A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Request for Commentary



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18th 03, 02:08 AM
Bob Durrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary

[Event "Post Mortem Analysis"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2003.06.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B40"]
[Annotator "Bob D with Fritz"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1p3ppp/p3bb2/2pp4/5P2/3P4/PPP1Q1PP/RNB1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "24"]

{I was Black and I wish I could honestly say I saw all of this within
seconds,
but that would be a fantasy.} 15. Qd2 {After this gross blunder, White had
nothing better than to resign. That assumes, of course, that Black was
Kasparov or better.}

15... Bd4+ 16. Kh1

(16. Kf1 Qh4 17. Re3 Qxf4+ 18. Qf2 Qxh2
19. g4 Qh1+ 20. Qg1 Qxg1+ 21. Kxg1 Bxg4 22. Kf2 Rxe3 23. Bxe3 Bxb2 24. Nc3
d4
25. Rg1 dxe3+ 26. Kxe3)

16... Qh4 17. Rf1

(17. Nc3 Bg4 18. Rf1 {transposes to the Note for 18.Nc3 in main line})

(17. c3 Bg4 18. Rf1 (18. Rxe8+ Rxe8 19. h3 Bf3 20. cxd4 Qxh3+ 21. Kg1 Re1+
22.
Kf2 Qxg2+ 23. Kxe1 Qg1#) 18... Be2 19. Qe1 Qxe1 20. Rxe1 Bf2 21. Rg1)

(17. g3 {the move most people would play without a second thought} 17... Bg4
18.
Re5 {
best} 18... Bf3+ 19. Qg2 Qh5 {amazing!} 20. Nc3 f6 21. Re3 Bxg2+ 22. Kxg2
Bxe3
23. Bxe3 Rxe3 24. Rf1 d4)

17... Bg4 18. c3

(18. g3 Qh3 19. Qg2 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 Re2+ 21. Kh1 Bh3 22. Be3 Bxe3 23. Rg1
Bg2+
24. Rxg2 Re1+ 25. Rg1 Rxg1#)

(18. Nc3 {not best} 18... Rad8 {and White is helpless. For example:} {Fritz
8:}
19. b4 cxb4 20. Bb2 bxc3 21. Bxc3 Re2 22. Qxe2 Bxe2 23. Bxd4 Bxf1 24. Rxf1
Re8
{-6.62/17})

18... Be2 19. Qe1 Qxe1 20. Rxe1 Bf2 21. Rg1 Bxg1 22. Kxg1 Bxd3 23. Nd2 Re2
24.
h4 Rae8 25. h5 f5 26. a3 b6 *


  #2  
Old July 18th 03, 03:48 AM
mdamien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary

"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...
[Event "Post Mortem Analysis"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2003.06.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B40"]
[Annotator "Bob D with Fritz"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1p3ppp/p3bb2/2pp4/5P2/3P4/PPP1Q1PP/RNB1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "24"]

{I was Black and I wish I could honestly say I saw all of this within
seconds,
but that would be a fantasy.} 15. Qd2 {After this gross blunder, White had
nothing better than to resign. That assumes, of course, that Black was
Kasparov or better.}

15... Bd4+ 16. Kh1

(16. Kf1 Qh4 17. Re3 Qxf4+ 18. Qf2 Qxh2
19. g4 Qh1+ 20. Qg1 Qxg1+ 21. Kxg1 Bxg4 22. Kf2 Rxe3 23. Bxe3 Bxb2 24. Nc3
d4
25. Rg1 dxe3+ 26. Kxe3)

16... Qh4 17. Rf1

(17. Nc3 Bg4 18. Rf1 {transposes to the Note for 18.Nc3 in main line})

(17. c3 Bg4 18. Rf1 (18. Rxe8+ Rxe8 19. h3 Bf3 20. cxd4 Qxh3+ 21. Kg1 Re1+
22.
Kf2 Qxg2+ 23. Kxe1 Qg1#) 18... Be2 19. Qe1 Qxe1 20. Rxe1 Bf2 21. Rg1)

(17. g3 {the move most people would play without a second thought} 17...

Bg4
18.
Re5 {
best} 18... Bf3+ 19. Qg2 Qh5 {amazing!} 20. Nc3 f6 21. Re3 Bxg2+ 22. Kxg2
Bxe3
23. Bxe3 Rxe3 24. Rf1 d4)

17... Bg4 18. c3

(18. g3 Qh3 19. Qg2 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 Re2+ 21. Kh1 Bh3 22. Be3 Bxe3 23. Rg1
Bg2+
24. Rxg2 Re1+ 25. Rg1 Rxg1#)

(18. Nc3 {not best} 18... Rad8 {and White is helpless. For example:}

{Fritz
8:}
19. b4 cxb4 20. Bb2 bxc3 21. Bxc3 Re2 22. Qxe2 Bxe2 23. Bxd4 Bxf1 24. Rxf1
Re8
{-6.62/17})

18... Be2 19. Qe1 Qxe1 20. Rxe1 Bf2 21. Rg1 Bxg1 22. Kxg1 Bxd3 23. Nd2 Re2



Agreed, White is in deep doodoo after 15. Qd2.



  #3  
Old July 18th 03, 06:29 PM
Bob Durrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"Mark Hathaway" wrote in message
...
Bob Durrett wrote:
[Event "Post Mortem Analysis"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2003.06.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B40"]
[Annotator "Bob D with Fritz"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1p3ppp/p3bb2/2pp4/5P2/3P4/PPP1Q1PP/RNB1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "24"]


{ I was Black and I wish I could honestly say I saw all of this within
seconds, but that would be a fantasy. 15.Qd2 After this gross blunder,
White had nothing better than to resign. That assumes, of course, that
Black was Kasparov or better.

MARK: White isn't defending well and has blocked Bc1, so development
is hindered too. It's a crappy position for White to have to get out
of. }

( { MARK: } 15.c3 Bf5 { and Black's advantage in development is again
prevalent. } )

{ Better is either 15.Nc3 ; or 15.Qf1 }

15...Bd4+ 16.Kh1

( 16.Kf1 Qh4 17.Re3
( MARK: 17.c3 Bf5 )
17...Qxf4+ 18.Qf2 Qxh2 19.g4 Qh1+ 20.Qg1 Qxg1+ 21.Kxg1 Bxg4
22.Kf2 Rxe3 23.Bxe3 Bxb2 24.Nc3 d4 25.Rg1 dxe3+ 26.Kxe3 )

16...Qh4 17.Rf1

( 17.Nc3 Bg4 18.Rf1 { transposes to the Note for 18.Nc3 in
main line } 18...Be3 )

( 17.c3 Bg4 18.Rf1
( 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.h3 Bf3 20.cxd4 Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 Re1+
22.Kf2 Qxg2+ 23.Kxe1 Qg1# )
18...Be2 19.Qe1 Qxe1 20.Rxe1 Bf2 21.Rg1 )

( 17.g3 { the move most people would play without a second thought}
17...Bg4 18.Re5 { best } 18...Bf3+ 19.Qg2 Qh5 { amazing! }
20.Nc3 f6 21.Re3 Bxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Bxe3 23.Bxe3 Rxe3 24.Rf1 d4 )

17...Bg4

{ MARK: threatening ...Re2 or ...Be2 }

18.c3

( 18.g3 Qh3 19.Qg2 Qxg2+ 20.Kxg2 Re2+ 21.Kh1 Bh3 22.Be3 Bxe3
23.Rg1 Bg2+ 24.Rxg2 Re1+ 25.Rg1 Rxg1# )

( 18.Nc3 { not best } 18...Rad8 { and White is helpless. For example:
Fritz 8: } 19.b4 cxb4 20.Bb2 bxc3 21.Bxc3 Re2 22.Qxe2 Bxe2
23.Bxd4 Bxf1 24.Rxf1 Re8 { -6.62/17 } )

18...Be2 19.Qe1 Qxe1 20.Rxe1 Bf2 21.Rg1 Bxg1 22.Kxg1 Bxd3

{ MARK: time for White to resign }

23.Nd2 Re2 24.h4 Rae8 25.h5 f5

{ MARK: Black should straight-away aim to win Bc1 by pinning it and
piling up on it with rooks! }

( 25...Re1+ 26.Kh2 Rd1 27.Nf3 Be2 28.Ne5 f6 29.Nd7 Bf1 30.Nxc5 Ree1
31.Nxb7 Rxc1 32.Rxc1 Rxc1 )

26.a3 b6 *

---------------

I don't really understand what kind of commentary you want?
You've already analyzed it and Fritz helped you to find all
the nasties, so what's left for me or anyone to show you?


Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation. The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.

I do not intend to publish nor to compete in major tournaments. However, I
hope to improve in my general chess ability and understanding of chess and
***ASSUME*** that analyzing my games in depth would contribute.

Here is an example: Based on analysis of my last 66 games, I have become
aware of my tendency to NOT look for and find moves which create hard
problems for the opponent. Instead, I tend to play "obvious" easy-to-find
moves. Therefore, by doing these analyses I have identified a specific area
where I should strive to improve. This is just an example. There are
others.

As before, all comments are solicited and welcome.

Bob


  #4  
Old July 18th 03, 08:20 PM
FredH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...
Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation. The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.


Hi Bob.

In my opinion, analysis and annotation is not so much a skill or knowledge
that is learned, as it is a habit that is formed through hard work and
repetition, until it becomes second nature. There are no easy answers, but
one possible way is that when you study annotated games, analyze the
possibilities before you look at the next move in the book, write down your
analysis, then compare your analysis to that of the author. Force yourself
to repeat this process over and over until it becomes second nature.

This will not be easy for you, as I am sure you realize that bad habitts can
be hard to break.

Regards,
Fred.


  #5  
Old July 18th 03, 09:34 PM
Bob Durrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...
Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation. The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.


Hi Bob.

In my opinion, analysis and annotation is not so much a skill or knowledge
that is learned, as it is a habit that is formed through hard work and
repetition, until it becomes second nature. There are no easy answers, but
one possible way is that when you study annotated games, analyze the
possibilities before you look at the next move in the book, write down

your
analysis, then compare your analysis to that of the author. Force yourself
to repeat this process over and over until it becomes second nature.

This will not be easy for you, as I am sure you realize that bad habitts

can
be hard to break.

Regards,
Fred.


Well, I must qualify since I have more than my share of bad habits, and not
just wrespto chess!

I'm looking forward to studying Kasparov's new books, starting with "Gary
Kasparov on my Great Predecessors, Part 1." I'll probably use Chessbase
because the games will already be in Megabase2003. Typically, when I study
a chess book, I enter the text analysis as I go. At the end, I have a 3
1/2" floppy which I glue into a pouch inside the back cover of the book.
Usually I have Fritz 8.008 examine the games overnight before looking at
them.

It is easy on the computer to do what you suggest. I use Fritz as an
analysis engine in Chessbase. There is an option where it will force you to
find the move before going on. Fritz also has an analysis board [I put it
on the bottom left] not driven by the engine. I look at ideas there and
only later let the engine have a shot at it.

Bob D.


  #6  
Old July 19th 03, 01:34 AM
FredH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...

"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...
Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation.

The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.


Hi Bob.

In my opinion, analysis and annotation is not so much a skill or

knowledge
that is learned, as it is a habit that is formed through hard work and
repetition, until it becomes second nature. There are no easy answers,

but
one possible way is that when you study annotated games, analyze the
possibilities before you look at the next move in the book, write down

your
analysis, then compare your analysis to that of the author. Force

yourself
to repeat this process over and over until it becomes second nature.

This will not be easy for you, as I am sure you realize that bad habitts

can
be hard to break.

Regards,
Fred.


Well, I must qualify since I have more than my share of bad habits, and

not
just wrespto chess!

I'm looking forward to studying Kasparov's new books, starting with "Gary
Kasparov on my Great Predecessors, Part 1." I'll probably use Chessbase
because the games will already be in Megabase2003. Typically, when I

study
a chess book, I enter the text analysis as I go. At the end, I have a 3
1/2" floppy which I glue into a pouch inside the back cover of the book.
Usually I have Fritz 8.008 examine the games overnight before looking at
them.

It is easy on the computer to do what you suggest. I use Fritz as an
analysis engine in Chessbase. There is an option where it will force you

to
find the move before going on. Fritz also has an analysis board [I put it
on the bottom left] not driven by the engine. I look at ideas there and
only later let the engine have a shot at it.

Bob D.


Well, I'm not sure how you can record your analysis (not Kasparov's) in
ChessBase, without moving the pieces. The analysis board is ok, but its not
clear to me whether or not that will help you with your over the board (as
in a real game) analysis, unless maybe you discipline yourself to do the
analysis in your head, and only use the analysis board to record that which
you have already thought of. See what I mean?

Fred.


  #7  
Old July 19th 03, 03:18 AM
Bob Durrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...

"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...
Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation.

The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.


Hi Bob.

In my opinion, analysis and annotation is not so much a skill or

knowledge
that is learned, as it is a habit that is formed through hard work and
repetition, until it becomes second nature. There are no easy answers,

but
one possible way is that when you study annotated games, analyze the
possibilities before you look at the next move in the book, write down

your
analysis, then compare your analysis to that of the author. Force

yourself
to repeat this process over and over until it becomes second nature.

This will not be easy for you, as I am sure you realize that bad

habitts
can
be hard to break.

Regards,
Fred.


Well, I must qualify since I have more than my share of bad habits, and

not
just wrespto chess!

I'm looking forward to studying Kasparov's new books, starting with

"Gary
Kasparov on my Great Predecessors, Part 1." I'll probably use Chessbase
because the games will already be in Megabase2003. Typically, when I

study
a chess book, I enter the text analysis as I go. At the end, I have a 3
1/2" floppy which I glue into a pouch inside the back cover of the book.
Usually I have Fritz 8.008 examine the games overnight before looking at
them.

It is easy on the computer to do what you suggest. I use Fritz as an
analysis engine in Chessbase. There is an option where it will force

you
to
find the move before going on. Fritz also has an analysis board [I put

it
on the bottom left] not driven by the engine. I look at ideas there and
only later let the engine have a shot at it.

Bob D.


Well, I'm not sure how you can record your analysis (not Kasparov's) in
ChessBase, without moving the pieces. The analysis board is ok, but its

not
clear to me whether or not that will help you with your over the board (as
in a real game) analysis, unless maybe you discipline yourself to do the
analysis in your head, and only use the analysis board to record that

which
you have already thought of. See what I mean?

Fred.


Yes, I see. You make very good points. Perhaps the answer is to enter the
data with the chess engine disabled. You can do that in Chessbase 8.
Later, that analysis could be checked with the engine turned on. Even that
would be like using a crutch since you could see the new positions after you
made your analysis moves.

The real "macho" chess man would insist that all moves were made with sight
of only the initial position being analyzed. It is also possible to enter
moves with the board window absent. That should satisfy the purist [macho
man]. If a view of the position being analyzed is desired, it could be
printed in just a few seconds.

Incidentally, it might be wise to mark moves with an indication as to
whether or not they had been examined yet with an analysis engine. In
Chessbase 8, that is done with control-A followed by inserting a suitable
symbol, word, or whatever into the temporary window provided.

This still may not satisfy the ultra purist, since chessbase 8 would not
allow the analyst to enter illegal moves. I don't have a solution for that.

How about that?

Bob D.


  #8  
Old July 19th 03, 05:54 AM
Mark Hathaway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary

Bob Durrett wrote:

"Mark Hathaway" wrote in message
...

I don't really understand what kind of commentary you want?
You've already analyzed it and Fritz helped you to find all
the nasties, so what's left for me or anyone to show you?


Really, I am interested in improving my analysis and my annotation. The
comments I was fishing for were as to how I could improve in these
catagories.


Analysis and annotation can be of a strictly technical sort
or describing one's personal experience, or some combination
thereof. Improve your play and the description will change.
Review your play and your descriptions of it (notes) and use
that as feedback, hopefully with all the glaring errors noted.
Then, your future play should improve.

In this game-fragment the notes you provided included Fritz,
so it was impossible for me or anyone to discern precisely what
your thoughts and analyses was.

I do not intend to publish nor to compete in major tournaments. However, I
hope to improve in my general chess ability and understanding of chess and
***ASSUME*** that analyzing my games in depth would contribute.


Yes, it will help you to better understand what you were doing
right or wrong and that will help you to hit the target better
next time.

Here is an example: Based on analysis of my last 66 games, I have become
aware of my tendency to NOT look for and find moves which create hard
problems for the opponent. Instead, I tend to play "obvious" easy-to-find
moves. Therefore, by doing these analyses I have identified a specific area
where I should strive to improve. This is just an example. There are
others.


It's not a matter of searching for the harder moves, it's just
a matter of understanding how to play better. Then the moves
you play will naturally be tougher for the opponent.

As before, all comments are solicited and welcome.


Hang in there Bob. You're on a good path for chess study.
Just be sure it's you and only you who's writing the notes
you ask others to critique. It won't do you much good to
get feedback on how well Fritz would've played the game.

  #9  
Old July 19th 03, 04:26 PM
Bob Durrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Hathaway" wrote in message
...

It's not a matter of searching for the harder moves, it's just
a matter of understanding how to play better. Then the moves
you play will naturally be tougher for the opponent.


Hi Mark, Even though you were addressing Bob, I would like to respond, as

I
find this a very interesting comment that touches upon the essence of what
is wrong with my own game. Definitely your point is applicable in many
cases, but...

Very often, when I show my games to a stronger player, he will point out
missed opportunities and I will say "Man I should have seen that". The
missed move seems obvious, entirely within the scope of my chess
understanding or knowledge. I feel that the reason why I missed the
superior or deeper move is because I did not carefully analyze the

position,
and I feel that if, if I could shake some of my sloppy analysis habits,

such
as playing the first move I see that looks good. then I would be able to

see
moves that I sometimes miss now. The reason why I emphasize habit is

because
it is one thing to say before a game "OK, this game I am going to be more
careful about my analysis, but then in the heat of the action I forget my
vow and slip back into old habits. If I somehow manage to make "new

habits"
that are second nature, then I feel there would be fewer of these missed
opportunities.

But I guess I could be wrong about all of this. Your thoughts?


Hi Fred, Even though you were addressing Mark, I would like to respond, as I
find this a very interesting.

Somehow, it seems to me that deciding to "play better this time," or "do my
analysis better," is not sufficient. Instead, having more specific goals
would seem to be more useful. For example, if you could study your analysis
process, as reflected in the game scores of your past games, then maybe you
could decompose your analysis problems into a set of specific analysis
problems. Incidentally, faulty analysis during the game might be a result
of other non-analysis problems such as impatience, etc. Exhaustive serious
post-mortem analysis might uncover these underlying problems. [The analysis
problem may be an "effect" rather than a "cause."]

Just a thought.

Bob D.


  #10  
Old July 19th 03, 05:56 PM
FredH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request for Commentary


"Bob Durrett" wrote in message
...

"FredH" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Hathaway" wrote in message
...

It's not a matter of searching for the harder moves, it's just
a matter of understanding how to play better. Then the moves
you play will naturally be tougher for the opponent.


Hi Mark, Even though you were addressing Bob, I would like to respond,

as
I
find this a very interesting comment that touches upon the essence of

what
is wrong with my own game. Definitely your point is applicable in many
cases, but...

Very often, when I show my games to a stronger player, he will point out
missed opportunities and I will say "Man I should have seen that". The
missed move seems obvious, entirely within the scope of my chess
understanding or knowledge. I feel that the reason why I missed the
superior or deeper move is because I did not carefully analyze the

position,
and I feel that if, if I could shake some of my sloppy analysis habits,

such
as playing the first move I see that looks good. then I would be able to

see
moves that I sometimes miss now. The reason why I emphasize habit is

because
it is one thing to say before a game "OK, this game I am going to be

more
careful about my analysis, but then in the heat of the action I forget

my
vow and slip back into old habits. If I somehow manage to make "new

habits"
that are second nature, then I feel there would be fewer of these missed
opportunities.

But I guess I could be wrong about all of this. Your thoughts?


Hi Fred, Even though you were addressing Mark, I would like to respond, as

I
find this a very interesting.

Somehow, it seems to me that deciding to "play better this time," or "do

my
analysis better," is not sufficient. Instead, having more specific goals
would seem to be more useful. For example, if you could study your

analysis
process, as reflected in the game scores of your past games, then maybe

you
could decompose your analysis problems into a set of specific analysis
problems. Incidentally, faulty analysis during the game might be a result
of other non-analysis problems such as impatience, etc. Exhaustive

serious
post-mortem analysis might uncover these underlying problems. [The

analysis
problem may be an "effect" rather than a "cause."]

Just a thought.

Bob D.


And an excellent thought that I will give serious consideration to. This is
a good thread, with much food for thought. In chess as in life, I believe it
pays to seriously examine and question one's beliefs. Often one discovers
that what you thought was the problem is in fact not the real problem at
all.

The whole concept of candidate moves and tree of analysis, as expounded by
Alexander Kotov in his book "Think Like a Grandmaster", seems
straightforward enough. Yet for me is quite difficult to put into practice
consistently. So I ask myself: Why is that? What is really wrong with my
game? Often what I come up with are issues that in one sense have nothing to
do with chess, such as mental discipline, power of concentration, patience,
visualization, memory, physical fitness, etc. These reasons in part explain
why it is that I can study chess till I turn green, but still not get much
stronger. There is a book called "Chess Master at any age" by Rolf Wetzell,
that takes a serious and original stab at these issues. 300 pages, but very
little in the way of actual chess instruction.

For what it's worth I am 43 yrs old and I am tantalizingly close to the
magic 2000 mark, but have never been there. It is within reach but something
is missing, and I don't believe that something is chess understanding. But I
could be wrong. This year I have beaten two masters and a few experts in
fine style, but losses against lesser players have held me back.

Here's another interesting thought. By their very nature, openings and
endgames lend themselves to categorization, and IMO they are easier to
study, and also it is easier to recognize improvement in these areas. But
most games of my games are decided in the middlegame, endgames for me are
mostly about realization of an advantage that is already there. And it is
middlegames that are toughest to categorize and recognize improvement, for
me anyway.

Regards,
Fred.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.