In a civilized justice system the prosecution goes first and must try to prove their case without fishing for information they do not have. Bold assertions do not make a case however loudly or repeatedly declared.

To learn more about burden of proof (without using wiki;) try this experiment:
Go to a bookstore,
seize a copy of Titus Andronicus,
loudly claim it is a crappy play that Shakespeare couldn't possibly have written, demand it be withdrawn from sale,
argue that having his name on the cover is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, threaten to sue,
have a chorus of accomplices repeat your bold assertions, inspire some drunks to vandalize the store in the middle of the night, and when the store withdraws the book
then smugly claim victory,
claim the impossibility of buying the book clearly proves you were right all along.

The name on the cover of a book without either a copyright or a named publisher is more trustworthy than the word of Bobby's friends. Uh huh.

Let's return to our regularly scheduled lives, people, and let Mr. Day go back to reading his beloved book and discussing it with the ducks.

<In a civilized justice system the prosecution goes first and must try to prove their case without fishing for information they do not have. Bold assertions do not make a case however loudly or repeatedly declared.>

The bold assertions are on your part having associated the dead Fischer with a book his friends and colleges deny he wrote!! The burden on proof is on those who claim the assertion! You appear out of the blue with your extra-ordinary claim that the most exiting book in chess has been released while the author deny writing it, his friends deny his involvement and all evidence points to someone else writing it, so the burden of proof lie on you, it is that simple! Do not confuse, Mr. IM, the assertion that Ed Trice is behind M61MG with the assertion that Fischer wrote M61MG - the first is ours to prove (since it links someone with criminal activity) the second is yours (since you make the assertion)! We have bothered much to provide the evidence of Trice's involvement so that it too has reached a consensus, in other words we have already proved Ed Trice involvement, while there is not a single shred of evidence that Fischer wrote the book. Not only that we don't have the book, only you and SEVERAL other people have it.

So, Mr. Day, with all due respect for your chess skills, Please stop waisting our time with your "professional" opinion and scan the book already or stop referring to it otherwise you could be held suspicious of promoting it for finical gain. You have linked your reputation with Ed Trice Mr. Day, it is your fault.

<Mar-13-09>
<Robert James Fischer>

<ughaibu: There's a book, heavily associated with Trice and the contents aren't copyrighted.>

<1) apparently Fischer has denied authorship in the Icelandic press, this is a simple matter; do you give greater credence to Trice or the Icelandic press?>

<2) Fischer was a guy who even tried to copyright his game scores, he was up in arms about an unauthorised republication of M60MG, again this is a simple matter; do you seriously believe that such a guy would release a book uncopyrighted?>

Shakespeare Forgeries, LOUDLY PROCLAIMED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irelan... <...poet-laureate <Henry James Pye pronounced them genuine>...

Excitement over the biographical and literary significance of the find turned to acrimony when it was charged that the documents were forgeries.

OK, probably not. It was one of those steamy novels popular back then, such as Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins.

<107 Crosstree Road
Moon Township PA 15108- 2607>

<The most unique of small American chess publishers is surely Bob Dudley's Chess Enterprises. A full-time college professor, Dudley has published chess books for two decades in his spare time. For many years, a Chess Enterprise book was the quintessential labor of love, in that Bob and his wife would spread the pages about a room and laboriously hand-assemble each and every copy. Then he would sell the finished copy out of his garage for prices so low (typically $3.00 to $5.00) that other chess publishers would gnash their teeth. I would be astonished if Bob ever made any money on these efforts; but he continues to put out books at a steady pace and, as with Chess Digest, the production quality of Chess Enterprises books has risen dramatically over the last five years. Ultimately, the prices rose as well; Silman and Donaldson's three superb volumes on the Slav, for example, 150-60 pages each of small-print analysis and prose, compelled the reader to part with frightening sums like $8.95 and $12.95.

To an even greater extent than the publishers mentioned above, Dudley has had a hard time saying 'no' to potential authors. Occasionally, he has has therefore served as a sort of non-profit vanity press, putting out a few books which leave you wondering how long the author has known the rules. But at the same time, the Chess Enterprises list has always included books of real value. Aside from the Donaldson and Silman efforts>

<Ed Trice:I met him at the World Open, so I was surprised he would say anything about the book involving me. He said he received an email from "me", and after further discussion just the other day, we both agree that the person who emailed him was NOT me, bit someone claiming to be me.>

This from the NYTimes:

< Dr. Brady explained that he had given a lecture at the Marshall Chess Club on West 10th Street in Manhattan, and a video of the lecture was posted on YouTube. In response,> <a friend of Mr. Fischer's <<<called>>> Dr. Brady and asked him if he would help Mr. Fischer with a project: reissuing and updating his book, "My 60 Memorable Games," to be called "My 61 Memorable Games.">

<Frank Brady: This friend asked me if I would help, and I said that I don’t think that Bobby wants my help.>

Trice's Fake Tournament Winner:
<checkandmate_2000@yahoo.com>

Trice's Fake Fischer Contact:
<jinky_ong_2000@yahoo.com.ph>

<USACheckers.com, cached:
by EdTrice on Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:58 am

You are full of crap.

In 1989 I played in my last chess tournament, and with 2 wins, 3 draws, and 4 losses in the Under 2400 section, my rating hit bottom at 2207. I never played chess after this...

<Since you must resort to lying to establish ficticious versions of things that never took place>, I will never reply to any more of your posts.

Have a great life.

--Ed>

Keep track of how long that took you. Multiply by 60. What kind of minimum timeline we looking at?>>

You assume there was a complete rewrite of the work. That is not the case. How you do it is you scan the document into a pdf file and run spell and grammar check. Make the suggested changes.

Next you run a good chess engine against the games and "pad" the previous analysis with computer insight and overly flowery language.

Now Trice claims to do 40 pages per night. 800 pages divided by 40 pages per night comes up to 20 days. Proving to me that the entire work could be done by one person in 60 days. Trice has boasted to me privatly in the past of a typing ability of 120 GWPM.

Now why would I multiply my number by 60 as Pinned Piece suggested? That seems to be an arbritary number with no basis in fact.

<IMlDay - My journalistic duty requires mentioning the forgery theory exists.

< REPORTED FACT <There were critics who presumed it was a forgery...> > >

See the mistake? Rather than writing that the forgery theory exists <present tense>, your write that there WERE forgery critics <past tense>.

The meaning in the article is that there is NO LONGER A FORGERY THEORY. Furthermore, the critics were characterized as having PRESUMED their position, in apparent abandonment of the laws of reason. This inadvertently distorts the thought processes of those in the competing point of view, which is the consensus here at Chessgames. Therefore, I believe that you have unfairly characterized the competing point of view, and I believe this was a mistake.

There are other mistakes that follow from this, in a logical manner. Had the forgery theory been given balanced treatment, then what you had REPORTED AS FACT would have been characterized with neutrality (the author wrote, rather than Fischer wrote). I've outlined some these REPORTED FACTS below for your reconsideration:

<REPORTED FACT <Bobby Fischer died last year after completing a book My 61 Memorable Games...>

REPORTED FACT < ...the publisher and editor remain anonymous...>

REPORTED FACT <...Fischer's writing style is fairly mellow compared to his infamous rants...>

REPORTED FACT <...In the notes to Olafsson-Fischer, Zurich 1959 Fischer includes "one of my anonymous internet dalliances" for historical significance...>

REPORTED FACT <...(9...g5! Fischer's punctuation...he recommends 12...Nc5) >

REPORTED FACT <16...e4!(Punctuation by Fischer) (Likewise. He doesn't mention that...) >

REPORTED FACT <...It was this disappointing theoretical draw against a "nobody" that inspired his creation of Fischer Random Chess."> >

It is the reader's duty to let the journalist know of such mistakes, and it is the journalist's duty to own up to mistakes and have them corrected.