1.Competing points of view are balanced and fairly characterized.

2.Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

3.Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

4.Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

5.Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

6.Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

7.Persons who are the subject of adverse news stories are allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse information before the story is published or broadcast.

8.Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

9.Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

10.Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

The text below is from the Evan's article where he concluded the book was a hoax:

<The Pawn: The voice on the phone (presumably Helgi) claimed Fischer did not believe it was Evans and warned me again not to tell you anything. The voice said "I know you are not speaking with grandmaster Evans..." Suddenly I heard a voice in the background saying, "Evans doesn't write for Chess Lies anymore." He was a native English speaker, unlike the first voice with a Scandanavian inflection.>

Trying to use "chess lies" to try and trick Evans into believing that it was Fischer, is not exactly that original. The two posts below from 2004 courtesy of <WMD> (one of the most informed kibitzers) mentions Fischer and his tendency to call Chess Life in this way:

<Jan-20-04>

<Robert James Fischer> <WMD: If Fischer has written an article for the latest edition of the magazine he calls <<<Chess Lies>>> then I'll be a monkey's uncle.>

<Apr-28-04>
<Carl Schlechter>

<WMD:> <4. "Who Is the Best?" (letter to Chess Life from Robert J. Fischer, February 1998). Fischer's top five were Emanuel Lasker, Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer, Wilhelm Steinitz, and Garry Kasparov. (Morphy was not Jewish; Kasparov is the son of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother.)>

It is ordinary that the publication is traceable to a publisher, and can be ordered from that source.

There is not an identifiable publisher or an order source for M61MG. That makes the book "out of the ordinary."

The rules for ordinary books no longer apply. It is no longer possible to call the author's name on the cover an indication of "ordinariness". If that is the card that you are truly playing, then know that it has been trumped by a higher value card--missing publisher.

If not even PRINTER INFORMATION is evident in the book, then ordinary proof of authorship--name on cover--is now *no proof of anything at all*.

It cannot be used to form any valid conclusion, without convincing support.

At least, that's my reaction to the above point, and other people have made the same point.

The highest value fact now becomes--NOT THE NAME ON THE COVER--but the true story behind the publication. Without that information, assertions of authorship are not subject to debate any more than the assertion that the visible universe was cast into motion by some form of sentient creator--it has become part of a belief system.

Saying there is a similarity in this case to arguments about authorship of Shakespeare's work--or Moses' for that matter--ignore the advances of technology and societal custom. The expectations for the process of publishing a work today are far different from what they were in Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare knew no copyright laws, e.g. The concept of intellectual property was several years in the future.

We also have much more formalized rules for acceptable evidence now, and most educated people require that our current rules, not late Elizabethan rules, set our standards.

Because of the much laxer pub standards of Elizabethan England, we rely on other techniques to validate authorship such as the story behind the publication, and references of other sources. Part of the proof of Shakespeare as author more recently has been the technique of comparing word usage statistics. This method is fairly convincing, and stands up quite well for known works of other writers. Although it hasn't been done, and won't be done for M61MG, my guess is that M61MG would score about as close to any other chess book as it would to the original M60MG (or other Fischer writing) on that scale.

I think it is possible that, if passages were selected intelligently enough, one would find more than one "author" of the M61MG material--perhaps as many as three distinct word usage styles. One style might be simpler and more direct, one more like my "educated ESL person" and one more like <ET>--beyond the limits of his clear writing ability.

(<ET> = "ex transcripio") :-)

Yeah, he makes quite an impression:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a man (unmarried) has a brother who is married, then the brother's wife is the man's sister-in-law.

<"There's one immediate problem with the Labate theory. You see, I am not married, nor have I ever been, so I have no "sister-in-law" that lives in Canada.">

I had posted this in an earlier page from a checkers link where a Alex Moiseyev visited Trice and the person said that he was treated well at his house:

<Ed was in no condition to play a normal game seriously, having some problems with back, it was late, we each had beers, and it was just for fun. I enjoyed my time with him and his family (daughter and wife), and wished him a speedly recovery.>

I told him I would make it 100% obvious who I was, wearing that shirt every day I was there.

He never showed up. He lied.

1. If Labate, as he claims, knew about this since August of 2007, why do people say I did this "when Fischer was dying"? Didn't Fischer enter the hospital in October? And he was nowhere near dying then. Even when Pal Benko spoke to him in December, he said Fischer was apparently getting better. Only that girl knew Fischer was going to die, and 2 weeks later, he was dead. She had the inside track on it. No other explanation. As has been shown here, I thought he was getting better, and I was wrong as well.

2. If Labate knew about this for so long, why did he wait until after I refused to buy his autographed Fischer book in December of 2007 to start emailing everyone?

3. If I am broke, like everyone says, why does Labate think everyone is "on my payroll"?

4. If Labate wasn't destitute, why did he have to sell everything he owns to move back to live among some of his original friends? I mean, isn't selling your chess books to the struggling USCF like selling your car back to GM? I can't imagine he made anything on that deal.

5. Why the reason for the move now? Is that forgery case against him finally getting action? Commonwealth of PA vs. you-know-who, that's a felony. On the run is he?

6. Labate was mad when the Canadian eBay auction ended. But as was pointed out by another poster, why? Shouldn't he be glad? He just "dodged a bullet", in his own words. He was saved from having to pay thousands of dollars.

And the girl Alex thought was Trice's daughter was actually:

Gothic Chess

The Inventor's Corner

You need to branch out, dude. Find a new crowd to scam. Here. I'll give you some ideas to help get you started.

If you accept some of Labate's statements, then how about this one:

"I was the high bidder."

Does it make sense to you that Labate
A. Paid to have the books printed, then
B. Arranged to have them be sold on eBay, then
C. Become the high bidder for the books he paid for?

Why the email traffic with the girl, asking for a photo? The answer is, if he paid for them, he wouldn't bid on them, nor would he pester the seller for proof. This is why no one is paying attention to your question. He got angry because the depth and breadth of the scam finally sank in...at least that interpretation makes the most sense, and we are all sensible people here.

I feel silly pointing this out.

Does that printing firm print both books and T-shirts? Do they do a good job? Have their address?

And another question for good measure:

<<ET> Do you have a public statement on where you fit into the M61MG book's publication? e.g. possible statements (with elaboration omitted):

1. I had nothing to do with it and didn't believe it until I saw it for sale on eBay in December, 2007.

2. I was contacted in August 2007 by Fischer/Fischer's people to find a publisher, which I did. I had no part paying for it, in correcting printer's galleys, or distributing the book, however.

3. In early Fall, 2007, I was sent (in parts) a completed manuscript which I found a printer for, using funds from [source] for progressive payments to the print house....

4. I received sets of disorganized, rough notes over a long period of time, which I edited, created illustrations for, got approval on, arranged publication for ....

5. In March, 2007, I was asked to provide a reasonable rewrite of M60MG (expanded to over 700 pp) from Bobby Fischer himself, based on ideas he provided in one way or another...

6. You know what the next scenarios are, that have been suggested. Obviously none of those would be your statement....

You have hinted at other scenarios:

<I said maybe [Labate] was pissed off because MAYBE he paid to have them printed and MAYBE my $5,000 payment to him would have covered at least part of his costs and MAYBE when the eBay girl stopped the auction and threatened to destroy the books MAYBE that was the real reason Labate was pissed off.>

<All of the work done on that book took place in Iceland. There were at least 3 editors working on it full time with an occasional 4th or 5th person helping out. Only first names were used, and sometimes more than one person was "sharing" a name, when it was obvious the same person was not "responding".>>

Let me add one more possibility for you:

7. I Spring 2007 I received an email from a Fischer acquaintance proposing a rewrite of M60MG, with the stipulations that I would speak to no one about the project, would work up a prototype with some notes provided by the acquaintance, and with the promise of financial backing and other types of assistance. I began the project in good faith, but when it became apparent that not all was kosher, I backed out. Only much later, in November of 2007, was I approached again, this time with cash offers. I then proceeded to make the book happen.

Note that these are simply fictive outlines and do not reflect any assertions on my part, Chessgames.com, or Daniel Freeman, et.al. Its up to you to take one and supply the data points in your own way.