On Dec 30, 2:50 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Would the grand master before there was a
term, be defeated by a 17 year old these days,
such as young Vitugiov? Would
the same-aged Carlsen smash him?

Phil, in two or more posts you make Nikita Vitiugov
(not Vitugiov) to be 17y old. But no, he is 20y old,
soon to be 21--he was born on Feb 4, 1987.

For a comparison, Sergey Karjakin was born
on Jan 12, 1990, and Magnus Carlsen
on Nov 30, 1990.

Here is a table for you, for your future reference:

Magnus Carlsen -- b. 1990-11-30
Sergey Karjakin -- b. 1990-01-12
Nikita Vitiugov -- b. 1987-02-04

Best regards,

Wlod

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 5:50 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**I'll look this up, and report later

I wasn't asking for the two to be compared. I was asking what photos
does the Russian edition have? The English edition has portraits and
autographs of Pillsbury, Burn, Mason, Tinsley, Pollock, Schiffers,
Tarrasch, Marco, Gunsberg, Janowski, Chigorin, Teichmann, Vergani,
Lasker, Blackburne, Steinitz, Albin, Bird, Schlechter, Mieses,
Walbrodt, and Bardeleben, i.e. all 22 contestants (I was wrong earlier
when I said not all were shown). Does the Russian edition have these,
plus more besides?


**well, yes - but what is this to recommend the originali players OTB,
rather than in analysis? Tal killed that approach.

That's not my point. My question is, has Taimanov done original
analysis, or does he merely repeat what is in the 1896 book? This game
indicates perhaps the latter, but only a detailed comparison can tell
for sure.

**The publisher offers two book of the same name, the first looks like a
facsimile edition of the original, at $17 and the second, this one, is
copyright 1995, 330 pages and $13. One way to determine differences is if
you post the annotation from a game which has few comments, and I'll
compare. I think copyrighting the edition cannot be done from brief
introductory preface alone.

Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that
MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the
denouement
at 46.

Sounds a lot like the 1896 notes by S. Tinsley, who gives 8 notes
for the first 17 moves. Can you be specific about what Taimanov says?

I can give his notes to the analysis. Let me chose this game then, to see
what's what - as above.

**Surely he will have overrtakenn Tinsley. MT being a somewhat stronger
player.

No argument there. But to know if MT did any original analysis for
that game, we'd need you to translate and present what MT said, and
then we could compare it to Tinsley's notes.

but not all 330 pages - if you want, go first and post tinssley's notes.

**And which must return us to the point of these retrospective ratings -
and
if they were at all the equivalent of modern ones? It seems somewhat
dishonest to me to make such comparison, as if... Laker eg was to be
considered as 2700, against a modern player, the same rating.

No, I agree that is not the correct understanding of the ratings.
Comparing historical to current Elos across such a gulf of years is
invalid. We can definitely say that Lasker's 2720 trumps Tarrasch's
2610, but we can't say that Lasker's 2720 circa 1900 equals a 2720
today.

I think such
as a Mickey Adams would crush him again and again and suffer no defeats -
probably not even any draws.

That might be taking it a bit too far.

**And in the spirit of the thing ! - so what is between 'too far' and 'not
equivalent'?

so I would add that eg Adams/Svidler even Carlsen would defeat Lasker 50 -
0

I'd say that is definitely taking it too far! :-)

**My ex team captain was sort of retrospectively given an honorary IM
title - and Peter Clarke's own opinion is that he could deal with the
Hastings 1895 line up - certainly well enough to come in at or near the top
of the chart. In that sense, he did not assess any of those players to be
even 2500 [Fide not USCF]. As a conversation point 2 things then occur to
me; (a) how strong do we really think these players were? Perhaps an
intermediary rating given Alekhine at 2650 is some measure? I have no doubt
that Alekhine would defeat all these players - and also that Carlsen et al
would easily take Alekhine. Perhaps Lasker alone deserves a nominal 2550, a
head above the next best couple of players at 2500, and the rest 2200-2400?
Therefore that 2720 estimate for Lasker is a nonsense on the current scale.
(b) the usual argument for players of other eras to compete with those of
our time is that they would subsume all the knowledge and technique
available to moderns - this argument cannot be refuted, since self-evidently
they would be able to take /some/ advantage of it. But that is not the real
comparison here - which is that these world class players from 1895 would
place lower than even young tyros these days.

The slight cartoon result of 50-0 is thereby provocative to 'how far is too
far?' - we agree 2720 can't be claimed - so what can? Quite serious Russian
players don't think these original top players from 100 years ago would even
earn a GM ticket these days.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 3:50 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I

You do realize you are asking this of the twit who truncated a
tournament crosstable in order to show Lasker finishing last, don't
you?

Neil Brennen chips in to do his usual 2 things -

(a) cause as much dissent among others as possible, while
(b) simultaneously distorting the truth in order to do so. It is not
actually necessary to show players below #8 in order to see the 7 players
placing above that player - thoigh, this would only occur to you if you
thought about it.

I suppose if this is (a) not self evident to the reader, then you must be
the non-Christian 'reverend' [whatever that is!] and (b) you disagree with
Hooper's entry in an encyclopedia which showed Lasker's placement the same
way [when the topic was Lasker] and the entire tournament table when the
topic was the tournament!

What a pity that 6 years of practice make Brennen's own efforts here
something to anticipate, that is, he hasn't got around to doing anything but
abuse people with his theme of the week; last week is was other men's dicks,
here and in the Shakesperean group where he took on someone writing
intelligently about the persistence of Greek mythologs into contemporary
literature, to mention only his dick!

Where do his talents begin?

Phil Innes

On Dec 30, 7:23*pm, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 30, 3:50 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

* Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I

You do realize you are asking this of the twit who truncated a
tournament crosstable in order to show Lasker finishing last, don't
you?

Neil, for the time being, Phil and I are enjoying a refreshing
period of civility, discussing a subject of mutual interest. He has a
book which I do not, the Taimanov book on Hastings 1895. I have a
source he does not, the original tournament book from 1896. I think
Phil and I would like to exchange information from these two sources
without any acrimony, and offer an opinion or two without it
escalating into a heated argument. Ideally, that's what this forum is
for.
I have no problem setting aside past disagreements with Innes, or
anyone else, if doing so allows a mutually beneficial exchange of
information. I feel no interest right now in fanning embers of past
disputes, a process that may generate heat but seldom much light.
Phil, I'll post the Pillsbury and Tinsley analysis from the 1896
book later today.

On Dec 31, 9:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
But to know if MT did any original analysis for
that game, we'd need you to translate and present what MT said, and
then we could compare it to Tinsley's notes.

but not all 330 pages - if you want, go first and post tinssley's notes.

Here is the first game you mentioned, Marco-Mason, with notes by
Pillsbury. Aside from converting to algebraic, everything here is
verbatim from the 1896 book of the tournament.

Marco-Mason, Hastings 1895:

1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.c3 Bg7

Perhaps this is the least objectionable of the Fianchetto openings,
but most modern masters prefer to meet the open game face to face. One
example being, that the French defence was adopted only once by the
first five prize winners, as second players.

4.Be3 e5 5.dxe5

The usual deployment of Bf1-d4, Ng1-e2, Nc1-d2, etc., is considered
preferable by most players.

5...Bxe5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bc4 Black should not have left the Bishop to be
taken, nor should White fail to take advantage of the omission. After
7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.Be2 , with a timely advance of f2-f4, Black's weakness
upon the King's wing was bound to make itself evident sooner or later.

7...Qe7 8.Nbd2 Bg7 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Bd4 0-0 11.Re1 Nxd4 12.Nxd4

12.cxd4 , so as to make use of the open file with the Queen's Rook,
might also be considered here.

12...c5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.Bd5 Bxd5 15.exd5 Qd7 16.Ne3 Rfe8 17.Ndc4

Black has obtained a very good position, and this move enables him to
obtain strong attack with his Queen's wing Pawns; 17.c4 was the
correct play.

17...b5 18.Nd2 Ne4 19.Ndf1 a5 20.Qc2 a4 21.a3 c4

An error, 21...f5 first (threatening c5-c4 and Ne4-c5-d6) was quite
strong, and if in answer 22.f3 Nf6 left Black with a fine game.

22.Nxc4 bxc4 23.Rxe4 Rxe4 24.Qxe4 Qb5 25.Rb1 Re8 26.Qf3 Qb3

26...Bh6 would have at least regained the lost Pawn: e.g. 27.Ne3 Bxe3
28.fxe3 Qc5 29.Re1 Re5 etc., or if 27.Ng3 Re5 28.Ne4 f5 29.Nxd6 Qxb2
(29...Qc5! wins, says Fritz8 -- TK.) 30.Qd1 Qxc3 etc.

27.Qd1 Qb5 28.Ne3 Bh6 29.Nc2 Re5 30.Nb4 Qe8 31.Kf1 Rh5 32.Qe2

White can well afford the sacrifice of the h-pawn, and, owing to the
isolation of the Black Pawns on the Queen's wing, this seems the
shortest route to victory.

32...Qxe2+ 33.Kxe2 Rxh2 34.Kf3 Rh5 35.g4 Re5 36.Nc6 Re8 37.Rd1 Bg7
38.Na5 Rc8 39.Re1 Rc5 40.Re8+ Bf8 41.Nc6 Kg7 42.Nb4

Winning a pawn, as he threatens Rd8-a1.

42...Ra5 43.Rc8 h5 44.Rxc4 hxg4+ 45.Kxg4 f5+ 46.Kf4 Kf6 47.Rc8 Bh6+
48.Kf3 g5 49.Rd8 g4+ 50.Kg3 Bc1 51.Rxd6+ Kg5 52.Nd3 f4+ 53.Kg2 f3+
54.Kg1

White avoids complications, but there was nothing to fear from
54.Kg3 ; if in answer 54...Ra8 then 55.Re6 Rh8 56.Re5+ winning
easily. After this point, however, winning is merely a question of a
few moves, anyhow.

54...Bd2 55.c4 Ra8 56.c5 Rb8 57.Rb6 Rh8 58.Re6 Bf4 59.Nxf4 Kxf4 60.d6
g3 61.fxg3+ Kxg3 62.Rg6+ Kf4 63.d7 Ke3 64.Re6+ Kf4 65.Re8 1-0

I'll post the other game later today.

On Dec 31, 10:39 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:23 pm, The Historian wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:50 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I

You do realize you are asking this of the twit who truncated a
tournament crosstable in order to show Lasker finishing last, don't
you?

Neil, for the time being, Phil and I are enjoying a refreshing
period of civility, discussing a subject of mutual interest. He has a
book which I do not, the Taimanov book on Hastings 1895. I have a
source he does not, the original tournament book from 1896. I think
Phil and I would like to exchange information from these two sources
without any acrimony, and offer an opinion or two without it
escalating into a heated argument. Ideally, that's what this forum is
for.
I have no problem setting aside past disagreements with Innes, or
anyone else, if doing so allows a mutually beneficial exchange of
information. I feel no interest right now in fanning embers of past
disputes, a process that may generate heat but seldom much light.

In other words, Taylor, that's a yes.

On Dec 31, 9:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:

if you want, go first and post tinssley's notes.

Here they are. Tinsley's notes are (unsurprisingly) not as good as
Pillsbury's, so much so that I couldn't help but add a few Fritz-
assisted comments of my own:

Gunsberg-Albin, Hastings 1895 (notes by Samuel Tinsley):

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5

Modern practice avoids this old variation. Let me point out to a
novice one simple and yet important objection to it. Black's Queen's
Bishop is source of anxiety to him in all French defences and in many
other close games. The text move opens the file, and gives that piece
the freedom of action it could never otherwise obtain until late in
the game.

3...exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.Qe2+ Ne7 8.Bd2 Nd7 9.0-0-0

Of course the object is to risk a little for immediate attack on the
Black King, when Castling Queen's side is adopted so easily. And, be
it observed, Black cannot do much at this point.

9...Qc7

If now Black Castles King's Rook, then 10.Bxh7+ would easily prove
advantageous, owing to the position of Black's Queen's Bishop.
Supposing 9...0-0 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+ Kg8 12.Qxg4 etc.

10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 Bg6 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Ng5 Nf8

Black would like to play 13...0-0-0 also, but then would follow
14.Nxf7. Black already has a most uncomfortable position.

14.Rde1 Qd7

Hoping to force off Queens. Thus 14...Qd7, 15...f6, 16.Ne6 Nxe6
17.Qxe6 Qxe6 18,Rxe6 Kd7 etc.

15.Na4

The initiation of one of the prettiest combinations of the Tournament.
By aid of the diagram the play can be easily followed from this
point.

15...f6 16.Nc5

Forcible as well as pretty; because if the Knight is not taken, one
will in any case go to e6 with effect.

16...Bxc5 17.dxc5 Nh7

Of course 17...fxg5 is unsound, the reply being 18.Bxg5 , and the
Piece is regained with much advantage of material and position.

18.Ne6 Kf7 19.Nxg7

It requires the light thrown upon the game by the after-play to prove
that this is sound. (Fritz8 prefers to keep the pressure on, e.g.
19.h4 Nf8 20.Nxf8 Raxf8 21.h5 Re8 22.Qf3 - TK)

19...Nf8 20.g5 Rh7

Better 20...Ng8! with only very slight advantage to White, says Fritz8
-- TK.

21.gxf6 Kxf6 22.Bc3+ Kf7

One of the best features of the position. If 22...d4 23.Bxd4+ Qxd4
24.Qxe7 mate.

23.Qe5 Nf5 24.Qf6+ Kg8 25.Ne6

Better 25.Nxf5 Qxf5 26.Qxf5 gxf5 27.Rhg1+ Kf7 28.Rg5+-, says Fritz8 --
TK.

25...Nxe6

25...Qe7! and Black's disadvantage is only +0.82, per Fritz8 -- TK.

26.Rxe6 d4 27.Rd1

Better 27.Qxg6+ Rg7 28.Qxf5 dxc3 29.Rhe1+- (Fritz8).

27...Rf8 28.Qe5 Rxh3 29.Rxg6+ Kh7

If 29...Ng7 30.Rxg7+ 30...Qxg7 31.Qe6+ , winning the the Rook at h6.
(True, but far stronger was 30.Bxd4 Rh7 31.Rdg1 Rf7 32.Re6, since if
32...Rf8 33.Re7 - TK.)

30.Re6 Rf7 31.f4 Ng7 32.Qe4+ Kg8 33.Rd6 Qe7 34.Qxd4 Qe3+ 35.Qxe3 Rxe3
36.Be5 Nf5 37.Re6 Ng7 38.Rg6 Kh7 39.Rxg7+

There has been elegance and brilliancy enough. The simple and forcible
style is the best, even though not quite artistic whatever that may
mean. Black had a wretched position throughout, after move seven or
eight, and had no opening for his well-know powers. White took full
advantage of the opportunities, and the result is a very entertaining
game.

39...Rxg7 40.Bxg7 Kxg7 41.Rd7+ Kg6 42.Rxb7 1-0

On Dec 31 2007, 9:31*am, "Chess One" wrote:

The slight cartoon result of 50-0 is thereby provocative to 'how far is too
far?' - we agree 2720 can't be claimed - so what can? Quite serious Russian
players don't think these original top players from 100 years ago would even
earn a GM ticket these days.

I would certainly agree that some in the lower half of the standings
at Hastings 1895 would be thoroughly outclassed today. Tail-ender
Vergani was badly outclassed even then, and he along with probably
Tinsley, Albin, Bird, and perhaps several others, would be lucky to
get a half-point against the 2007-8 Hastings field.
But among the top finishers, there's too much talent. In particular,
Lasker had tremendous calculating ability, and that is perhaps the
most important chess skill regardless of era. I would also venture to
say that in endgame technique, an area where modern players are often
deficient, he would surpass anyone in today's Hastings field. So
unless he got a lost position out of the opening every time, Lasker in
his prime would still be a very formidable opponent in 2008.
And his lack of book knowledge might not be such a handicap as we
imagine. While he would not know all the traps and TNs his modern
opponents had devised in their home preparation, neither would he be
at all likely to play into those lines. He might surprise them as much
as they would him!
Because Lasker had such a long career, it is possible to get some
idea of how he would stack up against more modern players. In the
mid-1930s, when he was in his late 60s, Lasker held his own quite well
against some of the younger generation, scoring for example 2-0 vs.
Euwe and =3 -1 vs. Botvinnik. I think a guy who can manage a net plus
score against two world champions while pushing 70 is not likely to go
0-50, or anything near it, against anyone alive today.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2007, 9:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:

The slight cartoon result of 50-0 is thereby provocative to 'how far is
too
far?' - we agree 2720 can't be claimed - so what can? Quite serious
Russian
players don't think these original top players from 100 years ago would
even
earn a GM ticket these days.

I would certainly agree that some in the lower half of the standings
at Hastings 1895 would be thoroughly outclassed today. Tail-ender
Vergani was badly outclassed even then, and he along with probably
Tinsley, Albin, Bird, and perhaps several others, would be lucky to
get a half-point against the 2007-8 Hastings field.
But among the top finishers, there's too much talent. In particular,
Lasker had tremendous calculating ability, and that is perhaps the
most important chess skill regardless of era. I would also venture to
say that in endgame technique, an area where modern players are often
deficient, he would surpass anyone in today's Hastings field. So
unless he got a lost position out of the opening every time, Lasker in
his prime would still be a very formidable opponent in 2008.

**No-one else is sticking their neck out on this issue, are they? Of course,
we are hardly describing any objective basis ourselves

And his lack of book knowledge might not be such a handicap as we
imagine. While he would not know all the traps and TNs his modern
opponents had devised in their home preparation, neither would he be
at all likely to play into those lines. He might surprise them as much
as they would him!

**I am far less sanguine than you about his chances of coping with
everything from the hyper-moderns forward, without any chance by Lasker to a
preview of it. Even Alekhine after all, had to sort of reinvent Classicism
in chess, along new strategic lines - since tactics alone seemed
insufficient to combat Nimzo's deep scheme, and in fact tactics alone could
be seen as giving up the fort to the hypermodernist strategm.

**But there is no way to contest the issue beyond suggesting that Lasker was
better than later champions by means of tactical finesse alone. A 'joke' in
a Basman book on the Grob continues to explore Super-Hypermodernism. He says
something to the effect that the hypermoderns put the least valuable pieces
in the centre [eventually], or at least near it - and that means a pawn, and
what is less valuable than a pawn? Nothing is! So put nothing in the centre!

Because Lasker had such a long career, it is possible to get some
idea of how he would stack up against more modern players. In the
mid-1930s, when he was in his late 60s, Lasker held his own quite well
against some of the younger generation, scoring for example 2-0 vs.
Euwe and =3 -1 vs. Botvinnik. I think a guy who can manage a net plus
score against two world champions while pushing 70 is not likely to go
0-50, or anything near it, against anyone alive today.

**That was a hyperbolous comment of mine - the aim was to provide another
pole to that which states he would crush modern players, even the relatively
modest crew at Hastings this year - and somewhere between the two lies the
answer - we have not discovered much otherwise in this conversation other
than agreeing that Lasker was not 2700 on today's scale, but maybe more than
2500? And in that gap rest almost 1,000 other GMs these days.

**Have not yet transcribed the Hastings material because I have abandoned
chess for bridge and champagne. Massive snow here, maybe 2" per hour on top
of existing 4 foot plow-drifts alongside both sides of the street. Both town
sidewalk clearance machines broke last week.

Cordially, and a happy New Year! Phil Innes

On Jan 1, 1:26*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...
On Dec 31 2007, 9:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:



The slight cartoon result of 50-0 is thereby provocative to 'how far is
too
far?' - we agree 2720 can't be claimed - so what can? Quite serious
Russian
players don't think these original top players from 100 years ago would
even
earn a GM ticket these days.

* I would certainly agree that some in the lower half of the standings
at Hastings 1895 would be thoroughly outclassed today. Tail-ender
Vergani was badly outclassed even then, and he along with probably
Tinsley, Albin, Bird, and perhaps several others, would be lucky to
get a half-point against the 2007-8 Hastings field.
* But among the top finishers, there's too much talent. In particular,
Lasker had tremendous calculating ability, and that is perhaps the
most important chess skill regardless of era. I would also venture to
say that in endgame technique, an area where modern players are often
deficient, he would surpass anyone in today's Hastings field. So
unless he got a lost position out of the opening every time, Lasker in
his prime would still be a very formidable opponent in 2008.

**No-one else is sticking their neck out on this issue, are they? Of course,
we are hardly describing any objective basis ourselves

No, objectivity (if by that you mean anything like mathematical
certainty) is virtually impossible here. This is the chess equivalent
of arguing over whether Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham were better
quarterbacks than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. The two chess eras are
about as different as the two NFL eras.

* And his lack of book knowledge might not be such a handicap as we
imagine. While he would not know all the traps and TNs his modern
opponents had devised in their home preparation, neither would he be
at all likely to play into those lines. He might surprise them as much
as they would him!

**I am far less sanguine than you about his chances of coping with
everything from the hyper-moderns forward, without any chance by Lasker to a
preview of it.

Well, that's one of the basic premises that needs to be set before a
meaningful argument can even start. There are any number of
hypothetical comparative scenarios, ranging from:

(A) simply snatching Lasker at his peak (circa 1900-1910) and
dropping him via time-machine into 2008 GM-level chess competition and
telling him "Lotsa luck!", to
(B) creating a new Lasker, a clone from the original's DNA, and
letting him grow up with all the advantages modern chess literature
and computer training offer.

Scenario A maximizes the unfairness, giving Lasker no chance to
acclimatize to the modern chess world, but would give the clearest
evaluation of relative chess strength in 1908 vs. 2008. Scenario B
eliminates the unfairness, but leaves no trace of the historical
Lasker. Various other scenarios in between these two extremes can be
devised.

Another thing worth mentioning is that for most of his life chess
was little more than a hobby for Lasker. He retired from the game for
years at a time. Though in Lasker's day there were not many full-time
chess professionals, they did exist: Steinitz, Pillsbury, Marshall,
Janowski, Nimzovitch, Spielmann, Reti, Alekhine to name some. Yet
Lasker, playing chess just in his spare time so to speak, surpassed
them all. That says one thing to me: TALENT!

Even Alekhine after all, had to sort of reinvent Classicism
in chess, along new strategic lines - since tactics alone seemed
insufficient to combat Nimzo's deep scheme, and in fact tactics alone could
be seen as giving up the fort to the hypermodernist strategm.

I'm afraid you lost me there, Phil.

**That was a hyperbolous comment of mine - the aim was to provide another
pole to that which states he would crush modern players, even the relatively
modest crew at Hastings this year - and somewhere between the two lies the
answer - we have not discovered much otherwise in this conversation other
than agreeing that Lasker was not 2700 on today's scale, but maybe more than
2500? And in that gap rest almost 1,000 other GMs these days.

Hard to think that a guy who was #1 in the world for nearly 30 years
would be #1,000 today. But heck, I don't know.

**Have not yet transcribed the Hastings material because I have abandoned
chess for bridge and champagne.

Champagne? On New Year's Day?? Sheesh, how laggard of you. Let's get
to work, Phil!

Massive snow here, maybe 2" per hour on top
of existing 4 foot plow-drifts alongside both sides of the street. Both town
sidewalk clearance machines broke last week.

Fairly snowy here, but nothing I'd call massive. Trees all
gloriously flocked, but streets clear and only 1-2 feet on the ground
in most areas.

Cordially, and a happy New Year! Phil Innes

Malmsy Crustchove!