against a computer, I never believed that Denker could have been bribed. On the contrary, I have reasons to believe that bribes may have played a role in other victories of machine versus man. In the case of Grandmaster Emeritus Denker, I am sure that the machine was much stronger. Its politicization took a clear Soviet pattern since the World Championship of 1948.