(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
(Moderators: trw, proustiskeen, RoleyPoley)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al. (Read 12203 times)
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #17 - 02/03/10 at 18:15:02
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 02/03/10 at 17:58:21:
There's no heated discussion, this is just a standard dutch conversation Wink



Honestly, I didn't see any special heat on this topic either. (Pace, Markovich!)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #16 - 02/03/10 at 17:58:21
Post Tools
There's no heated discussion, this is just a standard dutch conversation Wink
  
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #15 - 02/03/10 at 17:25:18
Post Tools
Given that it's quite possible to study chess books by more than one author, the heat generated by this question is quite remarkable.  Personally I find something to like in Tarrasch, Nimzo and Euwe.  I also very much admire Keres' game commentaries as instructional set-pieces.  I like Spielmann's book on the attack, but his argument that you should attack because attacking is easier than defending always struck me as a little shallow.  You should attack when the position on the board supports an attack, and a big part of problem is to know when that is the case.  Anyway Vukovic's work on the same subject has eclipsed Spielmann's, it would seem.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #14 - 02/03/10 at 15:08:16
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/01/10 at 10:20:16:
@BPaulsen: there is at least one GM who disagrees with you on Nimzo: Kevin Spraggett. If the ideas of Tarrasch and Nimzo were that good you will have to explain why they could not use them to beat Lasker and Capablanca. Nimzo never won a game against the latter; Spielmann did twice.

Tarrasch beat Capa as well. Though he has a minus score due to a loss at the end of the 20s.
Secondly there are two caveats with this line of reasoning. One is that an idea is in your head and that it is very difficult to translate into words. Meaning that usually you make the idea simpler than it is (and the way both of them described their ideas are very easy to absorb). Second a chessgame isnt solely about ideas. There is tactics, psychology and for example a better application of your own ideas by your opponent. I dont know if you know your skijumping but there was this guy Boklov, he invented the V-jump. He never won anything important, but now all jumpers use his technique, he never won due to other things.
Quote:

I have something for you to enjoy as well. This game was played when Tarrasch was at his peak and is a great advertisement for his theories (not really):
That's why I wrote young Spielmann. One thing you have learned from the great Teacher from Breslau is how to select information that suits you.

His peak was in the 1890's, when he was a far more serious challenger than Lasker (outwardly that is). After 1905 or so he wasnt top dog anymore, though still very strong.
Quote:

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:

Tarrasch had no problems playing against strong players.


It shows.

The problem is not that he didnt beat strong players, the problem is that the period you are mainly referring to was not his peak. As said in the 1890's he beat everyone, including Steinitz and Lasker.
Later his successes were much more incidental, but even then with a good day he coul still pose big problems to the best and beat back upstarts.
Quote:

Willempie wrote on 01/31/10 at 12:36:02:

He had a plus score against Chigorin and Lasker, well Lasker was in a league of his own.

A very convincing plus score: 14 wins vs. 13 losses. And why was Lasker in a league of his own? Perhaps because his ideas how to play chess were better? That's the question that hasn't been answered yet. So for the time being I recommend to leave Tarrasch 300 games aside and study Lasker's Common Sense in Chess instead.

Chigorin was number 2 after Steinitz, so certainly not a patzer.

Firstly Lasker's book is also excellent. Still I think Tarrasch' book is better for the intended purpose.
Secondly the problem with teaching is not how strong the teacher is, the problem is how to translate that strength into a book. I think in this respect there is definately nothing wrong with 300 schachpartien. Ie take the "sacrifice' books. Vukovic and Dolfje surely werent topdog, yet their books are excellent.
  
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #13 - 02/02/10 at 00:00:49
Post Tools
sharpplay wrote on 01/30/10 at 14:46:34:

I have recently reached an interesting conclusion.  After many better players telling me this, I had to run in circles for years chasing opening silver bullets to discover it for myself (sort of like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz).  At my level (1500-1600 USCF) sidelines are not "the road less traveled."  It is mainlines that are the road less traveled.  In my rating level, if you play mainlines almost everyone will fear the theory and divert into sidelines that make you already better. 


Exactly.  Know your stuff, and make them fear you.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #12 - 02/01/10 at 20:59:51
Post Tools
This Topic was moved here from 1. e4 e5 [move by] Markovich.

It concerns the relative importance of various notable chess teachers.
« Last Edit: 02/02/10 at 16:22:30 by Markovich »  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #11 - 02/01/10 at 18:51:54
Post Tools
I would like to rise to the defense of both Nimzovich and Tarrasch as teachers.  If you had to be WC before you were allowed to teach chess, there would be a serious want of chess instruction in this world.  

With specific regard to Tarrasch, I think that what's often mistaken for dogmatism in his writing is simply a normal tone of address toward his intended audience, which was the great mass of amateur players.  He did perhaps opine with insufficient reserve concerning the soundness of given systems, but people do that today and don't get called dogmatic. 

Further, although Tarrasch wasn't in very first rank of players, he surely stood right in the second.  After all, he did have a WC match, which is a heck of a lot more than most highly esteemed modern teachers of the game, e.g. John Watson, Mark Dvorestsky or Jacob Aagaard can say. 

Nothing at all against those very fine teachers and very strong players; I'm just saying that in stature, they don't really hold a candle to Tarrasch.  The game has progressed, of course, so on some level they know more about chess than he knew.  Euwe of course does hold a candle and more, but that does not necessarily criticize Tarrasch; the game had progressed as well between when Tarrasch wrote and when Euwe did.

I think that while Nimzovich was the first to put certain chess ideas down in a book, these ideas actually originated in the practice of the day and not, or at least not entirely, with Nimzovich, their self-proclaimed originator.  Also my impression is that Nimzovich stood somewhat below Tarrasch in actual playing strength, but that doesn't diminish his importance as a teacher.


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


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #10 - 02/01/10 at 11:11:23
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/01/10 at 10:49:34:
BPaulsen wrote on 02/01/10 at 10:45:12:

The notion that results against specific players determine the merits of their ideas is entirely absurd.

My statement was the other way round. A follows B is something else as B follows A. Moreover my statement is not based on one game but on overall results. Finally my question for Nimzo (see above) was directed against the general theory of Nimzo, so you are fighting a strawman. Assuming that I reject all of his ideas is a sign of bad reading. In fact I think Nimzo developed the correct procedure how to play against the IQP. The way to play with it acc. to Nimzo is wrong though.
Btw what game Capa-Nimzo are you referring to?


Basing the temerity of ideas on statistical performance against given players continues to be an altogether absurd argument.

Spraggett was your strawman that I chose to address - it had nothing to do with your personal beliefs. I couldn't care less about what you think in regards to Tarrasch/Nimzowitsch as a whole. This is about their ability to write about certain openings that people have good reason to believe they knew what they were talking about.

And the way Nimzowitsch advocated for playing with the d-pawn isn't "wrong", it's just not theoretically critical, but it does occur (ie: Caro-Kann Panov Botvinnik Attack, there's examples all over the 5...e6 variation), and it's merely considered equal just about every time it pops up.

Capablanca-Nimzowitsch, Bad Kissingen 1928.
  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #9 - 02/01/10 at 10:49:34
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 02/01/10 at 10:45:12:

The notion that results against specific players determine the merits of their ideas is entirely absurd.

My statement was the other way round. A follows B is something else as B follows A. Moreover my statement is not based on one game but on overall results. Finally my question for Nimzo (see above) was directed against the general theory of Nimzo, so you are fighting a strawman. Assuming that I reject all of his ideas is a sign of bad reading. In fact I think Nimzo developed the correct procedure how to play against the IQP. The way to play with it acc. to Nimzo is wrong though.
Btw what game Capa-Nimzo are you referring to?
  
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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #8 - 02/01/10 at 10:45:12
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/01/10 at 10:20:16:
@BPaulsen: there is at least one GM who disagrees with you on Nimzo: Kevin Spraggett. If the ideas of Tarrasch and Nimzo were that good you will have to explain why they could not use them to beat Lasker and Capablanca. Nimzo never won a game against the latter; Spielmann did twice.


The notion that results against specific players determine the merits of their ideas is entirely absurd. Even great players run into the theme of, "Right idea, wrong execution" regularly. Nimzowitsch had a chance to miniature Capablanca as black, but missed it - was he in a position to win because of his ideas, or did he lose because of his ideas? A game can be won despite playing horribly, just as well as a game can be lost on one inaccuracy after splendid play.

How many contributions to theory (especially openings) fail in their first outings? *cough* Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez *cough*. In such cases is it the idea found lacking or the player?

And I doubt Spragett's comments were focused on the microcosm I mentioned - Nimzo's comments in regards to the Nimzo-Indian, which would be analagous to Tarrasch commenting on the Ruy Lopez. Most negative comments made in regards to Nimzowitsch by anybody (not just GMs) is about the totality of his work, and not about dismissing it altogether.
  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #7 - 02/01/10 at 10:43:43
Post Tools
A separate post, because I think Willempie uses a dead wrong analogy:

Willempie wrote on 01/31/10 at 12:36:02:
As a math teacher I hope you dont start teaching differentiations with trigonometrical functions Wink


Neither will I begin with Aristoteles' ideas on infinitely small intervals, no matter the intelligence of the man and no matter the entertaining and historical value of these ideas.
  
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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #6 - 02/01/10 at 10:20:16
Post Tools
@BPaulsen: there is at least one GM who disagrees with you on Nimzo: Kevin Spraggett. If the ideas of Tarrasch and Nimzo were that good you will have to explain why they could not use them to beat Lasker and Capablanca. Nimzo never won a game against the latter; Spielmann did twice.

Willempie wrote on 01/31/10 at 12:36:02:

As to his results against Spielmann, this is what he did with him when he was already in his 60s.


I have something for you to enjoy as well. This game was played when Tarrasch was at his peak and is a great advertisement for his theories (not really):

Tarrasch,S - Spielmann,R [C11]
DSB-15.Kongress Nürnberg (10), 1906

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.a3 Bxc5 8.Qg4 0-0 9.Nf3 Nd4 10.Bd3 f5 11.Qh3 Nxf3+ 12.Qxf3 Bb6 13.Ne2 Nc5 14.Be3 Bd7 15.Bxc5 Bxc5 16.0-0-0 b5 17.b4 Bb6 18.Kd2 Qe7 19.Rb1 a5 20.Rb3 Rfc8 21.Nc3 Rab8 22.Rhb1 a4 23.R3b2 Bd4 24.Nxd5 Qd8 25.c3 Ba7 26.Ne3 Bc6 27.Qe2 Be4 28.Rd1 Qc7 29.c4 Bxd3 30.Kxd3 Rd8+ 31.Kc2 Bxe3 32.Rxd8+ Rxd8 33.Qxe3 Qxc4+ 34.Qc3 Qe2+ 35.Kb1 Rd1+ 36.Ka2 Qf1 37.Rc2 h6 38.g3 Kh7 39.Qb2 Qd3 40.Qc3 Qd5+ 41.Kb2 Rd3 42.Qc5 Qb3+ 43.Kc1 Qxa3+ 0-1

And four years later, in an opening Spielmann played himself as White:

Tarrasch,S - Spielmann,R [C49]
DSB-17.Kongress Hamburg (2), 1910

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Ne7 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Nh4 c6 10.Bc4 Ng6 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.f4 Kg7 13.Qf3 Qe7 14.Ne2 Be6 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 16.f5 Qe7 17.g3 Rh8 18.h4 Rad8 19.Kg2 d5 20.Rh1 dxe4 21.Qxe4 Qd6 22.g4 gxf5 23.gxf5 Rdg8 24.Kf3 Bc5 25.Rh3 Bb6 26.Nc3 Qc5 27.Qe2 Kf8 28.Ne4 Qd5 29.c4 Qd7 30.Ng3 Qd4 31.Kg2 Rxh4 32.Kh2 Qf4 0-1

Finally this shows how well Tarrasch handled the Ruy Lopez:

Tarrasch,S - Spielmann,R [C84]
San Sebastian San Sebastian (6), 1912

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.0-0 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 Bg4 9.axb5 Nd4 10.Bc4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qc8 12.Kg2 Nh5 13.d3 g5 14.f4 g4 15.f5 Rg8 16.Nd5 Bd8 17.bxa6 c6 18.Ne3 Bb6 19.c3 Qd8 20.cxd4 Qh4 21.Rg1 g3 22.fxg3 Nxg3 23.Ng4 Rxg4 24.h3 Rg8 25.Kh2 Bxd4 26.Rg2 Ke7 27.Bd2 Nxe4 28.Qf3 Rxg2+ 29.Qxg2 Nxd2 30.f6+ Kd7 31.Qg7 Nf3+ 32.Kg2 Ng5 0-1

That's why I wrote young Spielmann. One thing you have learned from the great Teacher from Breslau is how to select information that suits you.

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:

Tarrasch had no problems playing against strong players.


It shows.

Willempie wrote on 01/31/10 at 12:36:02:

He had a plus score against Chigorin and Lasker, well Lasker was in a league of his own.

A very convincing plus score: 14 wins vs. 13 losses. And why was Lasker in a league of his own? Perhaps because his ideas how to play chess were better? That's the question that hasn't been answered yet. So for the time being I recommend to leave Tarrasch 300 games aside and study Lasker's Common Sense in Chess instead.
  
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
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #5 - 01/31/10 at 12:36:02
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/30/10 at 20:29:03:

sharpplay wrote on 01/30/10 at 14:46:34:
I find reading Tarrasch to be entertaining because of his dogmatism.

I am not questioning the entertaining or the historical value of his writings. The subject is the didactical value, which I doubt a lot. That is especially the case when Tarrasch and Nimzo did beat strong opponents.
See Tarrasch-Marshall, 16th game of the Nürnberg match (the knight on b3 is a bad piece)
and Nimzovitch-Spielmann, Carlsbad 1929 (7th row absolute) for typical examples.

So let me reformulate. What is the didactical value of a set of ideas that the creators weren't able to use with success against the strongest opposition of their time?
Should aspiring players not rather study the works of Lasker, Capablanca and Euwe?

Simply because in a hard-fought game it is way more difficult to show the ideas. Ie if you check Nunn's move by move where he has a theme per game, the theme is often not very clearly illustrated as it is obscured by other themes and moves by the opponent. The games where it is clear are often a walkover.
As a math teacher I hope you dont start teaching differentiations with trigonometrical functions Wink
Quote:

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:

Tarrasch had no problems playing against strong players

Really? Then why did he lose so often against Lasker, Chigorin and the young Spielmann? Perhaps because they were able to show the flaws in his ideas? To be fair, Tarrasch had quite a good score against Pillsbury.

He had a plus score against Chigorin and Lasker, well Lasker was in a league of his own.
As to his results against Spielmann, this is what he did with him when he was already in his 60s.
Enjoy:
[Event "maehrisch-ostrau"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Black "Siegbert Tarrasch"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5
7. Qe2 Bf5 8. g4 O-O 9. gxf5 Re8 10. Bg2 Nf2 11. Ne5 Nxh1
12. Bxh1 Nd7 13. Nc3 f6 14. Ne4 fxe5 15. Nxc5 Nxc5 16. fxe5
Qh4+ 17. Kf1 Rf8 18. Kg1 Qd4+ 19. Be3 Qxe5 20. Re1 Nd7 21. Qc4
Kh8 22. Be4 Rae8 23. Bd4 Qf4 24. Re2 Nf6 25. Bxf6 gxf6 26. h3
Rg8+ 0-1


Quote:

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:
Btw Euwe annotated in very much the same way as Tarrasch only a bit less personal.

That is my other objection against both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch. Way too often their comments are marred by the need to conduct a vendetta in their writings. Moreover Euwe did not claim to have developed a Universal Theory of Chess. He specifically indicated the limits of the ideas he formulated.

Look, I don't have much experience with RL myself. I do have it with the IQP and also IKP from both sides and simply think there are better sources to get a grip on this subject than Tarrasch and Nimzo.
It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with Tarrasch' writings on the RL.

Of course modern writers are better, however his games (including the comments Wink) in the RL and other open games are very good training material for players who are starting out with those lines.
  
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #4 - 01/30/10 at 21:39:01
Post Tools
One could do worse than studying openings in which even classical players understood, and (more importantly) wrote about.

I fail to see why the failures of Nimzowitsch/Tarrasch to regularly beat the best in the world indicates a failure of their ideas - Nimzowitsch's games are still some of the best study material for the Nimzo-Indian Defense in existence, for example, largely owing to his explanations.

Maybe there's better (subjectivity how I love thee) routes to go about understanding something, but one could certainly do a lot worse as well.
  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.
Reply #3 - 01/30/10 at 20:29:03
Post Tools

sharpplay wrote on 01/30/10 at 14:46:34:
I find reading Tarrasch to be entertaining because of his dogmatism.

I am not questioning the entertaining or the historical value of his writings. The subject is the didactical value, which I doubt a lot. That is especially the case when Tarrasch and Nimzo did beat strong opponents.
See Tarrasch-Marshall, 16th game of the Nürnberg match (the knight on b3 is a bad piece)
and Nimzovitch-Spielmann, Carlsbad 1929 (7th row absolute) for typical examples.

So let me reformulate. What is the didactical value of a set of ideas that the creators weren't able to use with success against the strongest opposition of their time?
Should aspiring players not rather study the works of Lasker, Capablanca and Euwe?

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:

Tarrasch had no problems playing against strong players

Really? Then why did he lose so often against Lasker, Chigorin and the young Spielmann? Perhaps because they were able to show the flaws in his ideas? To be fair, Tarrasch had quite a good score against Pillsbury.

Willempie wrote on 01/30/10 at 16:02:43:
Btw Euwe annotated in very much the same way as Tarrasch only a bit less personal.

That is my other objection against both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch. Way too often their comments are marred by the need to conduct a vendetta in their writings. Moreover Euwe did not claim to have developed a Universal Theory of Chess. He specifically indicated the limits of the ideas he formulated.

Look, I don't have much experience with RL myself. I do have it with the IQP and also IKP from both sides and simply think there are better sources to get a grip on this subject than Tarrasch and Nimzo.
It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with Tarrasch' writings on the RL.
  
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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge