I have just finished reading Dr. Bradys book, Endgame which i initially criticised for its tabloid sensationalistic title. Let me just state for the record that Dr. Brady provides no evidence that Fischer was mentally ill.

Anti-Jewish, anti-American, anti-Russian or irrational belief concerning the holocaust are not known forms of mental illness.

People like László Polgár are quoted in the book saying that Fischer was, 'schizophrenic'.  It must be pointed out that Mr. Polgar is neither qualified to make such a diagnosis nor evidently aware of what schizophrenia actually is, otherwise he would not have uttered his ludicrous assertion.  Furthermore his words are contradicted by a qualified psychiatrist who conversed with Fischer while in hospital.  'He definitely is not schizophrenic'.  Skulasson- Endgame page 325.

As for Dr. Bradys portrayal of Fischer it is rather sympathetic, although he occasionally engages in a little sensationalism. It is not as tabloid as the title initially suggested, which in itself is a rather interesting point.

My copy simply reads, Endgame - the spectacular rise and fall of Bobby Fischer, whereas if you search for the title on-line you will find the following title,  Bobby Fischer's Remarkable Rise and Fall—from America's Brightest Prodigy to the Edge of Madness.  Now why the discrepancy?  Its hard to say but I suspect that it might be the same as those Harry Potter dirges. 'The Philosophers Stone' being renamed 'The Sorcerers stone' for American audiences.  Apparently our American cousins seem more susceptible to sensationalism that their European counterparts, preferring 'sorcery' over 'philosophy' and 'edge of madness' over 'a spectacular rise and fall'. This may have some merit for perhaps the American mind is conditioned by political rhetoric, which to a European mind seems nothing short of ludicrous.  I remember the last presidential campaign, ' I believe in America', was one sentiment expressed by a prospective Presidential candidate (who lost).  What is that? 'I believe in America', but some kind gimmiky emotive appeal rather than sound logic and reason.

In Europe we realise that delivery is not everything and that content is also necessary, for thoughts percolate from the mind to the heart which is the seat of motivation and its an insult to ones listeners to bypass their minds with purely emotionally charged empty rhetoric.

In summation, Dr. Bradys book is an enjoyable read, well researched and documented. One should of course treat the conjecture for what it is, pure speculation, but he appears to me to have avoided sensationalism whenever possible.  Its a pity his American publishers could not find it within themselves to act with likewise restraint.

too long: didn't read

You dont need to read a book to understand that Fischer had "issues"

We do love our sensationalism.  But in America we also have a saying for that stuff you wrote actually. I guess in Scotland it's 6 paragraphs, but here we only use ~5 words. It goes like this:

"I was wrong, I'm sorry"

I agree; the whole "edge of madness" meme is both unsubstantiated and unnecessary.

Unsubstantiated! Hear hear!

Who's to say where the edge of madness lies? Perhaps Fischer was only on the precipice, or ridge of madness. Saying he was on the edge of madness without extensive psychological testing is right out!

I'll get my kid to draw a picture for you next time, make sure he uses colouring pencils and crayons.

That might work in America but strangely enough I dont consider that I am wrong and I am certainly not sorry.

After reading both of Robbie's threads (the before and after), I can't help but be reminded of Emily Litella from the early "Saturday Night Live" TV shows.

You said it appears he avoided sensationalism whenever possible. Not sure the you who wrote the previous topic would have agreed.

But ok, maybe I'm just having a bit of fun with you. I'm glad you decided to read the book.

Ok, I understand now.  My original objection was based on the title and claims that Dr. Brady and others (batchick) had made with regard to his knowing Fischer intimately (he certainly never knew Fischer later in life).  The title is sensationalistic and tabloid in nature, at least the American edition.  To what extent Brady is responsible for this is impossible to say. Never the less Dr. Brady has come off better than I expected despite sometimes engaging in some rather speculative journalism of maybe, its possible that, its likely that and in all probability etc etc.  In my original thread I was also being not a little provactive :D