The note suggests that Bobby believed that he was in financial trouble at some point previous to the publication of M61. This lends support for the theory that Fischer was behind the book due to money problems.

The letters from the bank and Iceland, etc., are demonstrating that reality conflicted with Bobby's perception. So what? Its his belief that counts.

And if there is no publisher?

According to the "story line" promoted by the Trice email set, <ET> found a "reliable" printer willing to publish, Fischer sent the manuscript directly to them, but....how can they print something they can't read? Hence, <ET> is supposedly brought back into the story in order to clarify the scrawl.

(Next he knew--so the "story line" goes--he was once again cut out of the picture as the printer was told not to deliver the books to him. Hey, I'm not the one who made up the story line, here.)

I developed a case of indigestion trying to digest the varying storylines. But it is there to be made, for sure. <GeauxCool> you are as capable as I am (maybe more so).

There's always a publisher, even if it's just a person who wants to print the book.

A lot of confusion here, no surprise. A printer will only accept something that is ready to print, or close to it. Unless it's something really special, a printer would not accept a hand-written manuscript.

Preparing a book to be printed, starting from a manuscript, is called pre-press. And yes (contradicting myself, I guess), there are businesses which will do the pre-press work and also print the book. But there always has to be a person to supervise and guide the work--and pay for it. That person (or persons or company) is the publisher.

Sorry for the confusion- I didn't format that post right.

That's actually a post from <nakosonorense> that he dropped on the <Fischer Thread> so I just reposted it here.

--The book does exist, and is apparently well produced and interesting to read for some people.

--Fischer never mentioned working on it.

--His friends never said he was working on it, in fact some say he wasn't.

--It's in algebraic, which Fischer didn't like.

--The book is not available through any normal sales channels.

--Apparently no publisher is named, which is extremely odd.

--It has not been reviewed by any of the usual chess sites or magazines. Apparently no review copies were sent out, though this is standard practice.

--The writing style is completely opposite to his previous style, but is very similar in style to Ed Trice's annotations.

--"Fischer" admits in the introduction he wrote the book largely because he needed money, a most un-Fischerlike thing to do.

--Not a single autographed copy has surface, nor is there a photo of Fischer holding the book.

--Ed Trice believes the opinions of people who have not seen are not qualified to give an opinion, despite the fact the book is not openly for sale.

Good arguments if you were discussing the actions and behavior of a rational personal completely in touch with their social milieu. Fischer wasn't. All bets are off, regarding a normal publishing process. Just look at his letter to the Prime Minister of Iceland, and argue that this is someone with a firm grip on reality, and likely to do expected things.

There is a certain ring of plausibility (not saying "authenticity") in the Trice communication trail as to why the book was published the way it was.

Still, many of your points are unassailable, IMHO. E.g. No one of his "close friends" or wife has provided any corroborative evidence of Fischer's involvement, even regarding any note-keeping on the previous M60MG.

One wonders about those who have not yet spoken up--there are several. Sverrison and Einarsson's disavowals must be taken as conclusive evidence that Fischer himself did not knowingly contribute to the book. That DOES NOT close the door on a third party (Not <ET>) masterminding the fraud.

Over the last three months, with everything several posters here have turned up, I would have to say that the inconsistncies in the story line gives more support for the likelihood that no conspiracy committee was at work, but more probably one person that couldn't quite decide how to proceed with the deception. And AT THIS POINT IN TIME, if the book is being sold, it is very much on the black markets of the back counters in out of the way shops in uncommunicative countries, or just biding time in boxes in basements.

I thank you for your recent post in <Mrs. Alekhine> forum.

I think a post by you on the <Fischer thread> may go a long ways to helping others understand the wisdom of having a separate forum for this discussion-

So that the <Fischer page>, not to mention the <IM Lawrence Day> page, might remain free of this one topic issue.

<hackmate> is posting at the <Fischer page> and a few others-

We've had three weeks of great discussion of Bobby's life and chess on his player page- and also great spirited discussion of <My 61 games> in the <Mrs. Alekhine> forum.

Please sir- a public post from you on the <Fischer player page> endorsing this "split forum system" would earn you the lifelong gratitude of a host of people who wish to discuss <other things> about Bobby Fischer.

I have seen only a few pages, but p. 735 really stands out as an example of really bad writing: "...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."

Also, the glee the writer takes in disproving "Weinstein's" analysis is really tacky.

http://www.geocities.jp.nyud.net:80...

Also, you appear to really know your "kibbitzing tricks"!!

When I clicked on the link you kindly provided, it took me DIRECTLY to the Header of this forum-

Which reads, of course, <My 61 Memorable Games>.

Brilliant!

I remain your fan, and not just because you are one of our (Canadian!) finest chess players.

I agree chess writers can fall into the habit of using the same trite phrases, so that prose notes can read like the Informant. But the opposite is also true, that writers make such an effort to be different that it comes out as stilted and artificial. Phrases such as "resources distributed relatively suitably "state of pending liquidation" and "static summary" are good examples. Clarity should come first.