ChessPub Forum - C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani

(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Topic Tools

Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies)

C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani (Read 40412 times)

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #58 - 05/10/11 at 22:39:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well, this issue will be decided in games of chess. But thinking as you do, you have your defense to the Ponziani. Personally I prefer 3...d5, which seems to offer more of what I want from this game. But that's another topic.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Hehmer Ex Member	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #57 - 05/10/11 at 14:25:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 05/10/11 at 13:03:49: Quote: 8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities. Hey, I'm no authority! Tony is an authority. Black is Black, you see? He is down by his customary tempo (instead of two tempi as after 8...Nxd2). He has less space; due to problems on the e-file; he may have trouble uniting his rooks. I simply don't understand how Black is supposed to be better after 8...Nf6; I could agree that he is O.K. in the usual way that Black is O.K. We could debate whether White's pawn on d5 is good or bad; to me it looks annoying. That's it, speaking only for myself and with an amateur's understanding of this game. These were my first thoughts too, but White has to move his Nd2 again losing his lead in development. After 9.Nf3 both have the Knight developed and it's Black to move. The e-file is not easy to use anyway because the pawn d5 needs protection. Bc4 looks silly to me and if we play Bd3 we'll lose time with c3-c4. I didn't even look at the conventional 9...Bc5 because I have no idea how to punish the ambitious plan with b6 and Bd6. Simply fencing the Bb7 in by playing c4 seems useless in view of ...c6, dxc6, ...dxc6 and ...c5. So right now I think that 8...Nf6! renders 8.Nd2(!) harmless. I don't think that Black is better though and would play this with both colors.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #56 - 05/10/11 at 13:03:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: 8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities. Hey, I'm no authority! Tony is an authority. Black is Black, you see? He is down by his customary tempo (instead of two tempi as after 8...Nxd2). He has less space; due to problems on the e-file; he may have trouble uniting his rooks. I simply don't understand how Black is supposed to be better after 8...Nf6; I could agree that he is O.K. in the usual way that Black is O.K. We could debate whether White's pawn on d5 is good or bad; to me it looks annoying. That's it, speaking only for myself and with an amateur's understanding of this game.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Hehmer Ex Member	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #55 - 05/10/11 at 12:05:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities.


	IP Logged

TalJechin God Member Offline There is no secret ingredient. Posts: 2892 Location: Malmö Joined: 08/12/04 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #54 - 05/10/11 at 11:20:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well, I seldom play 1...e5 so this topic is hardly worth spending time on. But 8...Nf6 9.Nf3 Bc5 looks extremely solid for black in my opinion. I set up an engine blitz tournament, 7min +5sec, per engine and game, which resulted in 4 draws and 2 black wins from six games, and White was lucky to escape with -2. As I mentioned earlier I like the ideas with ...Bd6 and ...b6 which is how I would like to play it, if I ever get this position in a game. This was also how black got the two wins. Not perfect play of course (blitz is blitz), but the games illustrate two things at least, 1) Black is rock solid and 2) pawn d5 is more weak than strong. Another thing I forgot to mention earlier is that white's king has been slightly compromised already, if 0-0 there's the h-file and 0-0-0 doesn't offer full king safety either due to the c-pawn being on c3. [pgn][Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2011.05.10"] [Round "?"] [White "Ponz - The ...b6 set-up"] [Black "?"] [Result ""] [ECO "C44"] [PlyCount "144"] [EventDate "2011.03.21"] [SourceDate "2011.05.10"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8. Nd2 Nf6 $1 9. Nf3 b6 (9... Bd6 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Bc4 Rh5 13. h3 Bxd5 14. Bxd5 Rxd5 15. Qb3 a5 16. a4 Rf5 17. Re1+ Kf8 18. Be3 Nd5 19. Bd2 c6 20. c4 Nf4 21. Rad1 Qc7 22. g4 Nxh3+ 23. Kg2 Nf4+ 24. Kf1 Rc5 25. Be3 Rd8 26. Nd2 Ne6 27. Ne4 Bf4 28. Nxc5 bxc5 29. Rd3 Bxe3 30. Rexe3 f6 31. Re1 Kf7 32. Qc3 Qf4 33. b3 g5 34. Rg3 Rh8 35. Kg1 Nd4 36. Qe3 Qxe3 37. Rgxe3 Rb8 38. Kg2 Rd8 39. Rc3 Ne6 40. Rce3 Rb8 41. Kg1 Kg6 42. Rd1 Nd4 43. f3 Kf7 44. Kf2 Rb7 45. Rc1 d6 46. Rd1 f5 47. gxf5 Rb8 48. Rdd3 Kf6 49. Re1 Nxf5 50. Rg1 Nd4 51. Rgd1 Kf5 52. Re3 Rh8 53. Kg2 Kf6 54. Kf2 Rh2+ 55. Kg3 Rb2 56. Red3 Ke5 57. Re1+ Kf5 58. Rde3 Rxb3 59. Rxb3 Nxb3 60. Re2 d5 61. Kf2 Nd4 62. Re3 dxc4 63. Kf1 Kf6 64. Kf2 g6 65. Rc3 Ke5 66. Rxc4 Kd5 67. Rc3 c4 68. Ke3 Nf5+ 69. Kd2 Kd4 70. Rc1 Ne3 71. Rg1 c3+ 72. Kc1 g4 73. fxg4 Kc4 74. Rg3 Nd5 75. g5 Kb3 76. Rf3 c5 77. Kb1 Nb4 78. Re3 Nc6 79. Rf3 Ne5 80. Rg3 Nc4 81. Kc1 Ne5 82. Kb1 Nf7 83. Kc1 Kxa4 84. Rxc3 Kb4 85. Kc2 Nxg5 86. Rb3+ Kc4 87. Rg3 Ne6 88. Rxg6 Nd4+ 89. Kb2 a4 90. Rg3 Kb4 91. Rg4 Kc4 92. Ka3 Kb5 93. Rg2 Ka5 94. Rg4 Nb5+ 95. Kb2 Nd4 96. Ka3 Nb5+ { adjud. 1/2-1/2 Houdini 1.5 x64-Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit/Ponz 2011.}) 10. Bc4 (10. Be2 Bb7 11. Bg5 Be7 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. O-O Kf8 14. Bc4 Kg7 15. Re1 Rh5 16. Qd3 a5 17. a3 Bd6 18. h3 Qf8 19. Rad1 a4 20. Qe4 Ra5 21. Qg4 f5 22. Qd4+ f6 23. Ba2 Rh8 24. Re2 Bc5 25. Qd3 Ba6 26. c4 Bd6 27. Qc2 Bb7 28. Rde1 Qf7 29. Nd4 Ba6 30. Kh1 Rh5 31. Re8 Rh8 32. Rxh8 Kxh8 33. Kg1 Be5 34. Nf3 d6 35. g3 Bc8 36. h4 Ra8 37. Qd2 Bd7 38. Nh2 g5 39. hxg5 Re8 40. Nf3 Kg7 41. Bb1 Rh8 42. Nh4 Qh5 43. f4 Qg4 44. Ng2 Qxg3 45. fxe5 fxe5 46. Qc3 Qh2+ 47. Kf2 f4 48. Qd3 Be8 49. Kf1 f3 50. Qxf3 Rf8 51. Bf5 Bh5 52. Qe4 Qh3 53. Kg1 Rxf5 54. Qh4 Qxh4 55. Nxh4 Rf4 56. Ng2 Rxc4 57. Ne3 Rc5 58. Rf1 Kg6 59. Rf8 Kxg5 60. Rf5+ Kg6 61. Rf1 Rb5 62. Rf2 e4 63. Rc2 Rb3 64. Ng2 Kf6 65. Rc4 b5 66. Rc2 Ke5 67. Rf2 e3 68. Rc2 Kd4 69. Ne1 Kxd5 70. Kf1 Bd1 71. Rh2 e2+ 72. Kf2 Rxb2 73. Rh5+ Ke4 74. Rh4+ Kf5 { 0-1 DeepSaros-G ver.2.3f-Houdini 1.5 x64/Ponz 2011.}) 10... Qe7+ 11. Be3 Qe4 ( 11... Ng4 $5 12. d6 cxd6 (12... Qxd6 $2 13. Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. Ng5+) 13. O-O Nxe3 14. fxe3 Bb7) 12. Qb3 Bd6 13. O-O-O Bb7 (13... O-O 14. Rd4 Qe7 15. Re1 a5) 14. Rd4 (14. Rhe1 O-O 15. Bxb6 $6 Qg4 16. Be3 Qxg2 17. Nh4 Qh3 18. Nxg6 Rfb8) 14... Qe7 15. Re1 O-O-O 16. Rdd1 Qf8 17. Kb1 Kb8 18. Bd4 Bc5 19. h3 Bxd4 20. cxd4 d6 21. Ng5 a6 22. Be2 Rd7 23. Bf3 Ka7 24. Rd2 Qa8 25. Rde2 Bxd5 26. Qa4 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Qd5 28. Ka1 Kb7 29. Qc2 Qf5 30. Qc1 Nd5 31. Re4 Rc8 32. Nh4 Qf6 33. Nf3 Re7 34. Rxe7 Nxe7 35. Qd2 Nd5 36. Ng5 Qf5 37. g4 Qd7 38. Qe2 c6 39. Qf3 f6 40. Ne4 Nc7 41. Ng3 Re8 42. Rc1 d5 43. Qd3 g5 44. Kb1 Rh8 45. Nh5 Ne6 46. a3 Re8 47. Qd2 a5 48. Ka2 Qf7 49. Kb1 f5 50. Ng3 f4 51. Ne2 Qf6 52. Rd1 Nc7 53. Qd3 Nb5 54. Nc3 Nxc3+ 55. Qxc3 a4 56. Qd3 f3 57. Kc2 Qf4 58. Rd2 Re1 59. Rd1 Re2+ 60. Rd2 Rxd2+ 61. Qxd2 Qh2 62. b4 Qxh3 63. Qxg5 Qg2 64. Qe7+ Ka6 65. Qe3 Qxg4 66. Kc3 Qe4 67. Qd2 Qb1 68. Qc2 Qxc2+ 69. Kxc2 Kb5 70. Kd3 g6 71. Ke3 Kc4 72. Kxf3 Kb3 {0-1 Houdini 1.5 x64-Houdini 1.5a x64/Ponz 2011.} [/pgn]


	IP Logged

GMTonyKosten YaBB Administrator Offline Mr Dynamic? Posts: 3185 Location: Clermont-Ferrand Joined: 12/19/02 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #53 - 05/10/11 at 10:05:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	[quote author=55796A73776E717B70180 link=1304672342/50#50 date=1304969282] What I do think is that after 8...Nxd2, White is a tempo up if one credits that d2 is a good station for the QB, and it may well be. White enjoys a space advantage and has the obvious plan of trying to exploit the e-file. I don't see how anyone can claim perfect equality for Black in that position, but perhaps one could argue that Black can hold. I could believe that readily enough, but to hold a slightly worse position, and with scant counterplay, isn't why I sit down at a chess board. I'm not really persuaded that Black is equal after 8...Nf6, though it looks better because White's extra tempo is in the form of a knight on d2, which must move again to achieve a decent station. Even then Black is very slightly worse, it seems to me. After 9.Nf3 Black is still Black tempo-wise, and White has more space. Black can say, "See, my KR is active already," but I like to unite my rooks. I don't think White's d-pawn is weak so much as cramping Black's position. So I guess I just plain like White here, although I am prepared to believe that Black is O.K. with good play. [/quote] I have to say I completely agree with this, and no machine is likely to convince me otherwise! :)


	WWW Facebook Twitter IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #52 - 05/10/11 at 01:04:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	kylemeister wrote on 05/09/11 at 19:52:09: In the past I've been struck by the diversity of some published opinion regarding this doubled g-pawn line. In the 1940s Reuben Fine thought 7. Nxg6 "refuted" Black's play (after 8...hg he continued with 8. Qf3), while decades later Edmar Mednis wrote rather glowingly of Black's position with its half-open h-file and all. Interesting. Your scholarship is most impressive. So what is your view?

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

kylemeister God Member Offline Posts: 4989 Location: USA Joined: 10/24/05	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #51 - 05/09/11 at 19:52:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the past I've been struck by the diversity of some published opinion regarding this doubled g-pawn line. In the 1940s Reuben Fine thought 7. Nxg6 "refuted" Black's play (after 8...hg he continued with 8. Qf3), while decades later Edmar Mednis wrote rather glowingly of Black's position with its half-open h-file and all.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #50 - 05/09/11 at 19:28:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	[quote author=7144496F40464D4C4B250 link=1304672342/49#49 date=1304954468] Anyway, it would be more productive to focus on the analysis instead of quarrelling with or about A3. [/quote] Amen to that. Too many pointed remarks so far. [quote author=7144496F40464D4C4B250 link=1304672342/49#49 date=1304954468] Am I the only one who prefers 8...Nf6 over the exchange on d2? The pawn on d5 is something to latch on to for for Black and in several different ways too, b6+Bb7; c6; Rh5; answering c3-c4 with b5, etc. Black has easier development, a d5-pawn to pressure and no weaknesses, so the verdict "=" should probably be "at least = for black". Or does White have something in return? He might claim to have a space advantage, but as far as I can see that's only visible if Black shuts in Bf8 with an early ...d6?![/quote] I don't know that I agree with that. What I do think is that after 8...Nxd2, White is a tempo up if one credits that d2 is a good station for the QB, and it may well be. White enjoys a space advantage and has the obvious plan of trying to exploit the e-file. I don't see how anyone can claim perfect equality for Black in that position, but perhaps one could argue that Black can hold. I could believe that readily enough, but to hold a slightly worse position, and with scant counterplay, isn't why I sit down at a chess board. I'm not really persuaded that Black is equal after 8...Nf6, though it looks better because White's extra tempo is in the form of a knight on d2, which must move again to achieve a decent station. Even then Black is very slightly worse, it seems to me. After 9.Nf3 Black is still Black tempo-wise, and White has more space. Black can say, "See, my KR is active already," but I like to unite my rooks. I don't think White's d-pawn is weak so much as cramping Black's position. So I guess I just plain like White here, although I am prepared to believe that Black is O.K. with good play.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

TalJechin God Member Offline There is no secret ingredient. Posts: 2892 Location: Malmö Joined: 08/12/04 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #49 - 05/09/11 at 15:21:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	[quote author=022538363C30510 link=1304672342/47#47 date=1304950480][quote author=36030E2807010A0B0C620 link=1304672342/45#45 date=1304935792]A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it. As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against... [/quote] If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum. See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all[/quote] Yeah, I know. Though some here tried to make it into something more, if you read A3's quotes. All I'm saying is that it's more likely that he didn't expect 1...e5 in that game and thus gambled that Berg hadn't read that thread. Anyway, it would be more productive to focus on the analysis instead of quarrelling with or about A3. Am I the only one who prefers 8...Nf6 over the exchange on d2? The pawn on d5 is something to latch on to for for Black and in several different ways too, b6+Bb7; c6; Rh5; answering c3-c4 with b5, etc. Black has easier development, a d5-pawn to pressure and no weaknesses, so the verdict "=" should probably be "at least = for black". Or does White have something in return? He might claim to have a space advantage, but as far as I can see that's only visible if Black shuts in Bf8 with an early ...d6?!


	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 617 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #48 - 05/09/11 at 14:52:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stigma wrote on 05/09/11 at 14:14:40: If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum. See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all Ah, internet drama. Why do we all get so worked up about these things?!

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

Stigma God Member Offline There is a crack in everything. Posts: 3277 Joined: 11/07/06 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #47 - 05/09/11 at 14:14:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	[quote author=36030E2807010A0B0C620 link=1304672342/45#45 date=1304935792]A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it. As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against... [/quote] If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum. See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all

	Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
	IP Logged

Oblonskij Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 71 Joined: 10/27/10	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #46 - 05/09/11 at 10:15:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	Anonymous, can you please enlighten me about how you can hate so much on Marin's decision to give us an excellent treatise on the Max Lange instead of copying Kaufman's 5. ...Bxd4 line? I mean really wtf can be wrong with that?! Now anyone interested in the line has a choice.


	IP Logged

TalJechin God Member Offline There is no secret ingredient. Posts: 2892 Location: Malmö Joined: 08/12/04 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #45 - 05/09/11 at 10:09:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it. As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against... On to the analysis. Isn't ...Nxd2 a bit co-operative? Black seems to score well with Ne4-f6 followed for example by Bc5 and d6 activating the darkfielder, after ...hxg6 Black hardly needs to worry about doubled f-pawns and if the king has to move to f8 it doesn't bother Rh8 as it has already an open file. Houdini even suggests a development scheme of Bd6, b6, Bb7 which looks harmonious though I didn't find any games with it. Personally, I'd prefer White after ...Nxd2 but Black after ...Nf6, though both may be equal... [pgn][Event "corr Scotland - Rest of the World"] [Site "ICCF"] [Date "2008.05.12"] [Round "?.6"] [White "Mackintosh, Iain (SCO)"] [Black "Reichgeld, Manfred(GER)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C44"] [WhiteElo "2272"] [BlackElo "2279"] [PlyCount "50"] [EventDate "2008.??.??"] [EventType "match (corr)"] [Source "Opening Master"] [SourceDate "2011.01.03"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8. Nd2 Nf6 9. Nf3 Bc5 (9... Bd6 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Bg5 Bxd5 13. Bxf6 Bxf3 14. Bxd8 Bxh2+ 15. Kh1 Bg3+ 16. Kg1 $11) 10. Be2 d6 11. O-O O-O 12. Bg5 Re8 13. Bd3 Bg4 14. h3 Bd7 15. Qd2 c6 16. b4 Bb6 17. c4 a5 18. a3 axb4 19. axb4 Rxa1 20. Rxa1 cxd5 21. cxd5 Qc8 22. Rc1 Qa8 23. Bf4 Bf5 24. Bxf5 gxf5 25. Ng5 Qa6 1/2-1/2 [/pgn]


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis Reply #44 - 05/09/11 at 09:43:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 06:06:16: This implies to me that he knows this line is slightly better for White but tried to hide it with these comments. Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 17:40:56: You need to make sure your criticism is valid before you criticize You apparently don't have to. Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 06:06:16: However, I'm sure White has improvements earlier on and I still think this line is slightly better for White. Sure.

	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
	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

del.icio.us

Digg

Google

Google+

reddit

StumbleUpon

Yahoo

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

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

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge