Greetings,

In regard to the so-called Bobby Fischer interviews, which were
broadcast over the Phillipines radio, it is worth pointing out how
tenuous the connection between information on the internet with
reality can be, of which I find this to be a rather severe example.

I have yet to find corroboration that it is in fact the voice of Bobby
Fischer we are hearing. In addition, there has been no firsthand
account of observation of the circumstances in which the interviews
were said to have been broadcast (for instance, the possibility they
were coerced is legitimate). That Bobby Fischer aroused the ire of
certain members of the U.S. government is plausible, and a campaign of
misrepresentation to arouse infamy against him (not unlike Alekhine's
experiences following the misrepresentation of him during WWII) would
certainly be calculable and executable.

There is no information in the interviews of a personal, detailed
sort, that would indicate the interviews were not fabricated. There
is no information on how to contact the interviewer for verification.
There is no explanation as to how the interviewer knew for sure he was
interviewing Bobby Fischer, and not a hired man after Fischer's
likeness (after all, the paucity of photographs between 1972 and 1999
is astonishing).

Fischer is an extreme recluse, and would not feel obliged to counter
the claims surrounding the interviews. Some accounts of his behaviour
are of a kind and generous person - inconsistent with what may be
heard in the Phillipine radio interviews.

I put forward this hypothesis, stated boldly and clearly, for your
consideration.

I am eager to see if any information is forthcoming.


M. Sayers

So...are you saying it's all a big Jewish conspiracy? ;-)



Michael Sayers wrote:

Greetings,

In regard to the so-called Bobby Fischer interviews, which were
broadcast over the Phillipines radio, it is worth pointing out how
tenuous the connection between information on the internet with
reality can be, of which I find this to be a rather severe example.

I have yet to find corroboration that it is in fact the voice of Bobby
Fischer we are hearing. In addition, there has been no firsthand
account of observation of the circumstances in which the interviews
were said to have been broadcast (for instance, the possibility they
were coerced is legitimate). That Bobby Fischer aroused the ire of
certain members of the U.S. government is plausible, and a campaign of
misrepresentation to arouse infamy against him (not unlike Alekhine's
experiences following the misrepresentation of him during WWII) would
certainly be calculable and executable.

There is no information in the interviews of a personal, detailed
sort, that would indicate the interviews were not fabricated. There
is no information on how to contact the interviewer for verification.
There is no explanation as to how the interviewer knew for sure he was
interviewing Bobby Fischer, and not a hired man after Fischer's
likeness (after all, the paucity of photographs between 1972 and 1999
is astonishing).

Fischer is an extreme recluse, and would not feel obliged to counter
the claims surrounding the interviews. Some accounts of his behaviour
are of a kind and generous person - inconsistent with what may be
heard in the Phillipine radio interviews.

I put forward this hypothesis, stated boldly and clearly, for your
consideration.

I am eager to see if any information is forthcoming.

M. Sayers

It is him. I get the impression you may be a big fan, but don`t let that
cloud your judgement and send you into denial.
He`s NOT a recluse. That`s a stupid myth that goes around. People who meet
him in person, and there are more than you think, all tell similar stories
of his hatred of Jews and whatever else is on his madhouse agenda for the
week. GM Yasser Seirawan, a huge Fischer fan, wrote 'No Regrets' about the
1992 Fischer-Spassky exhibition match, and he had the opportunity to meet
and speak with Fischer repeatedly at that time. Seirawan tries hard, but
his discomfort with Fischer`s instability leaks through the defensive prose
for all his efforts to cover it up.




"Michael Sayers" wrote in message
om...
Greetings,

In regard to the so-called Bobby Fischer interviews, which were
broadcast over the Phillipines radio, it is worth pointing out how
tenuous the connection between information on the internet with
reality can be, of which I find this to be a rather severe example.

I have yet to find corroboration that it is in fact the voice of Bobby
Fischer we are hearing. In addition, there has been no firsthand
account of observation of the circumstances in which the interviews
were said to have been broadcast (for instance, the possibility they
were coerced is legitimate). That Bobby Fischer aroused the ire of
certain members of the U.S. government is plausible, and a campaign of
misrepresentation to arouse infamy against him (not unlike Alekhine's
experiences following the misrepresentation of him during WWII) would
certainly be calculable and executable.

There is no information in the interviews of a personal, detailed
sort, that would indicate the interviews were not fabricated. There
is no information on how to contact the interviewer for verification.
There is no explanation as to how the interviewer knew for sure he was
interviewing Bobby Fischer, and not a hired man after Fischer's
likeness (after all, the paucity of photographs between 1972 and 1999
is astonishing).

Fischer is an extreme recluse, and would not feel obliged to counter
the claims surrounding the interviews. Some accounts of his behaviour
are of a kind and generous person - inconsistent with what may be
heard in the Phillipine radio interviews.

I put forward this hypothesis, stated boldly and clearly, for your
consideration.

I am eager to see if any information is forthcoming.


M. Sayers

Seirawan tries hard

Yaz tried a little TOO hard in that book. Objectivity is fine for the chess
games (the reviews of which were all overblown, including the "fabled" first
one), but I think as an American journalist, and one of the only ones to
attend the event, Seirawan could have been a little more circumspect in his
praise of the craze.

TMB

Agree 100%. When I first read the book I was disappointed in it too, but I
understand the reluctance to let go of an idol or lifelong inspiration, or
to see that it is horribly tarnished and flawed. I think if Seirawan were
to write the book today, those sections would be a bit different.

- Joshua B. Lilly



"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
y.com...

Yaz tried a little TOO hard in that book. Objectivity is fine for the
chess
games (the reviews of which were all overblown, including the "fabled"
first
one), but I think as an American journalist, and one of the only ones to
attend the event, Seirawan could have been a little more circumspect in
his
praise of the craze.

TMB

I understand that since he was writing a chess book, Yaz would want to avoid
all the ugly politics and bigotry that surrounds Bobby. Problem is, Bobby
doesn't separate them--his whole approach to the match was riddled with
political and anti-Semitic statements.

I read somewhere (I think it was in Dominic Lawson's book "End Game" about
the Short-Kasparov match) that Boris Spassky is a big anti-Semite. I don't
know if that's true or not, but Boris didn't express any kinds of negative
views at the 1992 match. He was a class act all the way, and if he's got his
own unpleasant demons, he keeps them out of the public eye.

Fischer doesn't...he uses his still-considerable influence over
impressionable fans to ventilate his cruel and often insane opinions. THIS
is the true sorrow of chess, not Morphy's demise. And Bobby continues to get
a pass, especially in the chess press, and from many posters in this very
newsgroup, where as other people would get instantly skewered. Imagine if
Karpov suggested that 9/11 was a great thing, or if Judit Polgar constantly
ranted about how Jews were evil and taking over the world. We'd run them out
on a rail, regardless of their great chess.

TMB

Michael, Did you really listen to the interviews? "There is no information
in the interviews of a personal, detailed sort,..". Not true. Here is an
example with personal details from one of the first radio interviews (and
there are enough other examples):

Fischer : Anybody who knows me, you know, my late mother and sister, we all
are like packrats with all of our stuff, saving everything, you know,
every.., unbelievable, my mother's apartment, up there in Palo Alto, she
couldn't move anymore, she was being buried alive in all the stuff she was
saving. Finally they put it in boxes and these boxes just took over much of
the apartment. I am not quite as bad as my mom in that regard, but I am
pretty bad too..



As Joshua states, Bobby is NOT a recluse. In Petra Dautov's book you can
read how Fischer loves to go out, visits noisy restaurants, visits mineral
baths, talks to people, plays tennis at the local tennisclub. All confirmed
by other sources.



You must be a recluse yourself when it concerns information om Bobby
Fischer. People who met Fischer personally don't doubt the radio-interviews
at all. They know Fischer and they are not surprised with what he had to say
in the radio-interviews: http://members.lycos.nl/vdhoog/



Peter van der Hoog






"Michael Sayers" wrote in message
om...
Greetings,

In regard to the so-called Bobby Fischer interviews, which were
broadcast over the Phillipines radio, it is worth pointing out how
tenuous the connection between information on the internet with
reality can be, of which I find this to be a rather severe example.

I have yet to find corroboration that it is in fact the voice of Bobby
Fischer we are hearing. In addition, there has been no firsthand
account of observation of the circumstances in which the interviews
were said to have been broadcast (for instance, the possibility they
were coerced is legitimate). That Bobby Fischer aroused the ire of
certain members of the U.S. government is plausible, and a campaign of
misrepresentation to arouse infamy against him (not unlike Alekhine's
experiences following the misrepresentation of him during WWII) would
certainly be calculable and executable.

There is no information in the interviews of a personal, detailed
sort, that would indicate the interviews were not fabricated. There
is no information on how to contact the interviewer for verification.
There is no explanation as to how the interviewer knew for sure he was
interviewing Bobby Fischer, and not a hired man after Fischer's
likeness (after all, the paucity of photographs between 1972 and 1999
is astonishing).

Fischer is an extreme recluse, and would not feel obliged to counter
the claims surrounding the interviews. Some accounts of his behaviour
are of a kind and generous person - inconsistent with what may be
heard in the Phillipine radio interviews.

I put forward this hypothesis, stated boldly and clearly, for your
consideration.

I am eager to see if any information is forthcoming.


M. Sayers

Many people are not convinced in the authencity of the interviews.
Remember, Boba wrote that it was not known whether it was real Fischer
or some Yegor Stroeff that gave the interviews over the Radio located
somewhere in Dick Knows Where. Not saying about Boris Spatski, who
also doubted the interviews.

On 29 Aug 2003 04:26:18 -0700, (Todd E.
Flambers) wrote:

Many people are not convinced in the authencity of the interviews.
Remember, Boba wrote that it was not known whether it was real Fischer
or some Yegor Stroeff that gave the interviews over the Radio located
somewhere in Dick Knows Where. Not saying about Boris Spatski, who
also doubted the interviews.

I know Fischer since 1956 and it is 100% certain that this is Fischer.

Sam Sloan

"Todd E. Flambers" wrote in message
om...
Remember, Boba wrote that it was not known whether it was real Fischer
I don't remember Boba but it sure tells me not to trust Boba for one bit.
Anybody with any sense knows these radio-interviews are genuine.