Quote:



Thank you for the game, Eric. I´m not satisfied with the result (draw is a bad result when having white), but it is my fault because I played it bad. That´s not really so much about opening itself as about level of my play in this game (so blame me, not BDG). As for possible improvements, there were several other possibilities for white, unfortunatelly I haven´t time now to analyse it once again. Please mention in your update at least Arkhein´s proposal with 19.Rdf1!? Good summer in France and maybe we´ll meet someday in person. Chess festival Czech Open in Pardubice isn´t so far...

Anyway, BDG wins the match 2 - 1.

As for "practical approach" 4..Bb4, it is too early to call it "a good move" as you haven´t offered any analysis (maybe I did?) and also not many games were played in this line. You recommended once 4.Nge2 Nc6!, only to say some months later "after my mistake on move 4"... I hope it won´t be the same case with your another "recommendation".

1st of September, I am back

Of course I accept the draw! This is only a demonstration game to provide material for a future update and definitly close the 4.Nge2 Lemberger and the whole BDG world, Hubsch included, at the same time.
After my mistake on move 4 (Nc6 instead of Bb4) I was dragged, against my will, into the kind of complications that make think the BDGer his variation is alive.
Indeed, it is very hard to resist against such initiative and Patrik's other games on this site have brightly proved it right. I am pretty sure he shall keep doing it against any greedy opponent in any line of its accepted version.
That is why I am at the same time the best advocate of the BDG and its worst nightmare  with the Lemberger, the practical approach.

Now, I am not one but two pawns up because 25.Qe2 f6 26.Bg6+ Kf8 27.Bxh5? loses to 27...Qb5 28.c4 Qxb2+ the idea spotted by Nexirae, with a safe king on f8 and a monster on e5 (and a miserable rook on h6, true )and I am very sorry Patrik, after having already make you a liar...only I have winning chances that the presence of the opposite coloured bishops actually relativize. 

In fact, I only continued this painful game because I like to disappoint people when they want to mate me  but I had a hard time in defence to be put my opponent's credit.
Nevertheless, this unpleasantness is simply not in the spirit of the Lemberger and I spent much to much time on this game related to what it was designed for. 
Do not worry, Patrik, you did not miss anything, I would have always come up with a defence, it is the position that claims it, as I predicted from the very beginning!

Quote:



19. Rdf1 does look better than the 19. Qf2 played.  In my view, it would have been at least +=.  Black appears to have scant play.  One funny possibility is 19...Bd6  20. Rhg1 Be7  21. Rxf7!

I know I am a little late, but I think 19.Rdf1! with the idea of Rf5/Rxh5  is an improvement over 19.Qf2

Now 19..0-0-0? 20.Bxa6!
And the only move to stay with a pawn up for Black (maybe they should give up that pawn) is 19..Be7 20.Rf5 Bxh4 21.Rxh5(Rxh4!?)Rxh5 22.Qxh5 Be7 23.Be2! (with the idea of Bg4) and White have a very nice play for the pawn, one of Black's problem here is the king in the centre. I think that 19.Rdf1 is something like +/= and 19.Qf2 is =

About the actual game, I think the position is equilibrated, but that doesn't necessary mean draw.

Quote:


NO. Black has no winning chances in the position.

Quote:


Be reasonable.  He's probably on summer vacation.  Or maybe's he's busy with something else.  This is a friendly game; no need to get hot if one side doesn't correspond for a while.

As far as I am concerned, if GM Prie does not respond in another couple of weeks, Patrik Schoupal should be proclaimed the winner by default.  It is disrespectful of  GM Prie to keep silent so long.

I somehow messed the position up. Now, I want just to spare our precious time, for white trying to hold the position, for black trying to win the position. As I think the odds are about 5% for white win, 80 for draw and 15% for black´s win I offer a draw. It has been quite reasonable decision. I´m also a bit annoyed by "not responding habit" of my last opponent. I would like to finish all this Challenge Match stuff. I think it has been interesting experience, it might have shown something, esp. to those many guys who are deadly opposed to any gambit, esp. BDG one.   
I think there were very few people who thought I can play against Eric for a win, in his beloved anti-BDG line and indeed, I did. Everybody who is going to check the game score can spot that white was attacking and black was defending. He was defending very well. It has shown that in BDG lies a great uncovered potential. 
Yet, I´m not completely persuaded about the line we were playing. I remember one guy (cannot remember his name now) sent some interesting analysis here on forum, dealing with 4..Nc6 line and they looked very interesting, from black point of view. Also there is 4.Nge2 Bb4!? line which also seems to offer some reasonable chances to equalise for black. But no many games were played in this line so from this point, it is still open.

I think that is perfectly reasonable.  I think a draw offer in a difficult situation in a tournament is a perfectly valid decision, regardless of the titles of the players involved!

This seems to be a bit of a different situation under unusual circumstances.  For one thing, in a tournament situation there is no talking during the game.  If I were to see the draw offer itself alone without prior knowledge of the history of the game, I would think little of it, GM title or not.  The situation seems to be a little complicated, but maybe I am reading too much in the players' comments.  I probably made things worse by saying something!

I agree that it may be difficult to play for win, but I don't think it is appropriate to call the position a "draw."  I think it is fine to say that you believe that you have adequate resources to hold the position, but calling a "draw" for White here seems a rather bold thing to say.  The position seems to have a bit of life to me.

I am rather speculating about things, and it is probably a bit rude and out of place to do this.  Something just didn't feel right to me in the way you offered the draw.  I think it better now that you have clarified yourself.  GM Prie is probably busy anyway.  It really isn't my business, but there have already been misunderstandings.  I don't like to see these terminate a discussion.  I hope you see where I am coming from.

You get the impression that he would like to end this game, yet cannot bring himself to accept a draw in the current position.  Not I that would fault him for that.  I think Schoupal's draw offer puts him in a difficult situation, as he would have to continue the game purely out of his own volition.  In a tournament situation, I think draw offers of this sort are best ignored, but this is a different (and somewhat unusual) situation.

To be honest, given how the game started, I think if I were in GM Prie's position, I would be a little perturbed by the draw offer.  In my opinion, I think it could be viewed as being a little disrespectful.

Quote:


This is about Chess Truth, right?  Bonsai played well and seemed to show that 6. Ne5 c6 is =; but this says nothing about 6...e6! =+.

Dear Markovich,
   5..Bf5 is certainly not =/+. And everything on this site should convince you about this. Both of Challenge Match games showed it (= with Bonsai and +/- with MNb). It is far from your =/+. Am I right? 
Btw. for me, BDG is worth at least 3/4 of a pawn. But consider this, if a gambit variation is worth a full pawn compensation, than it is no gambit at all, is it?

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Kb1 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3 Bf5 17.h4 Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5 19.Qf2 Bd6 20.Rhg1 Rh7 21.Bg5 Nf4 22.Bxf4 exf4 23.e5 Bxe5 24.Bd3 Rh6 25.Qe2

and if 25..f6 then white offers a draw. Mainly because he sees no advantage on the horizon. Unfortunatelly I went wrong somewhere.

Who said chess was fair?

Top

I don't know about Eric, but I certainly have revised my opinion on this Opening.

So much so in fact that I think a name change is in order. 'Barely Decent Gambit' seems to have a certain ring to it.

Surely we can all agree on this one.

Top  

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 and here it seems to me that 10...c6 might well have been considered, challenging the center and daring White's g5 bishop to do its worst.  For example,  11. Bxf6 (11. dxc6 Nxc6 12. Nd5 Be7 appears to justify 10...c6 even more.) 11...gxf6 and now:

(1) 12. Nge4 Nf5  13. dxc6 bxc6  14. Qxd8 Rxd8  15. Nxf6+ Ke7 is happy for Black, with his two bishops.

(2) 12. Nh5 Bh6 (12...Nf5  13. Qd3 and 12...Ng6  13. Qd2 are OK for White, I think)  13. Nxf6+ Kf8 and Black again appears pretty good, with his two bishops.  White has to watch out for ...Qh4+ in some lines.

Quote:


I´m sorry for this but actually, it wasn´t possible because I didn´t know what to play after 22..exf4. I wanted to check my analysis first (I had pre-prepared e5!?)
 
1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Kb1 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3 Bf5 17.h4 Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5 19.Qf2 Bd6 20.Rhg1 Rh7 21.Bg5 Nf4 22.Bxf4 exf4 23.e5 Bxe5 24.Bd3 Rh6 25.Qe2

White is sacrifing yet another pawn to open lines. Opposed coloured bishops are here but still, white hopes in some initiative because of rather inactive black rooks. After f6 now, look at rook on h6, it will became very passive and moreover, black king is going to be trapped in the middle of the board. These factors speak for white. Maybe, at the end, a result of this game might be a draw, but I want to point out once again, that draw is a very normal result in chess. BDG has been considered unsound, leading to black´s advantage (based on a well-known anti-gambit philosophy: trade pieces, go as quickly as possible for an endgame, and here, with a pawn more, win). Things are not so easy. BDG proves to be viable and playable opening (in all three games), giving white good compensation for a pawn, lively piece play with a lot of attacking possibilities. 

  As for this game, black has needed to play very accurately to not lose in a miniature. I think, the position we are playing is much more easier to play for white in over-the-board game than for black. And this is an important factor for white players who play BDG. I´m also a Morra Gambit player and I know this opening is very difficult to play OTB for white because you need to be extremely good tactician or to know theory well (and especially to be very familiar with the most frequent motives). In my opinion, it is easier to play black side in Morra than in BDG. Well, enough words.

22.Bxf4

  Yes, you may be right. I briefly analysed one of your suggestion (6...f5 7.Bc4 a6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Nh5 is given with initiative, but simply 9...Ng6 10.Bg5 Qd6 -/+) and I didn´t find any move for white. 
  But right now I don´t want to spend my time to analyse this 6..f5 line, but thanks for your suggestions, they seems to be valuable. I personally played against this line just once some year or two ago, winning a corresp. game, but of course, the line is quite complicated. Maybe white should play something like a4 to prevent b5 etc., white play needs to be well planned in before hand, the most accurate move are needed to exploit possibly unfortunate position of black´s king. 
  Still, pawn mass seems to be impressive and for me black´s position looks quite playable. But as you noticed, sometimes white can win by some very nice moves like Ncxe4! knight sacrifice as in one of the lines. I think Junior 8 will be good in such types of position.

Quote:


Both lines you´re asking about are dealt with here http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/horizon.htm

9..Bd7 line just with one short line:
7...Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bd7 10.Bg5 Ng6 11.Nh5 Be7 12.Nxg7+ Kf8 13.Bh6 Kg8 14.Qd2 Bh3 15.Bf1 Qd7 16.0-0-0 Bxf1 17.Rdxf1 Bf8 18.h4+/-

Probably some improvements for white is possible here and there are some other alternatives for black as well but I think 9..Bh3 is better and more difficult to prove an advantage.

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Kb1 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3 Bf5 17.h4 Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5 19.Qf2 Bd6 20.Rhg1 Rh7 21.Bg5

Rh7!? is a cunning move but anyway, white is better already, yet, no quick crush, as I prophesied at the beginning of the match. There is the only reason for this: black has been defending very well. 
Still, Rh7 is a cunning move but on the other hand I have feeling that it might be misplaced a bit in the future position. 

I hope to write here soon: black has been defending very well yet has been defeated as well

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Kb1 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3 Bf5 17.h4 Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5 19.Qf2 Bd6 20.Rhg1

Knock, knock, is anybody at home?

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Kb1 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3 Bf5 17.h4 Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5 19.Qf2
 
White queen aims for a7 in case of 0-0-0 (as e.g. after 19..0-0-0? 20.Bg5!? f6 21.Qa7+-) and it is also an important preparing move for a plan with c2-c4-c5 pawn advance which is going to be of fatal consequences for black.

17...Bxe4 18.fxe4 h5

So here is my forecast for this game : Having closed the lines at the cost of the pair of Bs, the black king is now safe in the centre while keeping the possibility of finding a shelter on the queenside. 
White has clearly enough compensations for the pawn and the game will end up in a opposite colour bishop draw when Black exchanges his knight on f4 against the Be3.

Patrik, it is up to you to make me a liar

But what about the second game ? Should I consider the conclusion of your analysis as a start ? 
 

I agree that 1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Bb4 5.Bd2  exd4 6.Nxe4 Bxd2+! 7.Qxd2 Nc6 8.0–0–0 Nf6 is equality. 

But in the variation 5.dxe5 Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 Nc6, the alternative of 7.Nb5 is 7.Bf4 and is maybe the best move. Here is possibly the main variation : 7.Bf4 Bf5 8.Ng3 O-O-O+ 9.Kc1 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Bg6 11.Bb5 with the idea Re1 is about equal but white queenside is ugly.

I have to say that I feel more confortable with the 5.Bd2 than 5.dxe5

5.Be3 seems equaly playable.

In general it seems to me that the Leumberger counter gambit after 4.Nge2, white have easy equality. But if Black are happy countering BDG with equality, maybe this is a good choice.

And here is my commentary:

14.Be3?! 0-0-0! 15.Nge4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Qb4! and now I haven´t been able to find any substantial advantage:

a)      17.c3 Qa4 18.b3 Qa3 19.Qc2 Qe7!?
b)      17.Bd2 Qb6! (18.Be3?! Qb4= is only repetition)
c)      17.a3 Qa5! 18.d6 Bxd6 19.Bxf7 Nf4 20.Bxf4 exf4 21.Nxd6 is about =

   There is one important difference between 14.Be3 and 14.Nge4. Compare position A (14.Be3 0-0-0 15.Nge4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Qb4) with position B (14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 16.Be3). In A, black queen seems to be vulnerable at first sight but on the other hand, she is actively placed and most importantly, she is defending queenside. On the other hand, in position B, black perhaps can´t castle queenside because of Bxa6!? threat. Queen is not defending against this threat unlike when she is on b4. In position B also d6!? comes into question still, because queen is pinned in a way. It seems to me that in position B white´s pieces are ideally placed, black king is still in the centre, Bh3 bishop looks weird and I think that perhaps the biggest problem for black will be his „out-of-play“ Rh8 rook (and there are some surprises waiting for black in case of normal Bf8 development followed by 0-0; h6 is weak and one must be very careful to not be crushed after Bxh6, of course with Rhg1 played already).

13.Kb1 h6

13...Be7? 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd7 (No Bxg5 check! Very prophylactic 13.Kb1, indeed  ) 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.d6 Qh4 18.d7+! with the idea Bxd7 19.Bxf7+

So the only thing Black needs yet, is a reliable variation to play for an advantage - like 3...Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3.

12.0-0-0 Ng6.

After you send your ED 5th move, I will have to decide on the EP continuation. 5th move is quite important in the game, although not as much as the 4th

"Yet, there is a line after 10.Bg5! which is still unclear for me. It is 10..Ng6!"
Is-it ? Then I'd rather play it instead of 10...Qd6...
Just kidding! I did not like 11.Nh5 and after 11.Qe2 I do play 11...a6.

Patrik, you do not have to complain on your hours of analysis consecutive to such a "must not work-against the rules of chess" move like 1.d4 d5 2.e4.
It is your thing, you deliberately have choosen it.
As for me, in 15 years of active professional chess, I met it only twice including one in a rapid tournament.
My involvement into the Lemberger is only 'ideal' and for the good of this section.

It is useless to launch a second thread on 4...Bb4. We can continue here.
By the way, this is what we had with teyko. 2 different discussions on the same Shneider's thread. 
When the BDG represents less than 5% of the theorical up to date material of this section, it occupies more than 50% of the space on this forum!! 

Markovich, I just want a relevant game against a specialist on 4...Bb4 because I have realized it was the only move, here, in the spirit of the Lemberger.
If, in that purpose, I have to resign this game then I will without problem.
Do not worry, I shall resign soon anyway, when Patrik's "winning attack" breaks through  
 

Eric wrote: "I am not here to waste time on correspondence chess I just want to find a game that would support I disagreeessment that Black can comfortably equalize by giving back the pawn in the Lemberger and fulfill my duty for chesspublishing."

  Yes, it might be true. But I waste my time in this way too. Before I played 8.f3 I have spent several hours (I guess some 7 or more) trying to find an advantage against several possibilities after 8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5! Not just one hour of analysis or Fritz in depth 15. I have been successfull in doing so. Yet, there is a line after 10.Bg5! which is still unclear for me. It is 10..Ng6! 
   
  I do not like (as I wrote here several times) an approach of black players who mention one line and immediately when you work out the analysis proving white´s advantage they start to yell about some other line and so on and so forth. It is an endless cycle. 
   
  You have to realize that analysis for white are very difficult and time demanding. I have never played against 4..Bb4!? So I have no analysis in hand and to find an advantage would take some time. 
  I see you want to find a way to equalise, but you can (in the way you´re doing it) find it even without helping "by myself". I do not want to be a clown or an opponent on whom you can try all your "one second" ideas (after Bb4!? it might have been exd4 and Bg4 etc.) I want to play against strong players who deserve my attention and my time. Not against someone who ran Fritz for 15 minutes finding 7..Bg4 and then played it. And after one hour more of analysis simply rejected the whole line resigning the game. 
   
  Till now, I haven´t found any advantage in 10.Bg5 Ng6! line. But to go right this way one needs to give to the position more than one hour of analysis with a chessboard. This sounds ridiculous for me.   
   
Eric wrote: "but your refusal to play against 4...Bb4 is already the sign that I touched the sensitive point of 4.Nge2!" 

  No, you don´t touch any sensitive point. But your attitude to our first game might be also transposed to the second one. And I don´t want to face the same situation that after many hours of analysis I will play some two or three moves and you simply will say "you have won" followed by "I need to prove = for my article, it is my job, I want to try 4..exd4". I have not enough time for such "childish plays" or so-called "games". That is my most important point. 
 
  I´m sorry if I offend you somehow but that´s the way I feel it.
  Or do you think you can find the truth (you´re talking about) after one hour of analysis? I don´t.

The solution is simple and clear: BDG - anti BDG 1-0 and GM Prié is willing to take up another game!
Patrik, you should be proud.

I see your point Patrik but you also have to consider mine.

I am not here to waste time on correspondence chess I just want to find a game that would support my assessment that Black can comfortably equalize by giving back the pawn in the Lemberger and fulfill my duty for chesspublishing.
This was the case with teyko in the Shneiders.
It is another concept of online analysis where you can take moves back at any moment.
These aborted attempts will feed the published game eventually.
I am sorry, but I am not interested in anything else then finding out the so-called truth on this forum. 

When launching this thread I decided to play 7...Bg4 after 15' of Fritz aided thought,  yesterday I analysed for more than 1 hour.
For the first time in 4 years you even forced me to take a proper chess board ! and that is already a great victory for the BDG  
Defending against the attack with a good pawn in the pocket does not conform at all with the spirit of the Lemberger.
Indeed why not accepting the pawn and enter complications by "playing the most aggressive and principled continuations" like the promising 5...Bf5 as said X and many others before him ?
 
I would rather defend a practical approach with a didactic procedure turned towards the tournament player.

If you want to prove White has a winning attack after 10...Qd6 11.Qe2 a6 (or 12.Qd3 a6  or  12.Bb5+ Bd7) I wish you good luck and will happily follow ( and correct if necessary ) your analysis posted here but your refusal to play against 4...Bb4 is already the sign that I touched the sensitive point of 4.Nge2!

I have to disagree with Eric Prié. The position shows an excellent situation when to accept a pawn (though not clear).
White cant really castle, a pawn more and I dont see anything to go for as white. I see his point though, he wants a variation where you dont accept the pawn (any) and get good play as black. 
Botwinnik already knew that 2..e6 or 2..c6 are the refutations of the BDG nonsense

All right Patrik, after  8.f3 exf3 9.gxf3 Bh3 10.Bg5 Qd6
Black has to accept the pawn and fight against the opposing initiative.
This not in the spirit of the Lemberger, you have won  

If you want we can continue this game in parallel but I had rather play 4...Bb4 in a second game, more relevant for what I am trying to prove for the section, if you do not mind.

Here is a link to the analysis on this line:

http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/horizon.htm

(Patrik supplied a link to me in a separate thread.)

Quote:


Yes, it would be honour to play with you, but some time later. Now I´m overloaded. And I also hope that I will defend my cause in the games I´m playing just now and then we can play Bf5 variation. 

  To my game with Eric. I need to check my analysis and to decide what is the best move here. I think Eric has prepared some novelty in the line which is published on the ED web starting with 8.f3. The most probably I will go right this way but I need to check 8.Qd2 move once more (Markovich´s analytical coverage of this line is o.k. but white has some other possibilities as well, he doesn´t mention) to do not miss any interesting possibility. Soon I will post my first move. And then the fight may begin.

Quote:


  I want to prove my claim that white is +/- in the Lemberger and in the 5..c6 Ziegler Variation. It doesn´t matter who the opponent is, as for me, the most important is what the position is like and what it offers... and in our game with Eric, for the time being, I´m very satisfied:) 

  I think it is going to be one of the shortest game in Eric´s chess career:) I suppose the game will be finished before move 30.

Patrik, I respect your courage. Playing against a GM is really different from playing a patzer like me.

I remember analyzing this variation after I looked at Patrik's analysis of the Lemberger Countergambit, and thought about picking it up myself when I was trying to work out some of the difficulties Eric Prie presented in the Qh5 variation.

Hello Eric,
  I accept your challenge. It is honour for me to play against you. Our game will start after:

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Bg4

  It is a well-known Lemberger Counter-Gambit variation. 4..Nc6!? is a very interesting try, comparing to "normal" 4..exd4 I think the move is even better. Therefore our game might be very interesting from theoretical point of view.

  Now, white is on move. Let me take couple of days to gain insight into the position and finally to come out with an answer.

  Rules are same as in my other two games. All comments, advising etc. are possible (even welcomed) during the game. Even a move recommendation in beforehand. 
 
  Good luck.