< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> 
Jun0706   schaduw2: According to a complicated analysis of Awerbach 28. e5! can lead to a winning endgame. 

Feb0208   BalaKKa: 28.h3 is a bad move. Very hard to find 28.e5! Here is Yuri Averbach & Smyslov's analysis:28.e5!,f6 29.h4+,Kg6 30.Kf4,a6! 31.a3,b5 32.cb:,ab: 33.b3!,Kf7 34.Ke3,fe:
35.a4,ba: 36.ba:,Ke7 37.Kd3,Kd6 38.Kc4,Kc6 39.a5,f4 40.gf:,ef: 41.a6,f3 42.a7,Kb7 43.Kc5:,Ka7: 44.Kd6,Kb6 45.Ke6:,Kc7 46.Kf5,Kd6 47.Kf4,Ke6 48.Kf3:,Kf5 49.Ke3!!,Kg4 50.f4,Kh4: 51.Kf3!(not Ke4) and white wins 

Jan2715   nmatta: Life Master AJ Goldsby has offered his analysis of this game in the following link: http://www.ajschess.com/lifemastera... AJ is very thorough and challenges some of the conventional analysis originally offered by Smyslov and Furman. It's worth reading. 

May1017   Nerwal: 28. e5 does not appear to be winning at all. Any recent book to elaborate on this endgame ? 

Dec0419   Straclonoor: After deep analysis with new i9 8cores CPU seems that pawn ending drawn. Both in initial and critical (after 27 moves) positions.
here is the lines without explanations.
Analysis by Stockfish 051119 64 BMI2:
1. = (0.00): 25...Kg6 26.Ke2 f5 27.Ke3 Kf6 28.exf5 Kxf5 29.h3 f6 30.b3 e5 31.f3 Ke6 32.g4 f5 33.g5 h4 34.f4 e4 35.a3 Ke7 36.b4 Kf7 37.Kd2 a5 38.bxa5 bxa5 39.a4 Kg6 40.Ke3 Kf7 41.Ke2 Kg6 42.Ke3 2. = (0.00): 25...Kh6 26.Ke2 Kg5 27.Kf3 f5 28.e5 f6 29.h4+ Kg6 30.Kf4 a6 31.a3 b5 32.cxb5 axb5 33.b3 fxe5+ 34.Ke3 f4+ 35.gxf4 exf4+ 36.Kxf4 Kf6 37.f3 e5+ 38.Ke4 Ke6 39.Ke3 Kd6 40.Kd2 Kd5 41.Kc3 Kc6 42.Kd3 Kd6 43.Ke3 Ke6 44.a4 c4 45.a5 cxb3 46.Kd3 Kd6 47.Kc3 Kc6 48.Kxb3 Kc5 49.Kc2 b4 50.a6 Kb6 51.Kb3 Kxa6 52.Kxb4 Kb6 53.Kc4 Kc6 After 27 moves
Analysis by Stockfish 051119 64 BMI2:
1. ⩲ (0.43): 28.h3 a6 29.h4+ Kf6 30.Ke3 Ke5 31.exf5 Kxf5 32.f3 a5 33.b3 f6 34.Kd3 Kg6 35.g4 Kh6 36.Ke2 Kg7 37.Kf1 Kh6 38.Kf2 Kg6 39.Ke1 Kh6 40.Kd1 Kg6 41.Kd2 Kf7 42.Kd3 Kg6 43.Ke4 Kh6 44.a3 Kg7 45.Kf4 Kg6 46.Kg3 Kh6 47.Kf2 Kg6 48.Ke2 Kh6 49.Kf1 Kg7 50.Kg2 Kg6 51.Kf2 Kh7 52.Ke3 Kh6 53.Ke2 Kg6 2. ⩲ (0.43): 28.h4+ Kg6 29.Ke3 fxe4 30.Kxe4 f6 31.Kf4 a6 32.b3 a5 33.Ke4 Kh6 34.Ke3 Kg7 35.f3 Kh7 36.g4 Kg7 37.Ke4 Kg6 38.Kf4 Kh6 39.Kg3 Kg6 40.Kg2 Kg7 41.Kh3 Kg6 42.a3 Kh7 43.Kh2 Kg6 44.Kg3 Kh6 45.Kf4 Kg6 46.Ke3 Kh6 47.Ke4 Kg7 48.Kd3 Kg6 49.a4 Kh6 50.Ke2 Kg7 51.Kd2 Kh6 52.Kd3 Kg6 53.Ke3 Kh6 54.Kf4 

Dec0419
  AylerKupp: <Draw Analysis (part 1 of 2)> <Straclonoor> When you say "27 moves" I am not sure whether you indeed mean moves or plies. Engines typically report search depth in terms of plies and not moves, so it makes a big difference. Stockfish typically needs 30+ (preferably 40+) search depths in order for one to be able to have high confidence in its evaluations. You did not indicate whether you enabled 6piece Syzygy tablebase support or not. I'm assuming that you did but, just in case, make sure that you did so. It makes a big difference in the accuracy of the evaluations, although in this position it may take a very deep search to reach positions in which the number of pieces on the board is 6 or less. The critical White winning attempt seems to be 27...f5 28.e5 instead of 28.h3 as played in the game or other moves, reaching the following position with Black to move:
click for larger viewCould you please rerun the analysis starting from the position above and let it run to a depth of at least 40 ply? You can probably just let it run overnight and check it in the morning. And I'm interested in knowing how much RAM and how many cores your system has. I don't know if you are familiar with the FinalGen tablebase generator but it can, within certain restrictions, generate a tablebase of a given position which by looking at every possible sequence of moves, conclusively determine whether the position is a draw or a win for one side or the other. The restriction, in principle, is that the position cannot have more than one piece for either side, both kings, and up to 8 pawns per side. So the position above certainly meets that requirement. I said "in principle" because it considers certain positions to be "too complex". I had some correspondence with the FinalGen author some years ago explaining this but I don't remember what the explanation was, and I lost the correspondence after a disk crash some years ago when I didn't have sufficiently up to date backup. I know, I know ... Now I have an ancient 32bit computer with only 4 GB RAM to the "too complex" message might mean that I don't have enough RAM for FinalGen to analyze the position so, since I suspect that you have more than 4 GM of RAM, you might be able have FinalGen analyze the position and so get a definitive answer as to whether 28.e5 leads to a win or not. If interested you can download FinalGen from http://finalgenchess.ovh/home_ing.php. It's free. <HOWEVER>, there is a big caveat or two. It can take a long time to run and require a lot of disk space if the position is complex, as this one certainly is, even though it can theoretically analyze it. And the program is single threaded and therefore does not benefit from having more than 1 core. In fact the ideal system to run this program in is an overclocked 2core system with lots of RAM and a multiTB, fast access SSD (FinalGen is apparently a very heavy disk user if the amount of RAM available is low). FinalGen also has 2 operating modes, a Normal Mode in which it searches for wins, loss, or draw and a Search for Draw Mode which determines whether a draw is possible. I don't think that the latter one is very useful but in situations like this where we are interested in knowing whether a draw exists or not it will probably be good enough. And this mode is a lot faster (relatively) and requires less disk resources. 

Dec0419
  AylerKupp: <Draw Analysis (part 2 of 2)> Before it starts to analyze the position FinalGen thankfully gives you an estimate of how long it will take to analyze the position and how much disk space it will require. But FinalGen indicated that the position above was "too complex" so I inched towards it by starting with the 4 kside pawns and increasing the number of qside pawns by two for each starting position. To give you an idea of how the required time and disk utilization increases as a function of position complexity and Normal vs. Search for Draw modes, I got the following estimates as I inched towards the final position. The second column is the estimated time required and the third column the estimated amount of <uncompressed> disk space required. Fortunately the folder used by FinalGen can be compressed and so the real amount of disk space required is about 50%  75% of the indicated number. <Normal Mode>
4 pawns, all kside 4 hrs 18 GB
5 pawns, all kside + cfile pawns 130 hrs 426 GB 6 pawns, all kside + cfile & bfile pawns  position too complex – 7 pawns  position too complex 
<Search for Drawl Mode> 4 pawns, all kside 1 hr 10 GB
5 pawns, all kside + cfile pawns 12 hrs 12 GB
6 pawns, all kside + cfile & bfile pawns 1150 hrs 567 GB 7 pawns  position too complex 
So, if you or anyone with a suitable system is interested, you can download a copy of FinalGen plus its User Manual and at least get an estimate of how long it will take and how much disk storage will be needed to determine if 28.e5 also leads to a draw or not. 

Dec0419
  harrylime: Tal was better than Korchnoi.
Discuss 

Dec0419
  SteinitzLives: Head to head in chess?
Or who was more fun to be around? 

Dec0419
  harrylime: Tal was a World Champion .. Victor not quite.. Discuss 

Dec0419   RookFile: Well, there was a period, if brief, where Tal was without question the best player in the world. I can't think of a time where the same could be said of Korchnoi. 

Dec0419   ewan14: 1965 , beating Petrosian 2  0 

Dec0419   ewan14: Both were brilliant players , but Korchnoi dominated in head to head
therefore better player 

Dec0419
  keypusher: Glad that's settled. 

Dec0519
  keypusher: <AK> Faute de mieux, I ran it overnight on my SF10 after 28.e5. I don't have tablebases for this program (I have an older Shredder program with tablebases, but it seems significantly weaker). My 2017 Mac desktop tells me it has: Memory 8 GB 2400 MHz DDR4
Processor 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5
Anyway, at 72/60 188:59 (maybe it gives up after three hours?) 40948 MN SF10 spits out a 0.00. The continuation given is: 28... f6 29. h4+ Kg6 30. Kf4 a6 31. a3 b5 32. cxb5 axb5 33. Ke3 fxe5 34. b3 f4+ 35. gxf4 exf4+ 36. Kxf4 Kf6 37. Ke4 Ke7 38. a4 c4 39. a5 cxb3 40. Kd3 Kd6 41. Kc3 Kc6 42. Kxb3 Kc5 43. Ka3 b4+ 44. Kb3 Kb5 45. a6 Kxa6 46. Kxb4 Kb6 47. Kc4 Kc6 48. Kd4 Kd6 49. Ke4 Ke7 50. Ke5 Kf7 51. f3 Ke7 52. f4 Kf7 53. f5 exf5 54. Kxf5 Ke7 55. Kg6 Kf8 56. Kf6 Kg8 57. Ke5 Kf7 

Dec0519   Straclonoor: <When you say "27 moves" I am not sure whether you indeed mean moves or plies. > I said after 27, I meant after 27....f5
Plies in my analysis (8 cores, 16 threads) is around 50. <Could you please rerun the analysis starting from the position above and let it run to a depth of at least 40 ply?> Yes, I can. I'll try it a little bit later after performing all tasks for upgrading my computer.
By the way, I think <keyousher> gave right answer on the question. 

Dec0519   ewan14: Tal's head to head record against most of his peers was not that good 

Dec0519
  AylerKupp: <28.e5 analysis> (part 1 of 2) <keypusher> I also ran it overnight after 28.e5 using Stockfish 10 on my ancient 32bit, 4core Intel Q9400. With only 4 GB memory, a 2.6 GHz clock rate, and 5piece Syzygy tablebases (the 6piece tablebase code apparently doesn't work with 32bit computers) after 8 hours it got to d=43/34 and it also gave an eval of [0.00] after 28...f6 29.h4+ Kg6 30.Kf4 a6 31.b3 (here "my" Stockfish deviated from "your" Stockfish) 31...Kf7 32.a3 Kg6 33.f3 b5 34.a4 bxa4 35.bxa4 a5 (now the White king is prevented from penetrating on the qside) 36.exf6 Kxf6 37.g4 e5+ 38.Kg3 Kg6 39.g5 Kf7 40.Kf2 Kg6 41.Ke2 Kf[bad FEN: 78/5k2/8/p1p1ppPp/P1P4P/5P2/4K3/8] And this clearly is a draw. White cannot force matters in the kside or arrive at a zugzwang position since attempts such as 41...Kg6 42.Ke3 Kf7 43.f4 is met by 42...e4 and Black also gets a protected passed pawn, with no points of entry into Black's position.
click for larger viewSo it seems to me (and Stockfish, of course), that the assessment of 28.e5 as possibly winning are wrong, assuming perfect play by Black which of course is not always a good assumption even at this GM level. But 28.e5 provides the best <practical> chances for a win, which might be the best we should expect. To reinforce this opinion after 28.e5 only 28...f6 draws, Stockfish evaluates its next two top moves to be clearly losing as follows: 2. [+13.38]: 28...h4 29.h3 a6 30.b3 Kg6 31.Kf4 Kh5 32.a3 Kg6 33.g4 fxg4 34.Kxg4 (now Black simply loses the hpawn without any compensation) 34...b5 35.a4 b4 36.f4 a5 (with the qside now locked White can concentrate on the kside) 37.Kxh4 Kf5 38.Kg3 Ke4 (an interesting attempt to penetrate but fruitless since there is no way to stop White's passed hpawn without the king) 39.h4 Kd4 (the game is over, White's hpawn will queen first) 40.h5 Kc3 41.h6 Kxb3 42.h7 Kxc4 43.h8=Q Kb3 44.Qf6 c4 45.Qxf7 (how nice to be able to calculate deeply and see that you have enough time to go pawn grabbing!) 45...c3 46.Qxe6+ Kb2 47.Qc4 c2 48.e6 c1=Q 49.Qxc1+ Kxc1 50.e7 b3 51.e8=Q b2 52.Qe1+ Kc2 53.Qe4+ Kc1 54.Qc4+ Kb1 55.Qb3 Ka1 56.Qa3+ Kb1 57.Qf8
click for larger viewWhite's last move seems very odd to me, blocking the fpawn's queening square. Why not 57.Qb3? Then if 57...Kc1 or 57...Ka1 simply 58.f5 pb1=Q 59.f6 and White will get its 4th queen. Maybe it's the horizon effect in action because the Syzygy tablebases don't have distancetomate information so they can't report the shortest mate sequence, just that the position leads to a mate. So if the engine blindly follows the Syzygy information it can go round and round in circles without making much progress. 3. [+14.21] 28...a6 29.h4+ Kg6 30.Ke3 (note, not 30.Kf4, after the spare tempowasting of 28...a6 White starts off by triangulating to set up a zugzwang position) 30...Kg7 31.Kf4 Kh6 32.f3 Kg7 33.Kg5 (White's king is through and the hpawn falls, the game is over) 33...f4 34.Kxf4 b5 35.cxb5 axb5 36.Kg5 f5 37.exf6+ Kf7 38.Kf4 b4 (I'm not sure why not just 38...Kxf6 but it just transposes) 39.b3 Kxf6 40.g4 e5+ 41.Ke4 c4 (another version of the horizon effect, Black sees that it is lost and tries to push the inevitable beyond its horizon) 42.bxc4 Ke6 43.g5 Kd6 44.Kf5 e4 45.Kxe4 Ke6 46.f4 Kd6 47.Kf5 b3 (more horizon effect) 48.axb3 Kc5
click for larger viewAnd of course this is an easy win for White. 

Dec0519
  AylerKupp: <28.e5 analysis> (part 2 of 2) One point of possible interest. Some engines report the search depth in the form dd/ee and some just in the form dd, where dd = search depth and ee = search extension. ee is supposed to be the maximum depth reached after extending the search depth to take into account captures, forced moves, etc. but the catch is that is the maximum search depth reached during that depth and not necessarily the maximum search depth for the line listed. Therefore I don't see much use for it. But your analysis (and later mine) was the first time I noticed a situation where dd > ee which I would think could never happen. So I am no longer sure what ee really means. BTW, if you want to add Syzygy tablebases to your system, you can download them from several sites like https://chess.massimilianogoi.com/d.... There are two sets of files, WDL (*.rtbw) containing windrawloss information and DTZ (*.rtbz) containing distancetozero information. Together they will require about 150 GB. For best performance you should try to store at least the WDL files on a SSD with a PCIe interface (neither of which I have). Fortunately SSD prices keep coming down and you can pick up a 240 GB PCIe SSD with M.2 form factor for less than $ 50 on Amazon. 

Dec0519
  AylerKupp: <Straclonoor> Thanks for your response. As you can see from my reply to <beatgiant> above, I tried the same thing and got similar results, 28.e5 provides the best practical chances for a White win although Black can apparently draw with 28...f6 and best play afterwards. However, anything other than 28...f6 in response to 28.e5 apparently loses. So no need for you to duplicate <beatgiant>'s and my efforts unless you want to see what "your" Stockfish comes up with. 

Dec0619   Olavi: The deviation from the Smyslov/Furman/Averbakh analysis is <28... f6 29. h4+ Kg6 30. Kf4 a6 31. a3 b5 32. cxb5 axb5 33. Ke3 fxe5 34. b3> and now not Kf6 but f4+. The normal reaction would be 35.Ke4 and not 35.gxf4; I'm obviously not doubting, but one needs to know. I'll take that position as a blindfold exercise. 

Dec0719
  AylerKupp: <<Olavi> ...and now not Kf6 but f4+> (part 1 of 2) After 34.b3 f4+ 35.Ke4 Stockfish 10 at d=40 suggests 35...fxg3 36.fxg3 Kf6
click for larger viewNow White must give way since 37.a4 results in 37...c4 and Stockfish with 5piece Syzygy tablebase support evaluates this at d=47 as a forced mate for Black: 1. [M18]: 38.bxc4 bxa4 39.c5 a3 40.c6 Ke7 41.c7 Kd7 42.c8Q+ Kxc8 43.Kxe5 a2 44.Kd4 a1Q+ 45.Ke3 Qc3+ 46.Kf4 Qd3 47.g4 Qd4+ 48.Kf3 hxg4+ 49.Kg3 Qg1+ 50.Kf4 g3 51.h5 g2 52.Ke5 Qc5+ 53.Kf6 g1Q 54.Kf7 Kd7 55.h6 Qcf2+ 2. [M17]: 38.b4 bxa4 39.b5 Ke7 40.b6 Kd6 41.g4 a3 42.gxh5 a2 43.b7 Kc7 44.b8Q+ Kxb8 45.h6 a1Q 46.h7 Qe1+ 47.Kf3 Qxh4 48.Ke2 Qxh7 49.Kd2 Qd3+ 50.Ke1 Qe3+ 51.Kf1 c3 52.Kg2 c2 53.Kh2 c1Q 54.Kg2 Qcg1+ 3. [M16]: 38.a5 cxb3 39.Kd3 e4+ 40.Kc3 e3 41.a6 e2 42.Kd2 b2 43.Kxe2 b1Q 44.a7 Qa2+ 45.Kd3 Qxa7 46.Ke4 b4 47.Kd3 b3 48.Kc3 Qe3+ 49.Kb2 Qxg3 50.Ka3 Qc3 51.Ka4 b2 52.Kb5 b1Q+ 53.Ka4 Qca1+ So after 36...Kf6 at d=41 Stockfish evaluates the top 3 White moves, all winning for Black, to be: click for larger view1. [14.72]: 37.Kf3 Kf5 38.Kf2 b4 (with White's king far away on the kside, Black decides to try a breakthrough on the qside) 39.a4 c4 40.a5 cxb3 (and now Black queens first and, 2 pawns up, Black should win easily) 41.a6 b2 42.a7 b1=Q 43.a8=Q Qc2+ 44.Ke3 Qc3+ 45.Ke2 b3 46.Qg8 b2 47.g4+ Kf4 48.Qg5+ Ke4 49.Qg6+ Kd4 50.gxh5
click for larger viewAnd restarting the analysis from this position Stockfish indicates that it's a mate in 10 after 51...Qe3+, mate in 13 after 51...Qc4+, and even mate in 14 after the nonforcing 51...Kd5 2. [14.76]: 37.Kd3 Kf5 38.a4 e4+ 39.Kc2 bxa4 40.bxa4 Kg4 (with the situation clarified on the qside, Black turns his attention to the center and kside – not that he has much choice at this point) 41.a5 Kxg3 42.a6 e3 43.a7 e2 44.a8=Q e1=Q 45.Qd8 (it may seem that White some drawing chances with forcing moves but Stockfish can't find a perpetual after 45.Qa3+) 45...Qe4+ 46.Kc1 Qe3+ 47.Kb1 Kg4 48.Qg8+ Kxh4 (3 pawns down, White has no hope) 49.Ka2 e5 50.Qd8+ Kg3 51.Qg8+ Kh3 52.Qc8+ Kg2 53.Ka1 Qd4+ 54.Kb1 Qd3+ 55.Kc1 Qf1+ (this seems like a silly move that does not help advance Black's pawns) 56.Kb2 Qf2+ 57.Ka3 Qf3+ 58.Kb2 h4 59.Qg8+ Kf2 60.Kc2 h3 61.Qh8 Qe4+ 62.Kb3 Qf4 63.Ka2 h2 64.Qh7 Qd2+ 65.Kb3 Qd5+ 66.Ka3
click for larger viewAnd this should be a win for Black in spite of what I think has been much time wasted in failing to advance its pawns. 

Dec0719
  AylerKupp: <<Olavi> ...and now not Kf6 but f4+> (part 2 of 2) 3. [15.78]: 37.Ke3 Kf5 38.a4 c4 (a recurring theme) 39.a5 cxb3 40.Kd2 e4 (now White is in a quandary, he can stop either the bpawn or the epawn from queening, but not both, and Black queens first, maintaining the initiative and a pawn advantage) 41.a6 e3+ 42.Kxe3 b2 43.a7 b1=Q 44.a8=Q Qe1+ 45.Kd3 (an odd decision IMO, White allows Black to capture all the kside pawns) 45...Qxg3+ 46.Kc2 Qxh4
click for larger viewAnd now Black theoretically mates in 29 moves per the Lomonosov tablebases. But I'll give the rest of Stockfish's line just to make another point about tablebases. 47.Qf3+ Kg5 (I thought that 47...Ke4, centralizing the king and threatening the queen exchange with 48...Qe4+ would be better but it has no practical advantage, White is lost in either case. Besides, the Lomonosov tablebases, with distancetomate (DTM) information, agree with Stockfish's decision.) 48.Qg2+ Qg4 49.Qd2+ Qf4 50.Qg2+ Kf5 51.Qh3+ (here the Lomonosov tablebases suggest 51.Qb7 indicating that Black mates in 23 moves) 51...Qg4 (here the Lomonosov tablebases suggest 51...Ke5 indicating that Black mates in 19 moves.
click for larger viewI suspect that since the Syzygy tablebases do not have DTM information Stockfish can't find the shortest path to mate with either White or Black) 52.Qf1+ Kg5 53.Qc1+ Qf4 54.Qg1+ Kf6 55.Qg8 h4 56.Kb2 Qe5+ 57.Kb1 Kf5 58.Qh7+ Kg4 59.Qg6+ Kf3 60.Qh6 Qe4+ 61.Ka1 Qd4+ 62.Kb1 Kf2 63.Qf8+ Ke2 64.Qg8 Qe4+ 65.Kb2 Qe5+ 66.Kb1 Kf3 67.Qd8 h3 68.Qd1+ Qe2 69.Qh1+ Kg4 70.Qg1+ Kf4 71.Qc1+ Qe3 72.Qd1 Qe4+ 73.Kc1 Qc4+ 74.Kb2
click for larger viewHere the Lomonosov tablebases indicate that Black mates in 17 moves. Twenty three moves earlier, after 51.Qh3+, had Black played 51...Ke5 instead of 51...Qg4 as played by Stockfish, Black would have theoretically mated in 19 moves. So, after 22 moves, Black has only succeeded in reducing the number of moves to mate from 19 to 17. At this rate, if the 50move rule is taken into account, the game will last a long, long time, showing the advantages of having DTM information in the tablebases. What's the penalty for using, say, 6piece Nalimov tablebases with DTM information compared with 6piece Syzygy information without DTM information? Disk storage, for one. The 6piece Syzygy tablebases require about 161 GB of disk storage and the 6piece Nalimov tablebases require about 1.2 TB of disk storage, about 7.5X more. However, highperformance (7200 RPM) 4 TB internal disk drives are going for < $ 90 so I'm not sure that the tradeoff in cost/performance is worth it, although it probably was back in 2013 when the 6piece Syzygy tablebases were releases. And 7piece Syzygy tablebases have been available since Aug2018 and require about 17 TB of disk storage while the 7piece Lomonosov tablebases require about 140 TB of storage, about an 8.2X storage ratio between a tablebase containing DTM information an one that does not contain DTM information. But either, I believe, is beyond the budget of most of us at this site. However, 8piece tablebases, presumably without DTM information, are estimated to require about 1 PB. Definitely beyond the reach of most of us! Here is a good article about tablebases in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endga.... 

Oct1820   Ricosupercapo: Capablanca would have won this endgame against anybody. 

Oct1820   Joshka: <ricosupercapo> with white or black? 


< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> 


