I love the juxtaposition of this quote beside your avatar with the flag rippling in the brisk lunar wind. I don't personally think I'm very gullible at all, but I do think there is a lot of gullibility going around.

<pinnedpiece> "...At this point--today--with no legal challenges forthcoming..."

How can we know that? Mr. Labate seems particularly litigatous having already sued the USCF, his alderman and Ed Trice. If we don't know who owns the U.S. copyright for M60MG how do we know they won't sue? The reason
legal challenges haven't come forth may well be that the plantiff is eager but simply doesn't know who to sue or where to find the boxes of books to confiscate. Let's not pretend there aren't dark forces which would like to see this book destroyed.

<Riverbeast> I usually ignore your posts that are both stupid and rude. You are often wrong about your facts as has been amply demonstrated. Projecting your own faults onto me you assume the worst. As usual you are wrong: Not only did I check key facts but also I have my own fact-checker/proofreader. I also answer to a professional editor. If you would like to try to correct a specific fact from the column (which you claimed didn't exist) about the book (which you claimed didn't exist), then there are standard procedures in place aside from anonymous internet sniping.

As a source Fischer's "inconsistency" is legendary. This is the guy who hates Jews but has all sorts of Jewish friends; the guy who insists UBS is ripping him off while he refuses to accept their money; the super rabid anti-American who insists on keeping his U.S. passport; the guy who claims with a straight face that Mossad is trying to exterminate the elephants because their trunks look like uncircumcized penises. Mr. Credibility he isn't. You say that someone said that Fischer said such-and-such. That's third hand hearsay of a source without credibility to begin with.

Look at it from Bobby's viewpoint. Suppose you were pursued by fans all the time. But you might want to play chess on the internet. Do you tell your public that you play on the internet? No way. You misdirect them. This is called lying. To be fair we should recognize that sometimes mentally ill people will have delusions. They may not even know that they are lying. Sometimes gullible people lie accidentally.
There is no brisk lunar wind.
It went over the head.

Also there are Zen lies.
I like to think Fischer's early statements like
symmetrical KIAs favour Black; the King's Gambit is bust; or Keres missed mate in five against Petrosian, that these statements were meant to be refuted, to make one think, or at least not taken at face value. Tres koanic.

It was <robmtchl> who said the column did not exist... not <Riverbeast> as far as I know. From the Fischer page:

<May-02-09>

<robmtchl: I wrote to the Toronto Star and they said they had never published a review of the book by IM Day.>

Sunday is Mother's day! Don't forget to send flowers!!!

Fair enough. You guys take it away-
If <IM Day> can dish it out, I guess he'll have to take it as well.

I will not make any more suggestions, or comments about the way you gentlemen choose to post in here.

Okay....

<If you would like to try to correct a specific fact from the column>

I think I corrected several of them....The "anonymous internet dalliances", the fact that Fischer once wrote out the word "weakie', and he did not spell it "weaky" (sic)....

And that was BEFORE Einarsson's email came out.

Maybe I should be your factchecker....

I'll have to charge a little more than the ones you have, though ;-)

<Bobby was an official, authentic criminal, an outlaw even, a possible bigamist, a purported drug smuggler (see Krabbe on Nemenyi) and of course, above all, a perpetual victim whose knuckles are constantly assaulted by the noses of others>

You're revealing even more 'journalistic integrity' now....

And you have so many interesting conspiracy theories about this book.... <Let's not pretend there aren't dark forces which would like to see this book destroyed>

<Some layout gopher stole his manuscript before he could destroy it. Maybe..>

I find it interesting you call Fischer delusional.

Readers of this column assume this book is real, because you're an IM and "you know what you're talking about".

But your contortions of logic in order to find *ANY" shred of possibility the book is Fischer's, shows delusion on your part (in my humble, possibly incorrect opinion).

For all of Fischer's faults, one thing he always was, was brutally honest.

In fact, one can argue his brutal honesty WAS one of his 'faults' (at times)

And I have to ask again.....Even if you believe Fischer was lying about "never playing on the internet", do you think he would expose himself as a liar by publishing his "anonymous internet dalliances"?

And THIS was the game that prompted him to play FischerRandom? Do you really believe that?

Brainking's fake Bobby Fischer:

<14. April 2006, 23:33:01
[JinkyOng, Iceland, Brain Pawn, Male] JinkyOng
show this user posts | show thread | link

There is one game I played with some other <weakie> posted. None of my other games will be posted without my permission.

<It turns out that 100 square Gothic Chess was written about in a letter by Capablanca to someone in 1935, according to Edward Winter. He was still calling the Chancellor the Marshall and the Archbishop the Chancellor back then. This board was set up exactly like Gothic Chess only it was 10x10 in dimension and not 10x8. Capablanca said he did not like the 10x8 version since "the Bishops strike through to the Rooks". So it looks like he examined but rejected Gothic Chess. Does this mean it cannot be patented? I think 10x10 Gothic could be played here anyway.

<Don't tell me why I came up with the game then talk about me in the 3rd person. <Anyone who talks about me in this way will be ignored, starting with you>.>>>

But I really think it was wrong of you to say what you said in this column. that's all...And I think it's wrong of you to not retract it

There are a lot of people who lied about Fishcer, toyed with his legacy, and made him out to look bad....From Darrasch's baboonish portrayals of him, and his looseness with the facts....To the changed analysis in the 60MG Batsford edition....

I wonder what motivates people to want to make up things and construct a straw man out of him....Instead of talking about the man as he was.

As far as we know, Fischer hearing about this book while he was on his deathbed (and the 'sad look' he had, according to Einarsson) may have motivated him to want to die even faster!

Can you imagine what it must be like to have jackals lying about you and feeding on your flesh in your last days?

Don't you think it probably added to his misery?

For those who hated him, that may be what they wanted to do...Or for them, it was a 'fringe benefit'

A review has to address the book itself. The forgery theory is interesting but something else.

I hadn't followed M61MG threads until after the rarebooks samples appeared on the net. The discussion was whether or not the book was real, REAL as in existent as opposed to HOAX as in send money and get ripped off totally. I went back and researched and took my time figuring out what to believe. I put my opinion in the thread and the check in the mail. Some people believed my $200 (CAN) was good as gone. However the book turned out to be real and I did not feel ripped off at all.

So what does my testimony that the book is real mean when quoted into a thread on whether the book is forged or real? Heh eh. Then to poll on whether the book is (guessed as) a HOAX without defining what hoax means is a pointless pursuit.

My opinion is still that Fischer wrote the manuscript. Maybe I'm wrong. If not Fischer, then who? and why? Forgery is a crime. To prove it you will need three things: motive, means and opportunity. Your theory will need to fit ALL the known facts so watch out for anomalies like the author knowing the purpose of the hotel donkey at Sousse.

<robmtchl> It was printed on Saturday, February 28 in the Toronto Star and a few days later in the London Free Press. As a freelancer the later copyright for online purposes reverts to me. Since there was interest in my opinion I put the part about the book on cg as text and now it is public domain. Hackmate has scanned the hard copy of the original and I verify it is authentic. However if you want to check for yourself then come to Toronto and look in library stacks. Note: The London Free Press is London, Ontario and has since dropped my column. I know nothing about the London (England) Free Press PR stunt.

<MOM>, I sent a cheque to the Ottawa address and received the book in the mail. The Ottawa woman, who was never more than an intermediary anyway, has retired from the game wishing she had never been exposed to the "chess community" in the first place. She wrote that after her name became known hooligans (3 seen fleeing) threw rocks and a brick labelled M61 through her front window. This may be true, Ottawa has some real boozer losers of dubious mental health, but it could also be part of the PR. I don't know. Nor do I know how anyone now could obtain a copy.

<JB>

JB: re: "...p. 735 really stands out as an example of really bad writing." ===
from "No Regrets" (1992):

26...Qe8

Because of his vast experience in the Spanish, I [Seirawan/Stefanovic] suspect that Spassky [i]anticipated[/i] this position since playing 19..Nh7. He undoubtably felt that the queenside was fortified, the center closed, and the kingside balanced. He erred. Bobby now unveils his master stroke.

27.Nf1!
===

compare M61MG (2007):

26...Qe8
Knowing Spassky's play, I believe he thought his position was tenable at least to this point. A superficial examination might 'reveal' that: the center is basically closed, each player has roughly the same level of Kingside resources distributed relatively suitably for the position, and the Queenside has the appearance of defensibility, though in state of pending liquidation. Such a static summary is shattered by the strategic maneuver I was about to undertake with the Knight. 27.Nf1!
===

The three static issues which M61MG tries to elaborate more fully than NR seem expressed oddly; why not just say the kingside is balanced? But why is it balanced? What does that mean? And the queenside is fortified BUT more: it might be liquidated at White's choice and b5 will always need a defender. This is the genesis of the dynamic N/g3-f1-d2-b1-a3 "master stroke" to tap b5 one more time. But wait, can White's kingside survive the distant decentralization of one of its prime defending pieces? That certainly tips the delicate balance of resources which was protecting White's King. In fact using the other Knight for the same idea allows dangerous counterplay which even Kasparov seems to have misjudged. Deep position eh!

<We've just returned from a fortnight at the Hotel Royal Beach, Sousse. We read good and terrible reviews before we went and so went with an open mind.>

<The staff are all really friendly and helpful, much more so than our rep! The food was lovely. I expected the tunisian food to be much more spicey than it was, but it was tasty. Eggs or omelette cooked in front of you for breakfast impressed the kids. Perhaps the puddings got a bit monotonous, but they were OK.>

<The entertainment in the evenings is low key, though the Indian show was really good - beds of nails, that sort of stuff.. The kids had a 'dance' spot run by a couple of young men who encouraged even the older kids to join in.>

<The rooms were basic but clean. The only down side was the noise, firstly from in front of reception if you get a room above there, and secondly from people who stay around after the entertainment because its like an ampitherter where the noise really travels and echos.>

<The best trip we went on was an afternoon camel riding. You can ride on the camels, in a cart, <<<on horse back or donkey>>> (or swap if you wish). You can eat bread made in a kiln and water melon, drink mint tea or other refreshments. See the baby camel drinking coke out of the bottle... And all for about £8. (£4 for kids) Book with JACK in the hotel. He's usually around either in the building or on the hotels private beach. Even if you don't fancy a camel ride, go and have a chat with him cos he's lovely.>

<Sousse itsself I didn't think I was going to like when we first arrived, but I come to love it. Especially the friendly people. I will miss walking through the madina to the shouts of 'cheeper than chips', and 'Asda price'.>

<Round and about - don't miss El Jem, the ribat at Monastir, a ride in a 'tuk tuk', or eating a Brik!> <(can get one of these at the excellent hotel snack bar).>

<All in all a GREAT place. Will definitely go back.>

Still I find Seirawan's comment ("He undoubtedly felt that the queenside was fortified, the center closed, and the kingside balanced. He erred. Bobby now unveils his master stroke.") far superior, sharper, and more to the point than the "static summary/pending liquidation" comment. I really think the latter reads like somebody trying hard to sound superior, but it isn't.

<This is the first instance in the history of chess, when a player has withdrawn from a tournament when he was leading.”>

<Paul Keres, Chess Life 1968>

<Among the accommodations for the guests at the Sousse-Palace Hotel, where the Interzonal was held, were use of a “camel, donkey, speed boat, and small yacht” (Brady, Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy, 134). Frank Brady observes that several problems emerged due to inadequate event organization, including poor lighting, intrusions of a photographer from the Soviet Embassy of Tunisia, and unfair scheduling. Fischer had been granted a day off to observe the Sabbath, postponing his eighth round game with Victor Korchnoi. According to Brady, his ninth round game with Efim Geller unnecessarily also had been postponed, resulting in six consecutive days without a break. When Fischer sought to remedy this error, he was refused without being offered an explanation.>

>

If I were forging a reworked chess analysis book, hunting for and including passages like this would be the least of my worries. The simple truth is, the story behind this book is not proved or disproved by this anecdotal info: That it is available, ok, fine. That a forger would want to use it, especially if time were a critical factor in getting the book out, is silly. Possibly true, but not proved one way or the other.

Much more telling to me are phrases that seem very much like literal translations from a primary language into English, by a well-educated but ESL writer.

Also, Canadianisms, like "available FOR the public" rather than the standard U.S. "available TO the public" as announced in the ebay auction in Dec 07.