• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Chess

IsaVulpes said:
Can't exactly follow.. you mean like this;

12 Game-Match
#1 Win A - Nothing
#2 Win B - Nothing
#3 Draw - Play Rapid after, A wins, add +1 to A Tiebreak score
#4 Draw - Play Rapid after, B wins, add +1 to B Tiebreak score
#4 Draw - Play Rapid after, draw, nothing
And then at the end, in the event of match draw, you pull out the accumulated Tiebreak scores?

*I* would just do it extremely classic - slightly lengthen the match (say, 15 instead of 12 games) and in the event of a draw, the WC retains his title, as the challenger was unable to prove superiority over him.

I like a 3-year-cycle.
Yep, that's what I was suggesting. A traditional match would be fine, but then you run into the problem of people losing interest if there are 6 straight draws or something, especially if the players are saving energy so the games are dull on top of that. Imagine if we had a repeat of Kasparov-Kramnik - online audiences would complain endlessly.

3 years is fine as a cycle. Any longer than 4 and people would probably lose interest, and players can peak and decline in that time.
At least have the organizer name 5 different people and then draw one of them
> Ilyumzhinov
May as well just choose one.

Also spoilering my previous posts.
 
Vadsamoht said:
then you run into the problem of people losing interest if there are 6 straight draws or something, especially if the players are saving energy so the games are dull on top of that. Imagine if we had a repeat of Kasparov-Kramnik - online audiences would complain endlessly.
There's really no way of avoiding that, aside from maybe letting a bunch of strippers dance next to the chessboard. Push the World Rapid Championship up to be a more respected title, and let dull/draw complainers watch that instead.

Vadsamoht said:
3 years is fine as a cycle. Any longer than 4 and people would probably lose interest, and players can peak and decline in that time.
Yeah I feel 4+ is too long because most people don't peak for that long and we don't really have anything in between (like eg football has WC and EC);
At the same time I think 1-2 years is too short because it 1) forces the WC to defend his title all the damn time, and 2) "downgrades" the WC title - obviously, the more WC matches there are, the more WCs there will be, and then it just turns into what the FIDE WC during the PCA-time was.. 5 champions in 10 years just doesn't sound right.

> Ilyumzhinov
May as well just choose one.
Not sure what this means
 
IsaVulpes said:
Not sure what this means
While he remains president of FIDE, some people would be tempted to think that there is no possibility of a 'fair' drawing.
 
Ehehehe

Stats for standard tactics
Rating: 2106.3 (RD: 99.93)
Active Rank: Not Active/12098
Problems Done: 15 (Correct: 15 Failed: 0)
Percentage correct: 100.00%

Let's see how long I can keep this up


E: 15-1 :BIN:
 
Last edited:
Not gonna lie, I almost never do tactics training. I find it incredibly boring.
 
Mostly every decent coach recommends it as main / hugely important training part for sub 2000 players, due to most of those games getting decided by gross blunders. It's also by far the easiest thing to do on train/toilet/in bed/etc.
What do you find boring about it? And what do you work on instead?

In unrelated notes, I can't recommend "Chess Exam and Training Guide" by Igor Khmelnitsky enough.
 
I haven't really thought deeply about it, but I find solving an arbitrary position much less interesting than, say, one during a game I'm playing. Part of it is probably the fact that I know there's a solution there (in a game you don't). Even problems that are deliberately listed as "find the best move" aren't that fun. The other half of it is that I generally find that I don't *understand* the positions well. In my games I know that I've been trying to e.g. break through on the kingside while they attack the queenside, and I know what concessions I've had to make, etc. But just give me a position and ask me "what is going on here?" and I doubt I'd be able to find the answer the majority of the time, and I think that makes the problems much drier.

I actually don't work on anything instead - I won a trophy(performance rating over actual rating) in a weekender in July, and have taken a bit of a break since then. Unless I'm preparing for an event, I usually just spend the majority of my time playing and used to have a ton of correspondence games going at once.
 
It for sure is far less interesting than solving a position during a game! But to get an interesting position during a game you need 4 hours of time and an opponent.
The idea is mostly just pattern recognition - when you land in a position like this during a game, your brain recognizes similarities to puzzles you solved, which means you're more naturally looking out for eg ways to exploit that oppponent's undefended Rook on a5, or just starting thoughts such as "I got a Queen and a Rook near the enemies king, there's quite possibly something going on here" - Q+R by themselves create terror quite easily!

On top of that, it greatly improves your calculating ability, as everything is "exact" rather than 'let me sac here and hope to make something out of that initiative'.
It is decently common in games (or at least in mine) that I'm in a position where I think "there's gotta be something here", and the more used I am to trying to find said something while keeping in mind opponent's counterplay options, the more likely I am to find the correct solution.

You can of course 'spice things up' - and rather than just doing blind tactics, take into mind extra considerations, such as "What opening did this position likely arise from?", or "What are both player's general plans in this position?" etc; that obviously doesn't work in a "Mate in 3" endgame position, but in typical middlegame positions this is often quite possible -
And sometimes even helps solving the tactics solving process; when I figure the pawn structure looks like a typical Sicilian one, the first thing in a "White to Move" problem I look at is e6.

This is how I approach tactics puzzles - instead of trying to solve them asap and just looking for "sac sac fork", I try to 'figure out' the position, look at plans, weak squares, undefended pieces etc, and for the *utmost* part, the tactics then fall in place "naturally".

E: And of course there is little else you can do eg on the toilet, so with a decent phone in your hands, 20-30 mins of tactics training per day should be possible to squeeze in somewhere easily
 
Last edited:
IsaVulpes said:
You can of course 'spice things up' - and rather than just doing blind tactics, take into mind extra considerations, such as "What opening did this position likely arise from?", or "What are both player's general plans in this position?" etc; that obviously doesn't work in a "Mate in 3" endgame position, but in typical middlegame positions this is often quite possible -
And sometimes even helps solving the tactics solving process; when I figure the pawn structure looks like a typical Sicilian one, the first thing in a "White to Move" problem I look at is e6.
I think this is key - I simply don't have that kind of general knowledge at the moment. Most of the things I know are either random factoids or things specific to the openings/situations I find myself in most regularly.

Example: When I played the Sicilian as black I used to play the dragon mostly (and a few experiments with the Scheveningen/Sveshnikov to see what they were like). I know that in the Najdorf, a d5 break is supposed to be one of Black's key plans. But because I've never played the Najdorf, you could show me a Najdorf-like position and I wouldn't recognize it, so the information is essentially useless.

EDIT: So, does this indicate that I should be studying pawn structures? Or perhaps light study of all (!) openings? Or something else?
 
Disclaimer: I will ramble some about some things.
I don't know what level you are really at, how much knowledge you have already etc, so please don't be offended if you already know most of this and it sounds like I'm selling your abilities short or w/e - I'm just trying to be thorough.

~~~

To give the basic reasoning as to why tactics training is so important, I'll quote Réti: "A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play".

Everything you know as guidelines and positional ideas takes a backseat to tactics (pawns are strongest in a phalanx; but if hg3: captures a queen, you're going to do just that);
Strong positional play (say, creating a weak square in the opponents camp and parking a minor piece on it) is generally not sufficient for a win unless you find a tactical shot - enabled by your positional superiority;
In the first place, you *just won't* understand what good squares for a piece are (or why), if you are unaware of typical tactical motifs.

The most basic example off the top of my head is the Légal Trap:
[ 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.Nc3 Bg5?! 5.h3 ]
.. So far this looks like a bunch of normal moves.
Now black is going to remember that:
- moving the bishop back on the same diagonal is a waste of tempo (just gave white h3 for free),
- ..Bf3: concedes the bishop pair which is suboptimal,
so 5...Bh5 is the most logical move.
.. But! Here, positional guidelines have to take a backseat to tactical considerations.
After 5. ..Bh5, white has the shot 6.Ne5:!
Since 6. ..Bd1: 7.Bf7:+ Ke7 8.Nd5# ends the game, black will emerge from the complications a pawn down.

Vadsamoht said:
I think this is key - I simply don't have that kind of general knowledge at the moment.
Just look as far as you can!

If you don't understand the concept of a weak colour complex, look for weak squares, or even just hanging pieces.
If you don't see any immediate win, look for "possible future things" such as a rook standing in a long bishop diagonal with a pawn in between, queen and king at forking distance, etc
If you have no real idea of what kind of plan a person should have, at least try to rule out some moves which you'd never play (eg "this pawn move would be bad due to locking in my bishop" or w/e)

With some time of playing the Sicilian, analysing Sicilian games, and solving tactics puzzles which arose from the Sicilian, you are going to notice typical sacrifices on c3, d5, e6.
Even if you're at no point actually aware of a given position being a Sicilian one, you will have seen similar structures and understand what to look for.

If you have no general knowledge of openings and the arising pawn structures, then you can also just forget about this thought - and consider other things.
Eg: "White has this strong attack on the board, and is supposed to be winning in this position (has a tactical shot hidden somewhere), so Black blundered somewhere before. But what was Blacks general idea in giving White this attack? Does he have some compensation, or must he have played 15 terrible moves in succession?"
In the Puzzles taken from master games rather than dumb studies, you will generally find something like "White has a surprising rook sacrifice leading to a mate in 4, but *if he didn't have that*, Black would be able to break through on the Queenside via this-that-this; the defensive positioning around the Black King with that Knight on g7 is exceptionally strong and would be unbreakable without this rook sacrifice; I should make note and try to apply similar in my games".

Thoughts like this arise "naturally" when actually considering the entire board, rather than just looking for a winning combination.

I know that in the Najdorf, a d5 break is supposed to be one of Black's key plans. But because I've never played the Najdorf, you could show me a Najdorf-like position and I wouldn't recognize it, so the information is essentially useless.
The base idea behind learning these guidelines is that you get the raw answer to a question - and then try to find out why this is a guideline, how far it goes, when it actually applies, etc.

What is 1. ..c5 good for?
Compared to 1. ..e5, it doesn't really help you develop your pieces (Bf8 still locked in), and it controls less relevant squares (d4+b4 instead of d4+f4). So why would anyone play this move?
Because white, to abuse the lead in development you just served him on a platter, has to open lines; else his initiative is going to fizzle out sooner or later.
After the natural moves 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4: 4.Nd4:, white has achieved his goal - he broke open the position, established a dominating knight on a central outpost, got a spatial advantage, and is ready to develop his minor pieces (look at those bishops compared to black's!).
However, doing so came at a price which would not happen after x.d4 in a e4 v e5 pawnstructure: White gave up one of his central pawns for black's c-pawn. If black succeeds in freeing his position, he will enjoy a central pawn majority, which would promise him a good game.

This is the very idea of the Sicilian. Black accepts that he will be behind in development (and in a slightly cramped structure) for the foreseeable future;
Hoping to be able to at some point play ..d5, since after ed5: xd5: (followed by ..e5) Black would gain strong central presence, which white will forever be unable to challenge - at that point it wouldn't just be a fight for equality, but secure him superior prospects.

If you understand the ideas of central pawn majority, pawn breaks, how to play in a cramped position, etc - then you will get the idea of playing ..d5 at some point yourself; it doesn't really matter whether you recognize that the given position is a Najdorf structure.
If you understand this, then you will also know that ..d5 is the main underlying idea of *every* Sicilian, rather than being unique to the Najdorf - it's just easier to achieve in some Sicilians than in others.

~~~

.. You know that a Rook is generally "worth more" than a Bishop, but why is that so? Maybe you heard the saying "Flank attacks get countered by central breakthroughs", or know that the bishop pair is strong, or are aware that control over the center is important, .. but why, why, why?
These guidelines give you some immediate successes if you just blindly follow them, but it is important that at some point you sit down and try to figure out WHY EXACTLY they give you those successes; so you can understand when the guidelines don't apply, or how to abuse them in positions where they aren't obvious -
These are the baselines of positional play; understanding that your spatial advantage can only persist if the opponent doesn't get to play his f7-f6 pawnbreak, noticing that you cannot stop him from doing that for long, and thus swinging a rook on the completely closed-off e-file, as you know black will sooner or later push ..f6, opening up the center, and THEN that rook is going to be strong.

EDIT: So, does this indicate that I should be studying pawn structures? Or perhaps light study of all (!) openings? Or something else?
Studying pawn structures and their implications is never a bad idea! Same with rough reasoning for various different opening approaches. At 1500 level, probably neither is necessary, though. As said, most of these games are raw tactics :P

Before you misunderstand: These aren't "You have to do this" things, but just general ideas how to make 'tactics training' via puzzles (which, at its core, is just "Get a position and find the winning move", a lot) less bland and more relevant for real play - putting you in the mindset of "If I had gotten this position during OTB play, what would be my thoughts?".

The point is that many (most?) people, when doing tactics puzzles, sit down and just go "Okay I have to win this position. How do I do that? Sac there? Sac here? Sac this? Sac that?"; while if they were to get 1:1 the same position at the board, the sac wouldn't even enter their mind at all and they'd just play some developing move or similar.
So instead, you try to forget that there's a win somewhere, and just look: What are my opponent's plans, what are my plans, what should I prevent, where do my pieces want to go - and often, you'll see "Oh there is a weak square! It's currently protected by the opponent's knight, but if I could plant my knight there, it would have a stellar outpost and threaten mate on f7.. wait, I can capture the defending knight with my rook, would that be worth it? Yes, he can only take the Knight back with his Queen, and then the mate/queen fork is a killing blow" - this would be a thought process you could have OTB.

~~~

Again, I am going to have a hard time telling you what you need to work on without playing a bunch of matches (all of CC, long, and short time limits), seeing you analyze differing positions, and noticing how you handle certain pawn structures.

If you know the basic moves of your repertoire of choice, understand the underlying ideas of the openings you play, are aware of the basic opening rules, have an idea about the middlegame plans both in your openings as well as in "topical" pawn structures (IQP, pawnchains, semi open files, ..), know what a weak colour complex and what weak pieces are, can perform basic attacks (both piece attacks / pawnstorms) and have the groundworks of endgames down (when K+P v K is won / when it's drawn; how to play Rook endgames) - plus are able to solve basic tactics in your games (don't blunder pieces/pawns away, see check-sac-fork), then..
I don't know, buy the Khmelnitsky book :P
 
Last edited:
As a really really basic idea I will give an example train-of-thought in a given tactic puzzle position;
I did this for a friend who has recently started playing the game - as such it is going to be way below your level, but it's already typed out and I'm too lazy right now, so..

White has just played 1.Re3-b3
3t169uujvzc48.png

Black to move wins.

Solution:
Knowing this is a tactics puzzle and I just have to check for some way to win, I can quickly skim over the position, see the bishop fork 1...Bc2, and be done with it.

But that's not what I do.
This is what I do:

1. Try to "delve into" the position at least on a basic level, so I understand what is going on on the board. Where are we (Opening/Middlegame/Endgame)? Compare material; Note basic positional considerations (is either close to getting mated? Are there hanging pieces somewhere?)
2. Dive a little bit deeper (Is either of the kings 'possibly in danger ever'? Are there pieces which are "possibly insufficiently defended" (undefended, or attacked once - defended once)? Obviously weak squares? Pieces decently close to a knight and in a position that would be possible to land a fork on? - What are basic asymmetries in the position? etc
3. Look at the last opponent's move (not all puzzles offer this, but chesstempo does, so I'm gonna use it) - what does it do? How does it affect the position?
4. Consider plans of both sides, etc etc etc ^we had this higher up there, I'm not doing THAT in this example since that would possibly have gone over his head :p So I'm not gonna explain too much further.

Now, this is my thought process for the given position:
Basic Considerations:
- What?: Endgame
- Material: Even
- Positional Differences: me bishop v knight, white isolated pawn (under pressure), black more active king
- Mate threat: neither colour
- Hanging pieces: enemy unprotected rook on d1

Last move:
- Re3-b3, vacating the open file to attack the unprotected pawn on b6, is now on a white square (possible to attack with whitesq bishop?)

White things of note:
- Attacks the hanging b7 pawn
- Ne5 suprisingly 'works' due to ..Re5: 2.de5:+ being check <-Careful! (can just play ..Rd4: though due to lack of d-pawn defender)

Candidate moves:
- mate threats ( - )
- protect the attacked b7 pawn (..rd7, ..bc8, ..b6)
- vastly improve the position of one of my pieces ( - )
- pose a counter threat to the isolated d4 pawn either by forcing the knight to move or the rook to vacate the d-file ( - )
- attack the unprotected d1 rook (..Bc2)
- "punish" his last move (Rb3) either by puttin a rook in the vacated open file, or by attacking the rook with the bishop (..Re8, ..Bc2)

Protecting the b7 pawn with ..Bc8 or ..b6 would worsen my position badly, discarded
..Rook d8 to d7 seems possible, but might be met with 2.Ne5 and possibly awkward position?
..R5d7 may work but not something I really want to do
Attacking the unprotected d1 Rook with ..Bc2 is actually a bishop fork due to the last white move, where he put his 2nd rook on an unfortunate square. Up an Exchange after?
..Re8 (followed by ..Re2?) enters the open file, but probably not worth it for a pawn, and deffo not better than winning the exchange
..Bc2 we had this already

= ..Bc2 main move, with both ..Rd7s being a secondary option to keep in mind

What follows after ..Bc2?
- Rb7: doesn't work, since his d1 Rook is undefended (would net me a whole Rook rather than just the exchange)
- So he'll have to either move the d1-Rook and/or have the Rooks protect each other to not lose a whole rook (eg via Rdd3)
- No other real moves possible, as I'm not in any kind of mate threat and none of my pieces are hanging

What follows after ..R8d7?
- 2.Ne5 Rd4: doesn't work anymore due to Nd7:+ being check, would have to leave the d-file with ..Rc7 or ..Re7, forced on the defensive

What follows after ..R5d7?
- 2.Ne5 now fails to ..Rd4:, so probably a better option, but not too nice

= ..Bc2 most probable move

Last doublecheck on whether I missed some obvious move that may be superior to ..Bc2 (no)
Last doublecheck on whether I missed some obvious defence that makes ..Bc2 actually not work (no)

-> Move ..Bc2

This is the same tactics puzzle - approached entirely else.
Those extra considerations are all going to help me in future thinking processes on whichever position I might be analysing, even if there is no immediate tactic to be found, and make the whole process of solving the puzzle more fun and closer to OTB chess.
 
Thanks for the detailed posts - It was all quite useful though not all of it was new.

I was going to write a detailed reply to some of your points, but there seems to be something uncomfortable in my thinking that I want to try to root out before simply replying with "Yes, but...".
 
Ok, so I've been doing some thinking, and I think here are two reasons for trying to rationalise not doing tactics. The first is simply that I've been too much of a little b to sit myself down and do the work. The second reason is that the majority of my serious games are decided by not knowing what to do in the positions I reach, while I do far better when I have a clear idea of how the position 'works' (unsurprisingly). This second point leads to my not putting real effort into tactics even when I do go to chesstempo, etc. because I'm constantly thinking that not recognizing the themes in front of me probably won't be what decides a game when I'm already aimlessly moving pieces around. Of course this is the wrong way to think, I guess I just egotistically thought I could somehow get by without it.

After my exams finish in a little over a week I have a few months with nothing to do, so it might be worth thinking about setting up some sort of study regimen.

@Klo58noa, have you looked at what I linked you earlier in the thread? No pressure if you haven't, but I'm happy to walk you through stuff if you're having trouble with anything.
 
@Vadsamoht I've only skimmed through it because of midterms, but from what I read so far it seems to be exactly what I needed to understand the game. Thanks.
 
First game of the World Championship match is going to start in around 2 hours. It'll be streamed here: http://www.sochi2014.fide.com/live-video/ (EDIT: or here with the same stream and a larger board that you can move the pieces on, etc.) and probably some other places if you find the commentators boring. I just hope we don't end up with Nigel Short playing the guitar to fill up time again.
 
I'll admit I found it a little tedious near the end. Carlsen's playstyle means that even when a position is tending to a draw, you never know how much longer the game will drag on for, so after the time control I went to watch the F1 instead and came back for the press conference. But yeah, if you call that a boring game then you've got problems.

This match is actually looking interesting. I just hope that Carlsen doesn't take the lead too early or else Anand might not recover.
 
If he doesn't let Anand equalize in the next game he's gonna get banned from SH.
 
Funny, I'm a natural player apparently.

I like chess, but I only play with few I know (my cousin and my grandmother)!
Grandmother is more fun becous my cousin shall always (ALWAYS) just think for like 5 min before he moves a piece.
 
Apparently Nelson Mandela used to do that when he was imprisoned - taking ages and ages over each move, both as a means of looking at every possibility and as a psychological tactic.
 
Yes, but waiting soo long makes it boring. And I usually win over him anyway (he isn't dumb btw).
 
I'd personally prefer Magnus to win - I'm not really a fan of his but I think he's a better ambassador for chess in general. I'd just rather not have a match where one side starts playing for draws after only a few games.
 
Couldn't watch last night's game all the way through, but it was pretty interesting yet again.

Hands up everyone that would have fallen for the Hugh Jorgi trap.
 
Vadsamoht said:
The first is simply that I've been too much of a little b to sit myself down and do the work.
This really sounds like a non-issue to me.. I do most of my tactics work when I'm on the toilet / waiting for an appointment / sitting on the train / lying in bet not yet ready to sleep / etc;
At any given day, you should be able to find some 20-30 minutes where you can "naturally" fit some puzzles in, without changing anything about your schedule or being forced to whip yourself to making room for practice.

The second reason is that the majority of my serious games are decided by not knowing what to do in the positions I reach, while I do far better when I have a clear idea of how the position 'works' (unsurprisingly). This second point leads to my not putting real effort into tactics even when I do go to chesstempo, etc. because I'm constantly thinking that not recognizing the themes in front of me probably won't be what decides a game when I'm already aimlessly moving pieces around.
This isn't necessarily wrong!

Just two things:
- Of course you can practice other things as well, nobody has a problem with that! :P If you enjoy reading about Pawn Structures or Piece Play or anything really, then do that!! As said, the puzzles are mostly a thing you do at a non-spot in your schedule anyway, so they shouldn't really affect the rest of what you are trying to practice.
- Tactics training IMO helps quite a bit with playing in 'planless' positions, as you get used to where pieces have to be to allow tactics (which generally are good squares), and where pieces should avoid being to not have tactic shots hit them (most obviously "Keep everything defended; don't let pieces just hang around") - which means you generally see how your position could get improved more easily ("No idea what to do.. oh, my Rook on b4 is undefended, let me play Rb3 to fix that.. oh, my Q+R are sorta aiming at his king, but this won't be sufficient for an attack; however if I can bring my Knight over, maybe I can find some sacrifice" and similar)

so it might be worth thinking about setting up some sort of study regimen.
Of course everyone is different, but I don't like that approach much. Just makes my fun hobby feel too much like work.

Analysing your faults and trying to fix them is one thing, "Monday: 2h Tactics 1h 'My System'; Tuesday: 30 minute Tactics 2h30 Rook Endgames" (or whatever a 'study regimen' would look like) something entirely else.

Again, my general recommended study approach for "I don't really know what my faults are. I'm u2000 rated" would be to, in order:
1) ~30 Minutes Tactics per day (Chesstempo on your phone while on the toilet or w/e)
2) Check whether you know and understand the opening principles
3) Check whether you know K+P v K engames, as well as basics of Rook endgames (Lucena~)
4) Play games and look at them, or ask people to look at them
5) Khmelnitsky's "Chess Exam and Training Guide" - Downside to this is that it's lots of work. At 20 minutes/position (I'd recommend you use the full amount), even 1h/day means you sit there for a month. I still say it's a good investment (even if you just do one puzzle/day). Just be concentrated while doing it; this is both good exercise for all types of positions and a nice helper in what you need to work on.

.. And bonus extra pretty much anything you like (more tactics, more openings, more endgames, reading a good book like "My System"/"Art of Attack"/annotated-game-collections/whatever, following some tournaments, listening to Svidler<3, etc), whatever you got the time for and have fun working on.
 
I was pretty sure that Carlsen was going to win that after Anand sacrificed the knight to liquidate white's kingside. The queenside pawns didn't seem to me like enough compensation.
 
Man, really? One more move and you would have won. I closed my account on chess.com after I raged my mouse because of a really dumb loss.

That said, 14 days is brutal. I completely forgot the plan I had that justified b3 by the time I had to make the next move.

EDIT: Oh, I see you actually did make your move in time. My bad.
 
Yeah, I made my move with something like 4 hours left
14 days IS kinda awful, but if we did less I would lose on time guaranteed :S I keep forgetting this stuff

This does sound like you're done though? Am I reading that correctly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back