Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Problematic London System line (Read 13801 times)
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #23 - 05/20/10 at 07:43:35
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 01/25/10 at 23:20:06:
Does anyone have any ideas on how White can get an advantage, or at least "interesting play", against  2...Bf5, planning 3...e6 and 4...Bd6?


3.Bg5 is quite effective.

Seriously, 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Bg3 Nf6 6.c4 is a good reply. Black should equalize, but given the choice I'd rather be White. One example to show that the computer can't really be trusted here: 6...0-0 7.Nc3 Nc6?! (Firebird's first choice, but inferior) 8.c5! (the computer doesn't understand the strength of this move) 8...Bg3 9.hg3 h6 10.Bb5! and White is better.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #22 - 05/20/10 at 07:18:47
Post Tools
I know you didn't say that exactly, but I am trying point out the absurdity of all this. Did you read what Papageno wrote? Do you know how hard it can be to justify positional concepts through brute force calculation? Why do you think computers provide good insight into quiet strategic positions where brute force calculation is of little importance to human understanding?

Anonymous3 wrote on 01/25/10 at 23:20:06:
Prie recommends 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 Nf3 Nf6 7 e3 0-0 8 cxd5 exd5 9 Bd3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 and says "I prefer White because of the superior structure, enabling a minority attack, while it is not easy for Black to get a magic knight to d6". However, I don't think White's very small superior structure is going to give White an advantage here and I don't know why Black needs to get a knight to d6. The position is basically dead even and very dull to me. Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 judge the position basically dead even.

Win with the London System gives 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 e3 and now only mentions 6...c6 but then Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 think White has several ways to gain a slight advantage. However, I think 6...Nf6 or 6...Nc6 should be fine for Black and again the position seems basically dead even and very dull to me.

Any ideas here on how White can gain an advantage against 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6?


You just give one move suggestions from your computer and the justification for your opinion backed by the computer assessment seems to be that computers are stronger than grandmasters. To top it off, this is in the London System of all things! I don't grok with Rybka and blindly accepting computer assessments will do nothing to help my chess. Humans need ideas, especially in an opening like the London. Sometimes you get ideas from computer analysis by translating the variations into concepts. Unfortunately, often a degree of prerequisite strength is required to do this effectively.

I used to play the Torre Attack a lot when I was younger. In a post-mortem of a Torre I played at a tournament, I remember laughing with my friends about the computer's assessments of the game as I gradually built up my position. There were no immediate tactics, just slow maneuvering against a QID setup where Black was playing aimlessly, waiting to be squashed. The computer kept assessing the position as dead equal with each strategic gain I made. What was obvious to any competent human player was completely off the radar for the computer. Sure, computers were much weaker in the late 90s, but they were already playing at a GM level and people were using them for analysis.

Seriously, I think you would learn a lot more if you found a strong player who would be willing to play as White in these positions against you. Don't underestimate the human approach in positions such these. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #21 - 05/20/10 at 03:07:32
Post Tools
"So you trust computers more in closed strategic positions."

No, I never said I did. What I said was I think you can trust what the computer gives in these quiet (and very dull) positions.

Can we stop all this nonsense about computers and get back to analyzing this line?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #20 - 05/19/10 at 11:17:19
Post Tools
Give up the computer or give up the London. Do one or the other, sheesh.

Anonymous3 wrote on 01/28/10 at 02:43:00:
I said that you can't always trust what a computer says. In the very complicated Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, it's obvious it would be a mistake to simply agree with what the computers originally say. You would need to play out the position a little father and consult games, books, etc.  However, in the very quiet position I am talking about, I think it is safe to trust the computers evaluation. 


So you trust computers more in closed strategic positions. What?! That doesn't make any sense. I remember reading that Gulko used 2.Bf4 as an anti-computer move. Grandmasters have repeatedly used the London to outplay weaker players in optically equal positions. I say optical, since even when the positions start objectively equal, the weaker player often makes inaccuracies that lead to an optically equal position with hidden positional trumps for White. As is so often the case, the weaker player recognizes he is worse after it is too late. If you think you have solved the London with your computer, move on to another opening. You don't play the London to obtain a theoretical advantage. It's usually played with the purpose of avoiding theory so that positional understanding may prevail.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2112
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #19 - 05/19/10 at 07:04:45
Post Tools
What does your pc say?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #18 - 05/19/10 at 03:39:34
Post Tools
I wanted to get this thread back to the top. After 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4, does anyone have any ideas on how White can get an advantage, or at least "interesting play", against  2...Bf5, planning 3...e6 and 4...Bd6? I have invested a lot of time analyzing this line and can't find any advantage for White and can't even find any "interesting play" where White can outplay a weaker opponent in the resulting equal positions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #17 - 02/02/10 at 07:52:52
Post Tools
One more comment about this line:

After 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5, "Win with the London System also covers 3 Nf3 e6 4 c4 Bd6 and gives the game D. Gurevich-Speelman, Tilburg 1994 out to move 15 and judges the position =.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #16 - 01/29/10 at 21:57:35
Post Tools
I would like to add a few more comments about 2...Bf5 3...e6, and 4...Bd6.

In "Win with the London System" it says, "If Black could solve all of his problems with this simple developing move (referring to 2...Bf5), the 2 Bf4 London would not have much practical value. In reality, however, the temptation for Black to play this move is one of the best reasons for playing the London as White". However, right now it seems that 3...e6 and 4...Bd6 does solve all of Black's problems, giving the London little practical value!

Also, after 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5, "Win with the London System" recommends 3 c4 with the justification that after the normal 3 e3, Black can equalize immediately with 3...e6! 4 Nf3 (4 c4(?!) Bxb1!) 4...Bd6. However, after 3 c4, it seems that Black can also equalize immediately with 3...e6! and 4...Bd6!. I think the reason to prefer 3 c4 is that it provides White with a few more options.
« Last Edit: 01/29/10 at 23:44:31 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 776
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #15 - 01/28/10 at 16:26:49
Post Tools
@ anonymous: Well, what's there to discuss? Engine assessments are rubbish. They're not strong because of their assessments; they're strong because you make one teeny slip, and they'll stomp on your head. Asking your computer whether a position is +0.1 or +0.27 just means you don't understand what computers are good for. The others are trying to tell you this obliquely and not getting any traction, so I thought I'd try directly  Smiley Once you understand this, we can have an intelligent conversation.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Papageno
Senior Member
****
Offline


FM

Posts: 299
Location: Germany
Joined: 06/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #14 - 01/28/10 at 08:57:55
Post Tools
For the position in question (Prie: "I prefer White because of the superior structure, enabling a minority attack,..." ) there are no games around to study, unfortunately. If you are interested in games with similar pawn structures and material, there is plenty of them in the QGD, exchange variation. e.g. Vaisser-Geller, Sochi 1984 or Evans-Darga, Havana 1964. The first of the two games is sometimes quoted in opening books to prove equality, the second game shows two players with more fighting spirit and demonstrates typical plans. One of them is to try to install a black knight on c4. This is an extra resource for black, which became possible as he managed to exchange light-squared bishops early in the game.

Back to Prie's position and computers. There was an interesting observation I made. I created a hypothetical continuation from move 10 onwards like this: 
1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bd6 5. Bxd6 Qxd6 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. e3 O-O 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O c6 12. Rab1 a5 13. Qc2 Rfe8 14. Rfc1 Nb6 15. Nd2 Qe7 16. a3 Nc8 17. b4 axb4 18. axb4 Nd6 19. b5 Rec8 20. bxc6 Rxc6
To my simple mind it looks as if white has made tremenduos progress between move 13 and 20. His minority attack has succeeded and caused damage to black's pawn structure. However, Rybka and its clones give pretty much the same evaluation (= 0.00) at move 13 and move 20. - Please check out for you preferred engine. To me this means that my engines just don't give me a proper warning of the minority attack coming.

Although I would consider Prie's position pretty much equal, so far engines were not a great help for me to confirm this.
« Last Edit: 01/28/10 at 16:51:55 by Papageno »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #13 - 01/28/10 at 02:43:00
Post Tools
I said that you can't always trust what a computer says. In the very complicated Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, it's obvious it would be a mistake to simply agree with what the computers originally say. You would need to play out the position a little father and consult games, books, etc.  However, in the very quiet position I am talking about, I think it is safe to trust the computers evaluation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10375
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #12 - 01/28/10 at 01:17:30
Post Tools
I am not going to repeat myself; I can't help it that you don't know the difference between an opinion and an argument. There are two points for which I make an exception. In any book on positional play (Euwe, Grooten are Dutch examples) you will find that the better pawn structure offers an edge provided that all other positional factors are equal for both players. So you did not answer the question why you think the better pawn structure irrelevant except stating that it is obvious. I am sorry, to me it is not.

According to your logic Black is better after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3 as he/she is a pawn up and Rybka confirms this assessment. No need to play through games or to consult a book on the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn. In analogy, if you prefer to rely on Rybka/Fritz iso consulting a book on the minority attack any discussion will be useless.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #11 - 01/27/10 at 23:52:10
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on Yesterday at 02:48:29:
MNb
I gave more comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6. I said it can lead to some very dull positions.

No, you gave your opinion that it leads to dull equality; nothing more.


Yes, that is my opinion, I don't know what your point is. Anyone looking at the position objectively will see that this line can lead to some very dull positions.

Anonymous3 wrote on Today at 02:48:29:
I also showed some of what Prie and "Win with the London System" give and say about this line and why I disagree with Prie's assessment and why I think Black has improvements to what "Win with the London System" gives.

I have read your initial posts several times and carefully so. You did not provide any argument for your opinion.


Actaully, I did give several arguments on why I disagree with Prie's assessment. My arguments are that White's very small superior structure isn't enough to give White an advantage here and it's not a neccesity for Black to get a knight to d6.  Referring to computer evlautions as backup is a good argument. I don't need to give any argument for why I think 6...Nf6 or 6...Nc6 (my improvements on 6...c6, givenin "win With the London System") give Black equality. Anyone that looks at the position objectively will see that this is more than sufficient to give Black equality.


Anonymous3 wrote on Today at 02:48:29:
Playing ...Nbd7 is more than sufficient to give Black equality.

Again you did not give any argument for this.


Again, I don't need to give any argument for this. Anyone that looks at the position objectively will see that this is more than sufficient to give Black equality. 

Anonymous3 wrote on Today at 02:48:29:
You said that you agree with Prie because he is a GM with expericence in the opening and I am only a patzer.

No, I wrote that I agree with Prie because he is a GM etc. and argued why. You are not and did not argue why. You have the full right to agree with any GM you like. Just don't expect anyone to be on your side as long as you don't give very good counterarguments. Referring to silicon evaluations is not one of them.


Actually, I did give goods counterargument on why I think Prie's assessment of the position is wrong. Again, my arguments are that White's very small superior structure isn't enough to give White an advantage here and it's not a neccesity for Black to get a knight to d6.  Referring to computer evlautions as backup is a good argument.


It's obvious that you haven't done any analysis on this line yourself.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10375
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #10 - 01/27/10 at 23:32:27
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 01/27/10 at 02:48:29:
MNb

I gave more comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6. I said it can lead to some very dull positions.


No, you gave your opinion that it leads to dull equality; nothing more.

Anonymous3 wrote on 01/27/10 at 02:48:29:
I also showed some of what Prie and "Win with the London System" give and say about this line and why I disagree with Prie's assessment and why I think Black has improvements to what "Win with the London System" gives.


I have read your initial posts several times and carefully so. You did not provide any argument for your opinion.


Anonymous3 wrote on 01/27/10 at 02:48:29:
Playing ...Nbd7 is more than sufficient to give Black equality.

Again you did not give any argument for this.

Anonymous3 wrote on 01/27/10 at 02:48:29:
You said that you agree with Prie because he is a GM with expericence in the opening and I am only a patzer.

No, I wrote that I agree with Prie because he is a GM etc. and argued why. You are not and did not argue why. You have the full right to agree with any GM you like. Just don't expect anyone to be on your side as long as you don't give very good counterarguments. Referring to silicon evaluations is not one of them.

Let's nail it. Prie claims that White has an edge because of the better pawn structure. You will find this confirmed in any book on the minority attack. Now I would like to know from you why exactly you think this better pawn structure irrelevant.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #9 - 01/27/10 at 21:47:07
Post Tools
Well said Markovich! Let's get back to chess and discuss the line 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 followed by 3...e6 and 4...Bd6.

Quote:
I said that I don't understand why Black needs to get a knight to d6.

It's clear you don't.
After all, why play the best move in dull positions ?
You could spoil the fun !


Nyoke, please don't take my comments out of context. You make it seem like I don't understand why a knight on d6 is better on d7. I do understand why a knight on d6 is better than a knight on d7. What i said was that there is no need to get a knight to d6. Playing ...Nbd7 is more than sufficient to give Black equality.
« Last Edit: 01/28/10 at 00:12:18 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #8 - 01/27/10 at 13:35:30
Post Tools
I wonder if we could all mangage a little more amicability on this thread?  If Anonymous3 wants to talk about chess, I fail to see why we can't do that without snapping at him for trusting his computer too much.

@Anonymous3: It's often better to ignore a little impoliteness than to post back, "Please don't say anything like that again," particularly to someone who's actually given you some useful advice.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nyoke
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 593
Location: BELGIUM
Joined: 12/31/06
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #7 - 01/27/10 at 07:51:34
Post Tools
Quote:
I said that I don't understand why Black needs to get a knight to d6.


It's clear you don't.

After all, why play the best move in dull positions ?
You could spoil the fun !
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #6 - 01/27/10 at 02:48:29
Post Tools
MNb

I gave more comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6. I said it can lead to some very dull positions. I also showed some of what Prie and "Win with the London System" give and say about this line and why I disagree with Prie's assessment and why I think Black has improvements to what "Win with the London System" gives.

I never said I don't understand why a knight on d6 is much better than a knight on d7, of course a knight on d6 is much better than a knight on d7 in that type of position. I said that I don't understand why Black needs to get a knight to d6. Playing ...Nbd7 is more than sufficient to give Black equality.

You said that you agree with Prie because he is a GM with expericence in the opening and I am only a patzer. Well, one of the co-authors of the book "Win with the London System" is GM Vlatko Kovacevic and he has experience in the opening. There are some lines in that book where I disagree with the assessment of the position. Some of my assessments have been backed up by Prie in his analysis on the London here on chesspub. This proves that you can't always just go with what a GM with experience in the opening says and dismiss what a patzer says.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10375
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #5 - 01/26/10 at 10:08:12
Post Tools
You don''t get it, do you? Apparently you haven't played through that Portisch-Kasparov game yet.
You did not give any comment on 2...Bf5; 3...e6; and 4...Bd6; except that you think it an easy and quick equalizer and that your silicon buddy agrees. So what do we have:

1) A GM with experience in this opening who claims an edge for White with the argument of a superior pawn structure, which enables him/her to conduct a minority attack;
2) A patzer like me who claims dull equality with the argument that Fritz Rybka confirms this evaluation. Moreover this patzer does not understand why a knight on d6 is much better than on d7, something to be found in any book on the minority attack.

Now on whose side you think I am gonna be?
I repeat my recommendation: study a book on the minority attack.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #4 - 01/26/10 at 01:01:17
Post Tools
MNB, I also provided some useful comments on 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6.

Even if a knight on d6 is a nightmare to anyone wanting to conduct a minority attack in this pawn structure, Black doesn't need to get a knight to d6. Black can just put the b8-knight on d7 and has a very solid and perfectly fine position.
« Last Edit: 01/26/10 at 08:23:30 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10375
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #3 - 01/26/10 at 00:52:06
Post Tools
The only useful comment you provided is that you don't understand the importance of a knight on d6 - and Kylemeister addressed that point nicely. That game Portisch-Kasparov, Skelleftea 1989, very much clarifies it. Of course you also could have consulted a textbook on the minority attack instead of your computers. Euwe already wrote about it 40 years ago at least, so I know it since the early 80's.

A knight on d6 is the nightmare of anyone who wants to conduct the minority attack as White in this pawn structure.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Problematic London System line
Reply #2 - 01/25/10 at 23:49:18
Post Tools
Kylemeister, you make it seem like using computer evaluations is bad. The computers are above grandmaster level so their evaluations should be taken seriously but I know that you can't always trust what they give. I was basically just using the computers to see if they agreed with my assessment of the position and they do. They also showed me that 6...c6 allows White to gain a slight advantage in several ways.    

Kylemeister, please don't make any more comments like this that add nothing to the topic being discussed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Problamatic London System line
Reply #1 - 01/25/10 at 23:33:15
Post Tools
I had a sort of premonition when I started reading that some computer evaluation(s) would be coming up ...

Regarding the knight on d6, you could look at Portisch-Kasparov, for one thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Problematic London System line
01/25/10 at 23:20:06
Post Tools
After 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4, 2...Bf5, 3...e6 and 4...Bd6 seems to me to be a very easy and quick equalizer for Black and can lead to some very dull positions. I know that Black has other ways to equalize against the London System but they don't seem to give Black equality as easily and quickly and don't lead to positions that are this dull. 

Prie recommends 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 Nf3 Nf6 7 e3 0-0 8 cxd5 exd5 9 Bd3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 and says "I prefer White because of the superior structure, enabling a minority attack, while it is not easy for Black to get a magic knight to d6". However, I don't think White's very small superior structure is going to give White an advantage here and I don't know why Black needs to get a knight to d6. The position is basically dead even and very dull to me. Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 judge the position basically dead even.

Win with the London System gives 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Bd6 5 Bxd6 Qxd6 6 e3 and now only mentions 6...c6 but then Fritz 11 and Rybka 3 think White has several ways to gain a slight advantage. However, I think 6...Nf6 or 6...Nc6 should be fine for Black and again the position seems basically dead even and very dull to me.

Any ideas here on how White can gain an advantage against 2...Bf5, 3...e6, and 4...Bd6?
« Last Edit: 01/26/10 at 08:25:39 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo