Bobby Fischer's "Dubrovnik" set was a "Minceta" version of the Dubrovnik...?

For quite some time now, I've been questioning whether Bobby's Dubrovnik set was a regular Dubrovnik II or a Minceta version. I've read and heard many opinions on this topic over the years, and while all have made great points, I've been comparing his set to both versions and have changed my mind several times. Today, I am committed to choosing the "Minceta" version for the following reasons:

1. When comparing the rooks, the base of the Minceta is wide, and the turret is slightly angled inward at the top. In contrast, the Dubrovnik II has a narrower base and a turret that goes straight up to the top.

&

(Minceta)

(Dubrovnik II)

2. In pictures of Bobby with his set, the Queen's base appears slightly smaller than the King's base, which matches the Minceta version. In the regular Dubrovnik II, the King and Queen's bases are the same diameter.

3. I want to trust Izmet Fekali's expertise in Dubrovnik sets history, as he is considered to be highly knowledgeable. He once commented on Chess.com that Bobby's Dubrovnik set was, in fact, a "Minceta" version.

If anyone has additional insights or comments, please share. I wanted to bring this topic to the community and reach a definitive answer: Was Bobby Fischer's Dubrovnik chess set a "Dubrovnik II" or a "Dubrovnik Minceta"? I believe it was a "Minceta"...what do you think?

(P.S.: I know I am using examples of NOJ for some comparisons but even though their sets are not 100% exact, they do follow the basic measurements and designs of the originals.)

Yes sir he did, but that set is indisputable since it was the 1950 version....this tread was just to clear up the other Dubrovnik set that he owned but, that most people were not sure to which version it truly was. Thanks for your input and adding that fact too DesperateKingWalk.

I know... this is such a popular set and everybody just loves to talk about it lol....but, I had to put this topic to rest for the final time (probably not!) with indisputable proof. I figured the tread was a bit different than the usual Dubrovnik topic...("Look at my new set!)...and people might engage in it a bit. Especially if they had other proof that proves this wrong or right. Thanks for the video links Powderdigit, and I have watched them all many, many times in the past!

A controversial subject for sure. Much of our understanding for the Dubrovnik sets that Fischer has owned come from photos and this interview Izmet posted.

The interview can be hard to follow because of Fischer's state. This forum comment includes a transcript of the interview (link) that might help.

Noj is well known for reproducing the original 1950 Pero Pocek design because they had possession of the actual set used by Fischer and Spassky. Noj is the only company with a license to produce the 1960 Andrija Maurovic design so it can be argued this is authentic and not a reproduction.

I suspect most Dubrovnik reproductions are copies of Noj chess sets.

I believe the "Minceta" design is more of an evolution (i.e. mashup of features) and marketing term. I'm not aware of a designer being attributed to this. Perhaps it was Noj who coined the name.

All are wonderful designs.

There are no photos of Fischer with an original Pero Pocek designed set (unknown manufacturer) that was believed to be his (however, he has said this is his favourite). Based on lack of photos and the interview (see the transcript) I do not believe Fischer owned an original Pero Pocek design.

Izmet describes the 1960 Andrija Mourovic design (Dubrovnik II) as the "Fischer set". It was manufactured by Jakopovic in Zagreb. Fischer describes buying a set in Zagreb about this time. Indeed, this is the set Fischer was often photographed with (including the cover on Life magazine).

I agree with all you have said except for the last part: (Izmet describes the 1960 Andrija Mourovic design (Dubrovnik II) as the "Fischer set")..because if you noticed the post from him that I have posted, you will see that he agrees that Fischer's set was indeed a "Minceta" version!

This is the reason for the post in the 1st place. I just can't see how the set is anything but a "Minceta" and not the regular Dubrovnik II with all the proof I have provided. Maybe the "Minceta" was considered a "Dubrovnik II" but another version, but Fischer's set was for sure a "Minceta" version!...(me and Izmet's opinion). Loved your post AwesomeAtti, it gave some great historical data to the tread for sure.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions DesperateKingWalk, and stay safe out there chasing mother nature! 🌪️

I was referring to this post from Izmet. I did look closer at some photos (including the Life magazine photos). There is a narrowing on the top of the rook that does not seem to be part of Noj's Dubrovnik II (I have both Noj sets but don't have them with me at the moment). I agree with you, this suggests a Minceta-like design. I'm very interested to know more now (I never looked into this aspect before).

As I said about the "Minceta"... I think it's a marketing term created by Noj to differentiate between the other two designs. It's possible Jakopovic or others evolved the Maurovic design.

"Jakopović's chessmen were used in most events on the Yugoslav soil in the sixties. Here's a video from the 1968 Svetozar Gligorić vs. Mikhail Tal WC candidate match in Dom sindikata, Belgrade, Yugoslavia" - Izmet.

Below are screen captures from the video that are likely a Jakopovic made set. Sorry, I can't make out the brand of cigarette Tal is smoking.

The rooks look VERY robust... more than the Maurovic design. No narrowing top. For fun, here's the game.

Here's a set from a tournament in Deskle, Slovenia on December 22nd 1968 (the same year). More ornament on the pieces, but there appears to be the narrowing on the top of the rook. No indication who made the pieces... but if Jakopovic was the preferred maker of chess pieces for tournaments this could be him as well. Or it's just the evolution of the design amongst different makers and Noj just consolidated those design differences in what they call Minceta.

The photo of Fischer on the cover of Life magazine was in 1971 and he describes getting the set in '68 or '70.

Great stuff AwesomeAtti... This is some good material that you posted and I just love to discuss elusive chess topics such as the Dubrovnik design. If enough people contribute, we can figure out anything at some point!

Any Jakopovic chess set is rare , a lot has been covered in other posts , The fat rook is his design . The Minceta it's a NOJ made up name . As for a Jakopovic set been it from the 50's 60's 70's 80's none of them are cheap , good luck trying to find one & if you do it will cost you a large sum !

Holy crap!...those are some amazing pictures you took! My favorite is the one with the clouds overlooking the roadway....it just pulls out the yellow in the road and the green in the grass in just the right ways! Also, that pic of the tornado is pretty spectacular! it almost looks like your right next to it and it just missed you!

Good to hear your back home safe though...chasing tornados can be very dangerous for your well being if not taken seriously! Great pics too...

You are right about all of this lighthouse! The only part for me that is not definitive enough to call is the actual name of the "Minceta" set. To your credit, the only reference that I can find on the name is either in "Chess.com" or NOJ's site itself. But, the way it is written on their site make me question this point.

Under the "History of the Dubrovnik Chessmen design" on one of NOJ's websites, it references the name in such a way to sound like "a matter of fact!" Or like it was labeled this name by the people of Yugoslavia at the time. Either way you could be right about this but, I haven't made my mind up on this part yet! I will reach out to Gregor and see if I could drag out some back history of the Minceta name and it official origins! I bet Izmet would know this fact but, he hasn't been online for quite some time now (hope all is well with him and his health!) Or, if anyone in this tread has any more info. to add to the topic, please share it with the community for further debate.

Until then, we will consider you right and this part of the topic open for future debate.

I thought it was a reference to the fortress in Dubrovnik.

It is very difficult to determine from the pictures exactly what Fischer's set was like.

I think that the rook in Fischer's set is something between two Noj rooks, Minceta and Dubrovnik II.

But let me show you how robust the original Jakopovic rooks really are. For comparison, I use two different Jakopovic rooks and a typical plastic club set, because I think that everyone knows what such a set looks like:

For reference again. These are the Noj sets.

Good to see examples of other Jakopovic rooks without the narrowing at the top.

The shallow cuts on top of the Noj Minceta rook really make the rook look strong. Perhaps this is why they created the additional set.

As for the styles of knights & rooks that are found in original sets, there are quite a few. The styles even vary with Jakopović sets. Given that the he had a long career that spanned decades, you can only image how many different knights & rooks queens + bishops he created as design moves with the times .

I took the liberty of pasting "Fischers" Dubrovnik set over the NOJ "Minceta" & "Dubrivnik II" sets (with them being slightly transparent of coarse). I believe the results speak for themselves.

They are pretty much identical to the "Minceta" minus the angle difference! Also look at the Bishops top shape, they are identical in the Minceta version and too tear dropped in the Dubrovnik II set. Another similarity is the stems to the King and Queen...the Minceta's are as thick as Fischers where the Dubrovnik II's are slightly narrower. The Queens top is identical in the Minceta too...This was the actual point of this thread and I am glad you posted your opinions and point of views.

This is how we will definitively put this to rest...Yet this picture should again, validate the fact that his set was definitely a "Minceta" version of the Dubrovnik design. Unless you still think otherwise?

"Minceate" "Dubrovnik II"

"Minceta" was a naming convention introduced by Noj and wouldn't have been used to describe any of the sets in the past.

It's believed Jakopovic may have been the manufacturer of the original Pero Pocek designed sets for the Olympiad. This suggests Jakopvic made various Dubrovnik styled sets. I think it's reasonable to assume he varied his sets over time (and I think this is what Noj tried to capture the essence of with their Minceta).

It seems likely that Jakopovic was the creator of the set that appeared on the cover of Life magazine (though your Fischer reference image does not appear to be this set... the set on the cover looks much more worn). This adds to the likelihood that Fischer owned multiple Jackopovic made sets, however, there is no photo evidence of him owning a set from the Olympiad and his interview can be interpreted in different ways so it may not be the most reliable source.

Great work!

As far as I know, the original 1950 sets were made in an unknown workshop, supposedly located in Serbia, and only 50 were produced. The original Dubrovnik II pieces were handmade in the Zagreb-based workshop of craftsman Vjekoslav Jakopovič. Yet, no one knows for sure whether Jakopovič himself or other craftsmen in his shop were the creators of the Dubrovnik II sets.

However, I agree with you that Jakopovič’s workshop was likely the creator of the set that appeared on the cover of Life magazine. I believe the set I used as an example was indeed the same set Fischer owned and that he only ever owned one Dubrovnik II (Minceta) set. Here is the complete photo of Bobby Fischer's Dubrovnik set, which clearly states at the bottom that this example is his set.

Whether Fischer really owned the original 1950s set or not is still up for debate, considering there are no photos of him with it. But if we were to take his word on it, he definitely did. Great stuff for sure AwesomeAtti !

That set you're comparing is a HOS copy, which in reality doesn't look as good as it does in that picture. At least judging by this review:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/review-house-of-staunton-1960-fischer-dubrovnik-chessmen