I excerpt http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_... below, which is a blow-by-blow but still incomplete accounting by Lombardy. However, I think it unlikely that a British financier would use the Americanism "chicken", and I'll bet ♘+♙ plus three bytes that it was introduced by Paul Marshall for hyperbolic effect. (Marshall is described as one who "occasionally acted as Fischer's attorney".) I recall the letter as being smarter than that.

Marshall's wife Bette volunteered to act as an anonymous caller, phoning the Daily News, The New York Times, AP, and UPI: "Hello, I'd like to tell you where Bobby Fischer is. ..." It was now 5 a.m.

Five hours later I woke to find that a British millionaire had offered Fischer 50,000 pounds if he would compete. According to Marshall the message read, "Come out, chicken, and play." Bobby considered the offer (for six hours, according to The Times) but apparently made up his mind minutes after receiving the cable. I spoke with him at 11 a.m. "Are you going to accept?" In a subdued but jubilant tone, he responded: "That's a lot of money just to give away." Being noncommittal is normal for Bobby. But he requested that chess books be ordered, books on end games, openings, of just anthologies of games. He wanted the latest Chess Life & Review. Bobby would never ask, "Are you going to be my second?" but he did ask, "Are you coming?" "You haven't asked me," I said. "Besides, I've contracted to do the match on TV."

<mack> and I finished on the same score, so parity is conserved.

We also both lost completely won positions against much stronger players. Dastardly creatures.

Remember,we are playing two sentences at a time,and for the moment,only the second sentence is passed to the next player.

Rather than "smarter" I meant to say "more graceful". There was a line that went "You [RJF] have said that monetary considerations were an obstacle. I have removed that obstacle." I think this aspect was far more salient than some German appointed as USA Secretary of State calling out his antipathy to the Soviets.

As an aside, let's give a shout out to OldeSkool GangstaSchachGrosseMeister Svetozar Gligorić, not only for his excellent first-on-scene WCC book but a heckuva career with 3000+ tournament games: Svetozar Gligoric

Yugoslavia 1970 was quite a blossoming intellectual scene. The Chess Informant was publishing its eighth volume, a benevolent dictatorship was holding no shortage of cultural divisions together, and it provided an apolitical meeting ground for Soviets, Americans and everyone caught in-between. After his solid coming-out performance v Petrosian in the 4-game USSR v TROTW match, RJF stuck around, which is notable indeed, and so did more than a few topflight Soviet GMs. They then have fun playing blitz with each other while Bobby worked them over like, as Boris said of game 3 of the 1972 WCC match, "a boa constrictor on a rabbit". The BBC documentary explicitly notes that RJF was treated as a conquering hero for some time there. He plays and smites what he considers half-talented peers until it's time to leave on the Tour to the WCC, no small feat in 1970 to turn around and cross both the Atlantic and the equator.

To put a unique-among-the-unique Yugoslav/Tito nation in perspective, the Soviets occupied Belgrade briefly in 1945, but essentially the partisans were the only nation in Europe that can legitimately claim self-liberation. Chess Informant is launched in 1966, and around 1967 visas were finally granted to citizens both East and West of the Iron Curtain. I recall a favorable PBS documentary in c1973-1976--I distinctly remember being struck that, under their form of socialism, two acres was the maximum amount of land a household could own.

Still allow me to touch briefly on a couple of points.

1. Around 1970 and on.."...benevolent dictatorship was holding..".

Benevolent, Yes. Dictatorship, No. I lived in Yugoslavia at the time, and remember the whole scene quite well.

Perhaps we have a different notion (definition) of "dictatorship".

2. "..two acres was the maximum amount of land a household could own".

I don't know where You got this, but it is certainly completely incorrect. I don't know what the number was, indeed, I'm not sure that there was a quota at all. Definitely not in the 70s. Very likely right after the 1945., possibly through the 50s. highly unlikely during the 60, out of question in the 70s.

Granted, compared to the States or Canada, which are huge lands, the homesteads (more accurate word under Yugoslav circumstances than "farms"), were much smaller. Not due to legal (or ideological) restrictions, but to the small land mass, and relatively large population.

Also, most of the families were small (no hired hands), and up till the 70s there was very little of the modern farming equipment (machineries). Since most of the work was done in a traditional (primitive) way, a family could utilize just so much land.

For example, my maternal grandfather owned about 15 hectares of land. He was one of the bigger homesteaders in the region, some 20 miles from my hometown. I'm not quite sure about the ratio of hectares to acres, but I'd say about 3 acres are the size of an hectare.

The family consisted of my grandparents (in their late 60s already), their youngest son (my uncle), his wife and 2 little kids. They bought their first tractor in 1971, I think. Up until then, every year, there was a portion of land left untended.

Unlike in the States, the farming there was not a Business, but a way of life of an self-sustainable family unit. Really a form of survival, dependent upon the land, the whether, the back-breaking labour.

Some small "surpluses" of goods like veggies, meats, fruits were sold at local markets to get cash for things households didn't produce.

There were exceptions, of course. Some did much better than this.

WHOGGA.

A greeting used by, and among, elephants and other pachyderms. Acronym for "What Ho, O Gargantuan Giant Animal".

I distinctly recall an interview with a family and some reference to their relative wealth due to their land ownership, which was "the maximum allowed". I'm willing to be overruled by those with first-hand experience, but I can't shake this memory.

"Benevolent dictatorship" isn't as bad as it sounds. In defense of my characterization, I present the following excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_...:

On April 7, 1963, the country changed its official name to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Reforms encouraged private enterprise and greatly relaxed restrictions on freedom of speech and religious expression.[17] In 1966 an agreement with the Vatican was signed according new freedom to the Yugoslav Roman Catholic Church, particularly to teach the catechism and open seminaries. Tito's new socialism met opposition from traditional communists culminating in conspiracy headed by Aleksandar Rankovic.[18] In the same year Tito declared that Communists must henceforth chart Yugoslavia's course by the force of their arguments (implying a granting of freedom of discussion and an abandonment of dictatorship). The state security agency (UDBA) saw its power scaled back and its staff reduced to 5000.

Hope all's well.

As you know, I love Alekhine, Tal, Bronstein, Marshall, and many other great tacticians. Here's a really remarkavble combination:

Black to play and win (or so it would seem--I welcome "cooks" to the "solution"):

click for larger view

This attack was by a ferociously aggressive player who lived in the 1880s (or so). Very feared. (He won his one game against Steinitz; beat Blackburne as well).

I'll post the solution soon (if someone doesn't post it posts (no gooling allowed!)

Then I set it up, and saw one after the other combination arise, and the position is virtually UNPLAYABLE, following the rook sac and the N to d3.

I was so excited about this bombshell, that I haven't looked at alternatives yet.

Just my initial reaction, and I am praying that there is no tiny little refutation that can be found in a millisec by an engine!

Most of the raw facts that the excerpt from the article presents are true. Interpretations, of course, could be argued.

1. I remember the Rankovic business quite well. There was no conspiracy on his part. He never turned against the revolution, socialism and federalism. Unlike some others, whose "work" ultimately lead to the break up of the country. After the near national disaster of 1971 many regretted that Rankovic was not around any longer.

2. The main difference in the system and the society at large, before and after 1966, was not the presence or lack of a "dictatorship". (there was no dictatorship prior to '66). But the weakening of the federal power, and the transfer of most of "authority" to "republics" (= states). Once the process started, it never stopped, so that by the time of Tito's death there was hardly any federal authority left, which then lead to the demise of the nation.

Tito himself meant well, but was deceived by whose in Slovenia and Croatia whose goal was secession. One of the very rare times, perhaps the only one time anyone managed to fool him.

3. As for UDBA, it changed it's name to SUP (Secretariat of Internal Affairs), scaled down its federal personnel, but at the same time established 6(!) new off-springs, one in each of the republics (which was to play a catastrophic role later), therefore actually increasing the overall staff.

4. In 1967 the borders became (more or less) wide open. And remained that way. Not only for tourists, but for whoever wanted to move in and live in there. Unlike in the "free world". Later that turned out to be a mistake, too.

5. <"On May 16, 1974, the new Constitution was passed, and Josip Broz Tito was named President for life." From an American perspective, that's definitely the title of a dictator.>

At the time Marshall Tito was 82 years old. The "appointment" was a gesture of respect and gratitude. I remember it quite vividly. The national jubilation and the celebrations were spontaneous, not faked, the sentiment sincere, not imposed.

The wish of the huge majority of the people was met. Quite democratic, wouldn't You say. Especially keeping in mind that this didn't happen as some sort of a decree from "above". On the contrary. It was the result of the grass-roots requests.

But, at the same time there was fear. Not of a dictatorship. But of what was to happen once Tito was gone. Just about everybody wished he'd be there forever.

As for "..the American perspective.." that's perhaps the biggest psychological problem the Americans have had. The apparent inability or unwillingness to understand that:

A) The American perspective (regarding anything) is NOT the only one.

B) It is NOT necessarily the best one either.>

The conclusion of my last post was not meant to be (or sound) anti-American. more like a statement of fact. Which, as You pointed out, is equally applicable to others.

For many years I have believed (and still do) that it is important, actually necessary, for one to able to take a good, hard look at oneself in the mirror. Be it a person, a nation, an ideology, a religion, or whatever.

Look for flaws, not compliments. One will, if honest with oneself, find them. Plenty of them. First, it is good for one's own moral health. Secondly, in pragmatical terms, it gives one elbow room for improvements.

Back to a nation thing. Personally, I've never felt burdened with my nationality. I've never accepted an idiotic notion that any nation, in any aspect of its collective life is, in any conceivable way "better" than any other one. Just different. That's why it is of extreme importance to be aware of the fact, understand it (if possible), accept it, and live with it in peace.

To conclude on a different note. This thread actually started with Bobby Fischer in mind. I met Bobby on three occasions, between 1961 to 1970.

You can speak this way because You are not of American nationality. But of the old Hippie one! Just like myself.