Talk:My 60 Memorable Games/Archive 1

"My 61 Memorable Games" mystery

Does someone want to include this? Here is some information. Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I've added a brief note. I doubt we'll ever know the full story though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evans later concluded it was a hoax.[1] (Yes the article already says that, but I thought I'd add the balance to the Talk page also). Peter Ballard (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My memorable games, 52 tournament games

From what I read the 61 book is a hoax. But there seems to be a published predecessor of the Memorable 60 games. See [2] (scroll down a page or two). Voorlandt (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Soltis said it was originally 50 games, Brady said 52. Looks like Brady was right! Thanks for that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a hoax at first, but after reading Larry Evans' article about it (external links), I think that Fischer was involved in it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the book is for sale all over Craig's List. Search on "My 61 Memorable Games" in google and you'll find it.

$500 in Chicago http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/bks/948578370.html

$800 in Miami http://miami.craigslist.org/mdc/bks/948627422.html

$400 in Houston http://houston.craigslist.org/bks/946196096.html

$250 in D.C. http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/bks/945862160.html

£300 in London http://london.craigslist.co.uk/bks/936670955.html

$1200 on Long Island http://newyork.craigslist.org/lgi/bks/950038920.html

Pictures look real enough to me. 21aidepikiw12 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Real" as in physically exists - yes. "Real" as in written by Fischer, not so sure. Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. No-one's disputing that some copies were printed, but it's very unlikely Fischer had anything to do with it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree that the whole thing was suspicious. But have you read the original article written by Larry Evans? It is at this URL

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8175/431/

Here is what moved me from 100% doubter to the "not so sure" category (about half way through the article and showing the date January 2, 2008.)

Bobby Fischer is dying. If you do not wish to answer the question, may it always be on your conscience. Bobby will only send the response to the person who answers the question correctly. He says only Larry Evans knows the answer.

Here is what is odd. The woman knew Bobby was about to die. And she was very close to the mark. How?

And why the whole "secret question" thing if this was a hoax? What would it matter? And look at the question itself. That whole Korchnoi game not existing, and knowing that Evans knew the reason and that it was his own fault. Evans could have easily have said "You put that in there Bobby!" if it was Fischer's fault. But it wasn't. Fischer knew Evans screwed up, and only Evans could explain why. Fischer would know if he was really talking to Evans.

If that isn't enough, look at Fischer's response once he believes it's Evans. He extends a gesture, a dying gesture, to mend an old wound, but also in a cryptic way. He phrases it so that only Evans would know what the hell he was talking about with the "Jedidah" comment.

It's just seems like Fischer all the way. Defying the former publisher. All the back channel communication. The mystery he leaves open ended. Then, like so many Fischer dramas, he exits, without resolving them. 21aidepikiw12 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the original article by Evans. One thing that keeps the door a little open to me is that he heard a male voice say "Evans doesn't write for Chess Lies anymore", which sounds like something Fischer would say. But Evans should know more than anyone and he concluded that it was a hoax. Anyone with a copy of the original book and a modern chess program probably could have written this book. Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Evans wrote another article 2 months later, saying the book was a hoax.[3] Peter Ballard (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Evans did do that but part of that article seemed to support the book as being authored by Fischer. A page of the book was shown and Evans made a pretty weak attempt to discredit it. He only did this because he was not given a free copy of the book, which he mentioned would "probably sell for more than than the original". Other editors at Chess Life describe Evans as willing to "do anything for a buck". As for anyone with a book and a computer program writing it, just too hard to believe. Read the article. A computer program did not invent all of those plausible scenarios. There's just no way. And the cover of the book contained a photo of Fischer that was not published until after his death. And it's over 750 pages so it would have been a very big project. I'm trying to get a copy of it myself to see but so far all of the craigs sellers who replied to me have sold it within 2 hours of listing the damn thing! If I find someone who can tell me how that girl knew Fischer was going to die and how the secret question was faked and how Fischer's reply to Evans was faked and how that photo was on the cover and how the other things that sound too much like Fischer were faked, maybe I would consider your point. But I can't find anyone who can explain just one of these rather than all of them combined. 21aidepikiw12 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was known that Fischer was in bad health. He had been in the hospital for a "grave illness" and released. Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw this on ebay before it was removed. They said that they were printing 100 copies "first edition" and then going to print the "second edition". They were trying to sell the first 100 copies in two lots of 50. There is nothing special about such a "first edition" these days. All you have to do is go into your document and change "first" to "second" and run off more copies. To me, this seemed like a rip-off, making the whole thing suspicious. Bubba73 (talk), 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For instance, if the first 100 copies had been signed by Fischer they would be worth quite a lot of money. But just printed saying "first edition" doesn't add much value. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

About Fischer being sick. The original newspaper article was in Spanish. The translation was "Fischer is hospitalized for an unknown illness, believed to be serious." There was no mention of "grave". None of his friends said anything about it. And, had he chosen treatment, it would not have been a grave condition at all. And how many people predicted his death? 0. Nada. Nobody. This girl did it and 2 weeks later he was gone. I don't care what anybody else says, that was no coincidence, and it proves she was close to Fischer's inner circle who did not betray the seriousness of his condition at all.

About the 1st and 2nd editions, I agree. Seems fishy. I wonder though, were the 1st editions the test print run, complete with typos and stuff? If so, they might have value. We'd need a side by side look at both before jumping to the conclusion that the only difference was the printing inside. If he made a few, circulated them for editing checks, then did a second print run, they might be worth more. I'm still trying to get a copy, if I do, I'll let you know.

21aidepikiw12 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy which I bought for my oldest grandson for Christmas.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So what are your comments on it? And how much did you pay if you don't mind me asking. And where did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21aidepikiw12 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If I was giving it as a gift, I'd give the new official algebraic edition rather than the questionable "61" version. Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Trice/Labate lawsuit

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this link (in either of its guises: [4] or [5]). That second link includes suspicion that the supposed ruling document is faked, and at any rate is hosted on Labate's website, which is in no way neutral.

At any rate, I'm not sure how this is relevant; none of the other links in the hoax section make any mention of Ed Trice's involvement, yet the second link above claims that he originated the hoax. Short of any independent, reliable source that backs up this assertion, I don't think we need to link to it. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If a court ruling called it a hoax that seems very relevant to me. The website gives instructions on how you can get an official copy of the court documents. Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For instance:

"39th Circuit Court Judge

James Woodroof Jr

200 Washington St

Athens, AL 35611

Phone: (256) 233-6410

Fax: (256) 233-6664

You have to send a written request, or visit the courthouse in person to get a copy. To purchase a copy of the judgment online, you need to visit http://alacourt.com/ sign up, and then you have access to whatever documents you wish. " Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is going to call up the judge or the courthouse and purchase a copy! I think the most sensible thing to do is to remove the link and the corresponding sentence in the article because:

• It's unnecessary; the article already establishes that the work was a hoax
• The only source we have is from an entirely non-neutral party, or a link which includes a discussion that the lawsuit document could itself be fake.
• It contradicts, to an extent, what the other links suggest as they don't mention Trice at all
• The BLP implications

Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article establishes it as a hoax, it only gives Larry Evans' opinion. I checked into getting a copy of the judgement online and it cost too much. If I get a printed copy of it directly from the court, would that do? (If it isn't too expensive I'll do that tomorrow.) Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I'd be interested to see what it says, my concern is that even if you manage to obtain a copy and everything checks out, we still don't have the ability to provide a reliable source here. What we're basically doing is providing support for a scantily-sourced claim that Ed Trice perpetrated a fraud, which is has serious legal implications if Trice were to choose to pursue them. I really think it's safer to remove the link unless we can cite an unequivocally reliable source. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the link. If I get a copy and it checks out, I think I can submit it to the OTRS. I've used this twice before to confirm a copyright holder's permission to use copyrighted material. That should work for a court ruling too. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's pick this up again once you've got hold of a copy. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The above should link to Wikipedia:OTRS. Bubba73 (talk), 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I called the courthouse today and mailed a written request for a copy. The judge did not actually rule that 61 was a hoax. That was stated in the complaint, with supporting evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the documents back from the court and they are just as on the website. The plaintiff's complaint says that 61 is a hoax and refers to "Exhibit A". I didn't get a copy of exhibit A. The judge ruled in favor of the plantiff (Labate) against the defendant (Trice) and awarded monetary damages. The judge ordered the defendant to quit libeling and slandering the plaintiff. So the judge did not rule on whether or not 61 is a hoax, but apparantly he accepted the evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My 61 Memorable Games Delete Section

My 60 Memorable Games is a classic piece of Chess Literature, and is parallel in importance to Melville's Moby Dick. I believe the wiki topic on the classic work is degraded by the mentioning of the senseless hoax called My 61 Memorable Games, just as inclusion of a hoax called Moby Dick Returns, would degrade the wiki-topic of Moby Dick. It is like a drop of poison in a barrel of wine. Give it its own page, or else mention it in the "list of hoaxes". ChessEditor4 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too short to have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's important to be objective here and remember WP:NPOV. Talk of a short section "degrading" an entire article is way too strong. Whatever our opinions it happened and I think it's relevant and worth mentioning, if only briefly.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there are two books being discussed, one is a classic and one is a fraud. It makes no sense to present a fraudulent work in the presentation of the classic book. Take a look at Wiki's section on Romeo and Juliet, do you read a paragraph about Vortigern and Rowena, the fraudulent Shakespeare play? No. That's because Vortigern and Rowena is not Romeo and Juliet, just as My 61 Games is not My 60 games. They are both two different works by two different authors with two different titles. At least consider reducing it into a link, sending the reader to the "list of hoaxes" section. ChessEditor4 (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vortigern and Rowena was a fraud pretending to be a different Shakespeare play, not a new edition of Romeo and Juliet. This was claiming to be a new edition of the real book. Sixty of the games are the same, as is much of the analysis and text. Furthermore, I think there is a little too much material (and references) to simply list it under list of hoaxes but not enough for it to be its own article. Most of the listings in list of hoaxes are one sentence, and usually not even a complete sentence.

It should be possible to expand on 61 and if there was enough to make it better than a stub then I would be in agreement with making a an article about it and only link to it from here. Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So if Vortigern and Rowena was a fraud pretending to be a new edition of Romeo and Juliet, then you think it should be mentioned within Romeo and Juliet? That makes no sense. People go to that section to learn about Shakespeare, not about frauds.

If you want to create an entirely new article for this fake book, then here's some information. Are you sure you want to go this route? Read the updated letters by Einar Einarsson http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html Think about it. If this was a new edition written by Bobby Fischer, then there would be no need to add anything extra, especially plagiarized photographs pilfered from Bobby's close friend, Einar, an Icelandic Chessmaster. Here's an excerpt:

"When this news broke in the middle of December 2007, that a book with that naming had been listed on eBay, it made Bobby more sad than angry to hear about it. At that time his health was deteriorating, he had just recently returned home after spending some 7 weeks in hospital due to his fatal illness. Learning about that there were still some conmen out there prepared to violate his personal rights so brutally once again with this elaborate hoax made him really sad but he was not surprised. " Einar Einarrson to Yasser Seirawan

Bobby made a lot of enemies in his lifetime due to his extreme views that stemmed possibly from psychological disorder(s). This fraudulent action against the memory of Bobby Fischer is an attempt by some to spit on his grave, and is why this is so degrading to include with his work. Objectively speaking, the time has come when any Johnny-come-lately can put together a fraudulent manuscript, print it off at lulu.com, and sell it on ebay - why should such actions be saved for posterity? ChessEditor4 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vortigern and Rowena was not' claimed to edition of Romeo and Juliet, so your analogy is flawed. If you want to write an article about the 61 fraud, you can. I'm happy with the way the article is now, so I'm not going to do it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cliford Irving's hoax biography of Howard Hughes is in the article on Howard Hughes. This is even closer. Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're the editor, I may get a little passionate about this, and so you'll have to forgive my tone, but I do think it worthwhile for you to reconsider the length of this stub, and the reason for its inclusion. That a fraudulent book purports to be a 'new edition' can't be a valid reason for its inclusion; it is a fraudulent claim by a fraudulent book.

Assuming the stub is unchanged, then please consider updating it. The idea of a pirated copy is no longer valid, and this idea appears to be emphasized in the stub. This is something that the hoaxers want.

Actually I've just read the entire discussion above. I think you had one of the hoaxers here. Take a look at the contributions of 21aidepikiw12. The only other contribution this user made was to the old Ed Trice section, and hints at their identity. As if that wasn't enough, have you ever tried finding anything on Craiglist from a nationwide search? You can't. You would have to search city by city. This person lists several cities, suggesting that they are the one placing the advertisement. Why would they place Craiglist ads, and not have placed the eBay auction?

Another correction. You had written that it appeared that the door was left opened because Larry Evans heard the voice over the phone. Please re-read the article. This section is in italics. It is part of a letter written by the eBay seller to Evans that the eBay seller had heard this voice. Evans didn't hear the voice. This is because Bobby had nothing to do with it. It's just a cover-up story. ChessEditor4 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not the editor of the article, I am an editor. You can edit the article too. You can write an article about the 61 hoax and remove most of it from this article. The part about me thinking that the door was still open for the possibility of it being real was my opinion and was not in the article. You are right, I did base that on the voice on the phone and I was mistaken in thinking that Evans heard it. You are also right in suspecting the editor 21aidepikiw12. I had a conversation with someone else about that. I haven't used Craigslist, but I think you are right about that - a person would have a hard time of finding those things, unless they knew about them. Bubba73 (talk), 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is chess.com a reliable source?

Are articles at chess.com a reliable source for Wikipedia standards? I have a very good article at chess.com proving that "My 61 Memorable Games" is a hoax, but in light of WP:BLP (since it also has proof of who actually wrote the book), I will only include this article is chess.com is widely considered to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Just to clarify (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is from a forum that anyone can write to, then I'd say no. If it is something official from chess.com, I'd say yes. Need more opinions, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that chess.com's article space is vetted by editors there. They publish about one or two articles a day: http://www.chess.com/articles There are also blogs at chess.com http://www.chess.com/blog/ which anyone can apparently publish themselves at any time. Here is the profile of the member who posted the article with the proof that Fischer had nothing to do with M61MG: http://www.chess.com/members/view/rookhouse Just to clarify (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in English, but I found a WP:RS on the book being a fake: http://www.mbl.is/folk/frettir/2007/12/18/bok_sem_var_sogd_eftir_fischer_bodin_a_ebay/ Machine translation http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbl.is%2Ffolk%2Ffrettir%2F2007%2F12%2F18%2Fbok_sem_var_sogd_eftir_fischer_bodin_a_ebay%2F Just to clarify (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In light of the Icelandic newspaper article, there is no need to include the dubious chess.com source, so I consider this matter closed. Just to clarify (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)