http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_538-FFQ4e...

Not to mention his duty as a fanatic.

<My journalistic duty requires mentioning the forgery theory exists.>

And also that it seems to be the prevailing opinion in the chess world. The Flat Earth Theory exists, so simply noting existence isn't really saying anything much.

<By default one assumes the name of the author on the cover is sufficiently accurate. Many books are ghostwritten, especially "autobiographies" of celebrities or politicians. Do you care whether Larry Evans took dictation or polished the literary style of Fischer's M60MG ?>

No, and of course we all know what "by William Shatner <WITH> Chris Kreski" means. But even then, I expect that Shatner was at the very least involved with the book, read the final draft, and gave it his imprimatur. I'm not convinced that Fischer so much as heard of this book.

<Should I say 'innocent until proven guilty' or has that ceremony of innocence been drowned?>

You can say it, but it applies a) in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, and b) to human beings, not literary works. Just because no one has gone to jail for the crime of forging it doesn't mean we have any obligation to regard it as genuine.

<It is idiotic to expect any writer to have the same style as he had forty years earlier.>

True, but it's not a blind expectation. People know that Fischer's personality and attitudes seemeed little changed since then. And of course the various con games surrounding the book (Helgi, et cetera) have left most people with little confidence in it.

Is your position that it's genuine really based on nothing more than that that's the name listed on the cover? I agree that's a reasonable assumption, <other things being equal>, but other things aren't equal, and I haven't seen your full review.

As a reader, I'd certainly buy one if it were available in stores, in order to judge for myself. But as a book reviewer, would you advise me to go out and pay black market prices for it?

<Now, some logic: Is this a master forger at work, some genius of his craft brilliantly deceiving my naive foolishness and outwitting my critical faculties? If so, could Ed Trice be such a genius?>

Could be, but is there any evidence that it is? Apart from the name on the cover. It <could> be that Fischer is still alive, partying it up with Elvis in Acapulco. But I don't think so.

I made the same point earlier, ughaibu. The other trick would be to print up a thousand copies to sell, or just make photocopied versions with spiral bindings.

Even if he was lying about that, do you really think he would make himself out to be a liar by publishing one of his "anonymous internet dalliances" in 61 Memorable Games?

But what I was really trying to say is that whoever went to the effort to print apparently just a few copies of this is NOT going to stand by quietly if somebody else starts printing and selling "pirated" copies."

Great idea....Let's pirate the pirates

Big claims require big evidence. Bobby had completely and PUBLICLY disavowed "classical" chess. And he's going to spend his final months working on a book about classical chess?

Who's blaming him? I just want to know his reasons for thinking it real, given that a) nobody who knew Fischer in Iceland knew about it, b) it's been promoted in so many unscrupulous ways, and c) a court of law pronounced it a hoax. He must have a pretty good reason for disregarding all that, but all I heard was that the cover said so, so you should assume it's true. There's got to be more than that.

The point is, IM Day has been an accomplice to this fraud (purposeful or not) by giving the book credence in his column.

This can have the effect of motivating many uninitiated people (who read his column) to buy this book.

Too many people in journalism take liberties, and fail to factcheck and do appropriate research, before couching their opinions as fact in print.

Correcto...best way, easiest, simplest, and by far the most maddening to whoever instigated this situation. If any parts of M61MG quotes the original M60MG, I would think, however, the publisher of THAT book would have some standing, but why then haven't they gone after the book publishers in a tort case at this stage anyway? Joshka's suggestion that the current legit publisher is carrying out some convoluted scheme to undermine this book doesn't hold water for many reasons, principally its part of the business of publication for there to be similar books. My god, look how many cookbooks there are out there, many with the same recipes. And many authors have published similar books, but through different publishers. You don't remain in publishing if you can't deal with those facts.