Ah, the enduring question that has captured the imagination of chess enthusiasts and collectors alike: was Bobby Fischer’s Dubrovnik set truly a Dubrovnik II (Jakopović), or was it the elusive Minceta version (most likely also a Jakopović)? As a long-standing connoisseur of fine chess sets and a devotee to the legacy of chess greats, I too have grappled with this enigma. Over the years, I have delved into countless analyses, examined images of Fischer with his set, and poured over the wisdom of experts, oscillating between one conclusion and the other. However, after a meticulous comparison of both versions, I now find myself drawn, definitively, to the Minceta version. Let me explain why.

First, we must turn our attention to the humble yet essential rook. The Minceta rook is distinguished by its broader base, a characteristic that gives it a weightier, more imposing presence on the board. The turret, with its slight inward angle at the top, reflects a refinement that sets it apart from its Dubrovnik II counterpart, whose narrower base and straight-edged turret offer a stark contrast. This detail, seemingly minor, speaks volumes about the Minceta’s distinct aesthetic—a feature that aligns with Fischer’s known preferences for solidity and strength in his pieces.

&

(Minceta)

(Dubrovnik II)

Now, let us examine the queen. One of the more telling clues, in my opinion, comes from photographs of Bobby Fischer with his set. In these images, we can clearly observe that the base of the queen is just slightly smaller than that of the king—another hallmark of the Minceta. In the Dubrovnik II version, however, the bases of the king and queen are of equal diameter, an important deviation from what we see in Fischer’s set. This subtle distinction, I believe, further supports the Minceta theory.

And then, of course, we have the invaluable expertise of Izmet Fekali, a scholar of Dubrovnik sets whose knowledge and research are revered by collectors worldwide. Fekali himself commented on Chess.com, asserting that Bobby Fischer’s set was, indeed, a Minceta. His insights lend considerable weight to this conclusion. As collectors, we often rely on such authoritative voices to guide us, and in this instance, Fekali’s judgment seems particularly compelling.

I invite the wider chess community to weigh in with their insights or perhaps their own research. The mystery of Fischer’s Dubrovnik set deserves a definitive answer, and while my conviction now leans towards the Minceta, I remain open to further discourse. What do you think? Could it be that the great Bobby Fischer, with his discerning eye for detail, favored the Minceta over the Dubrovnik II?

(P.S.: I should note that I have used examples from NOJ sets for some of my comparisons. While they are not exact replicas of the originals, they adhere closely to the dimensions and designs of the authentic Dubrovnik sets. Thus, they provide a reliable reference point for this ongoing inquiry.)

In the end, whether Dubrovnik II or Minceta, what we truly seek is the essence of Fischer’s mastery, embodied in every piece of that legendary set.