Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rorshach

Chess - the world in black and white

115 posts in this topic

Okay, I did a quick search, and couldn't find the old thread. So I'm starting a new one, probably to see it die a slow death. 

Anyways, the World Championship is over, and, as it was before it started, the WC is Magnus Carlsen.

I was a bit disappointed this time around. Being Norwegian, I'm happy with the end result, but the play ... I don't know. Karjakin is a hugely impressive defender, and he's shown time and again during both the classical games, and the playoffs, that he'll defend terrible positions with aplomb. For me, however, who isn't close to GM level, it becomes boring after a while. I started getting flashbacks to Greece in the 2004 Euros - the worst team ever to win a championship. Karjakin felt like that. I am aware that he drew first blood, and that he actually could have (more or less) killed the game off in game 9, but he never even tried (it seemed) to grab the initiative from the start - until game 16, where he had to win. And which he promptly lost. 

Carlsen won, but he wasn't playing with his usual fluidity. I think the 2013 or 2014 Carlsen would have broken Karjakin in games four and five. This time around, he wasn't precise enough, leading to Karjakin managing to hold and grow in confidence. Will be interesting to see how Carlsen will play in Wijk am Zee (think that's his next tournament). 

As far as the World Championship title goes, the excitement again is to be found in the Candidates in a year and a half, and the qualifiers leading up to that. Karjakin is, I think, guaranteed a spot. The other places are all up for grabs at this point. I'm hoping for Caruana, as I really enjoy his style, but we'll have to wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed each game and I got a bit bored of the Ruy Lopez opening. Carlsen wasn't always going to win this, I felt, Karjakin's win made me think that Carlsen was slipping. Certainly Carlsen threw up favourable leads in games 3, 4 and 5, all of which he should have won. Karjakin's ability to get out of trouble again and again - the Houdini of Chess, after all - made it seem that he could break through.

That's what I reckon - do you also think you'd add game 3 as another that was Carlsen's to lose (draw)?

This felt like Karjakin was playing his life out but Carlsen was floundering. It's just that he's much better than the rest even far from his best. It was still GM level (except Game 12, that was rubbish), I think. Let's not forget that computers have spoiled things somewhat; you don't get to have computers when you play, so it's easy as an audience to realise that the players don't have seemingly "obvious" moves pointed out to them.

I'm actually surprised Karjakin agreed to draw in games 7 and 9. I'd have put him ahead at both opportunities and while it wasn't likely he'd have won, across both games he had a pretty good chance of a win.

Maybe we just saw it differently but I was super impressed that Karjakin managed so many great escapes.

I didn't mind this tournament - it would have been interesting to see it go to Armageddon! :) 

(Minor side note: It annoys me absolutely that men and women have different rankings. They can - and SHOULD - play together!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yukle said:

I followed each game and I got a bit bored of the Ruy Lopez opening. Carlsen wasn't always going to win this, I felt, Karjakin's win made me think that Carlsen was slipping. Certainly Carlsen threw up favourable leads in games 3, 4 and 5, all of which he should have won. Karjakin's ability to get out of trouble again and again - the Houdini of Chess, after all - made it seem that he could break through.

That's what I reckon - do you also think you'd add game 3 as another that was Carlsen's to lose (draw)?

I agree he may have won game three, but that position was harder to convert than the following two (mind, when I talk confidently about chess positions, I rely on 1) computer evaluations and 2) commentary from Peter Svidler (chess24) and Simen Agdestein and Jon Ludvig Hammer (VGTV, Norwegian)). It is quite possible that Carlsen of two years ago would have steered that game to a win, but it was always going to be more difficult. Game 4 should have been won. 

As for openings, I don't mind the Ruy Lopez, as long as it doesn't end up in the Berlin defence. Sochi 2014 saw altogether too many Berlins :)

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

This felt like Karjakin was playing his life out but Carlsen was floundering. It's just that he's much better than the rest even far from his best. It was still GM level (except Game 12, that was rubbish), I think. Let's not forget that computers have spoiled things somewhat; you don't get to have computers when you play, so it's easy as an audience to realise that the players don't have seemingly "obvious" moves pointed out to them.

This is all true, except that Game 12 is also GM level :) It just happens to be a completely dry position, which leads to a draw when both players follow the best moves. My problem with Karjakin (and Magnus in Game 12) is that whenever in this match, he could choose between an attacking but slightly unsafe option, and a solid and unspectacular one, he chose the latter every time. It makes for very dry chess in general. 

Now, I do understand Karjakin playing like that. He's a fantastic defender, and he's excellent in his known lines. It's just that in a twelve-game match, it does become a bit .. stale, I guess. Still, unlike Anish Giri (especially), Karjakin knows how to counter and attack as well - he just does it altogether too rarely for my tastes. Part of the reason why I prefer players like Caruana and Aronian.

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

I'm actually surprised Karjakin agreed to draw in games 7 and 9. I'd have put him ahead at both opportunities and while it wasn't likely he'd have won, across both games he had a pretty good chance of a win.

Maybe we just saw it differently but I was super impressed that Karjakin managed so many great escapes.

I think that Karjakin tried in both games 7 and 9, after Carlsen overpressed. Problem was he couldn't find the moves to break down Carlsen's defence (Carlsen is also an excellent defender, but it is not something you consider often, as he mostly presses to win). But I think it is a difference in perception - I tend to like more adventurous play compared to the extremely solid Karjakin/Giri type. 

 

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

(Minor side note: It annoys me absolutely that men and women have different rankings. They can - and SHOULD - play together!)

Actually, they do. The categories are women and open - women can and do compete with men, on equal footing, in the open. That also means that the ratings and rankings are the same - with the exception that down the scale, we have WGM (which, I believe, is the same as an IM rating in the open). 

Judith Polgar showed that women aren't inferior in chess. However, as of yet, she is something of a special snowflake. Hou Yifan, the current Women World Champion, and highest rated woman, is currently at 2651 ELO. That's strong indeed, but still more than 100 ELO  behind Karjakin, and close to 200 behind Carlsen. She is also not inside the top 100 on the rating list (barely, I believe). It would be great to get another woman up among the top 10, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlsen was very impressive yesterday. Played with the verve and confidence we're used to seeing from him, and should have won the second game as well as the third and fourth (although if he won the second and third, the fourth wouldn't need to be played). 

When it comes to women and chess, it's a delicate balance, in my opinion. While women should absolutely be encouraged to play and welcomed into the world of chess (clubs, federations etc.), I believe thinking the only reason women aren't as good as men is social conditioning is a fallacy. 

From my layman's understanding of neuroscience (disclosure; mainly arrived at through reading Pinker and Simon Baron-Cohen), the male brain is (on average) significantly better at systemizing (pattern recognition, logic, mathematics). This is the main reason why hard sciences are dominated by men, and it also means that it is very unlikely that we'll ever see an even distribution of the genders in the upper echelons of the game. If the aim is to have women (on average) be as good as men (on average), that's setting an unachievable goal which is bound to lead to disappointment. 

As Rorschach points out, there is nothing stopping women from competing with men, but I do think they're well served by having their own system. If there were no women's football leagues (for instance), I think fewer girls would be playing football at a serious level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was arguably the least exciting WCC in a while. The only other match from recent history, which had me equally uninvested was Kramnik-Leko in '04. But that was to be somewhat expected given the players styles. 

Karjakin is a very good defender, and he plays rock-solid chess. And tbf, that's probably the only way to beat Carlsen. Hanging on in pretty joyless positions and wait/hope for Carlsen to overpush. Having that said, I just hope that either Caruana qualifies for the next match, or that Aronian picks up his form again. I am also onboard with MVL. Wei Yi is imo still a few years away from challenging Carlsen, and he has a very narrow path to qualify for the candidates to begin with. And to be fair, the qualification format is more favourable to them, than to Giri or Karjakin. Giri will usually be very happy to finish with +2, which usually isn't enough to win in a DRR tournament with 8 players.

I had hoped for a few English Openings or at the very least some 1.d4 and then either some (semi-)Slavs or Queen's Indians (which they both play), instead of those endless sessions in the Spanish torture. Because it feeds into my openings (I know I am selfish), and because it's imo a bit more interesting to watch than Carlsen trying to grind out a win from a roughly even rook ending.

Yes, Carlsen should have won game 4 and/or possibly game 5. It was a bit out of character for him to grind out a winning advantage, just to let it slip like he did in game 4. But it's very tough to keep up that level of concentration for 5 hours+. And that's without the extra pressure of the title match. On the other hand, he was kinda lucky to win game 10. If Karjakin had not missed the repetition, Carlsen would have been in big trouble.

As for Womens Chess. In theory they can participate in the same events as men. The problem is, that most of the elite tournaments are invitationals. And it's kinda hard to make an argument to include the world's number #108 in the ranking list in an event with 12 players on a regular basis. And number #108 in the world,  that's Hou Yifan currently the strongest playing woman on the planet. The next strongest active woman is Ju Wenjun on position #319 with an Elo of 2579. And that's a bit of a problem for Hou Yifan. She is too strong for the womens events, but not quite good enough to be a regular at the mens' (main) events. Harshly put, she is not the second coming of Judit Polgar. Judit was a regular top ten player in the 1990s, and Hou Yifan is not anywhere near that level.

The Womens TItle is another sad story of its own. With switching formats, the champion ending up challenging for her title. The candidates being shipped to Iran, where the ladies have to wear a headscarf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't the best match ever, but I did at least enjoy Peter Svidler's live commentary, highlighting all of the amazingly interesting lines that could have been played, but weren't. :P Finishing the last rapid game with a queen sac was terrific.

Karjakin's gameplan was partly to blame, as he was clearly trying to frustrate Carlsen by simplifying, although it nearly worked so I can't blame him. If he gets another chance I think he will have to be more aggressive, as Carlsen will have learned his lesson from the game he lost and the gap in the rapid games looked huge. I don't think the format of only 12 games helps, a longer match might make the players less scared of losing one if they have more time to win it back. 20 games would be perfect for me, and would have the added benefit of making rapid games less likely.

On women's chess, there are still social barriers such as a much smaller player pool, girls being told from a young age that boys are better at chess, lack of role models, and ingrained sexism in the club scene. And that's just in the more enlightened west. Most chess players come from countries with far less enlightened gender attitudes than those.

I don't think we can really claim that women are inherently worse. Even with all these barriers there was a woman in the top ten recently, and she only dropped out of the top ten when she stopped playing to have kids. One educational psychologist sets out to turn his children into chess prodigies from a young age, regardless of gender, and succeeds..... how many girls could have been great, but didn't have the same opportunity?

I think the seperate competitions contribute to lowered expectations and encourage people to subconsiously think of women as inferior, so I don't agree that this system is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hou Yifan does get invitations, though, these days. She played in Wijk last year. I seem to remember she was also in another of those supertournaments, but I can't remember which one. And she just played Nigel Short, I believe (though he's better with his mouth these days..). However, she needs to improve in order to continue getting those invitations. ATM she's invited on account of being the best female player, but she finishes at the foot of the table, which does not endear her to the organizers. Her rating places her there, though. So (I'm rambling here, I know) she's in a catch 22 - she needs to improve to get invitations, but she won't get many invitations if she doesn't improve. 

Second problem, as mentioned above, is that the women's field isn't really very strong compared to the men's field. She doesn't have much competition there. Playing other women won't raise her game atm, and it's not really possible to get by as a professional in the open tournaments - you need the invitations tournaments as well. 

I really have no idea if there are other women coming through - I haven't heard of anyone, but there are lots of players of whom I haven't heard. 

As for future challengers, I don't think Aronian will make it. He's been at his peak, but even then he didn't seem to have the nerves to survive the candidates. Sadly, I think, because he's a very interesting player. As it happens, so is MVL and Nakamura, but I'm not completely convinced about MVL, and Naka vs Carlsen feels like a complete non-starter (even if Naka managed to reduce their internal rivalry to 1-12 recently). 

What about Wesley So? He could develop further, and if he does, he will be a challenger. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a complete layperson at chess, but do find it quite interesting to follow the legend of Magnus Carlsen, and to see what his competitors can do. I did watch some of the Candidates tournament earlier this year in which countrymen of mine were hoping Anish Giri might make it through, but apparently he's too defensive, which I suppose is why all his games ended up in a draw.

So from what you guys are saying, Caruana ( who I recall finished high in that candidates tournament), MVL, Nakamura and maybe Aronian are the likely top challengers for the next year or two? 

And another question: why is it that these all these best of the best level guys are all so young? All of these guys are in their twenties. Where are the guys in their 40's? Seems like only Anand. I seem to recall the Karpovs and Kasparovs of old were still going at it and being the best even when in their 40's or 50's? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mmerek Hamšzulíe said:

From my layman's understanding of neuroscience (disclosure; mainly arrived at through reading Pinker and Simon Baron-Cohen), the male brain is (on average) significantly better at systemizing (pattern recognition, logic, mathematics). This is the main reason why hard sciences are dominated by men, and it also means that it is very unlikely that we'll ever see an even distribution of the genders in the upper echelons of the game. If the aim is to have women (on average) be as good as men (on average), that's setting an unachievable goal which is bound to lead to disappointment.  

Larry Summers lost his position as president of Harvard for saying a lot less than that. 

I don't watch chess matches but I was pleasantly surprised to see Carlsen's conclusive "mate in two" move reported on broad interest news sites. 

I've started playing again lately as I got my son more interested in learning.  I still struggle to play against my computer at any advanced level -- part of which is that I don't see the patterns the same on the screen and I fall into stupid traps, but part of it is the computer can't be baited into traps.  But I've done well against flawed human opponents.

My ten year old son, who has only played for the past two months, recently won two of two against his fourteen year old cousin.  I was embarrassed for the teenager.

For his first several games, my son was too anxious about losing any pieces -- a weird kind of personal threat projection/transference -- but as he plays more he's getting more comfortable with viewing them as just pieces, and he's getting a better feel for early vs mid vs late game, and the tactics of pins, forks, etc.

I never studied chess at all, I just rely on my own habit/compulsion of pattern analysis as I play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the 8th game (the one Karjakin won) in person. It was a pretty weird experience; the players sit in a sort of fishbowl with one-way glass so we could see them, but they couldn't see us. It was pretty exciting at certain points in the game, but a lot of it was waiting. I tried to analyze the position, but, as Karjakin pointed out after the game, it was pretty insane with chances for both sides and I'm not good enough to follow their thoughts. And then Carlsen was too upset to attend the press conference which might cost him $60K given that he won.

The tie breaks must have been exciting in person, but the cheap (i.e. $75) tickets vanished quickly and the VIP stuff costs $900 or something like that (I didn't even see what it was for the tie break since those were sold out too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Calibandar said:

I'm a complete layperson at chess, but do find it quite interesting to follow the legend of Magnus Carlsen, and to see what his competitors can do. I did watch some of the Candidates tournament earlier this year in which countrymen of mine were hoping Anish Giri might make it through, but apparently he's too defensive, which I suppose is why all his games ended up in a draw.

So from what you guys are saying, Caruana ( who I recall finished high in that candidates tournament), MVL, Nakamura and maybe Aronian are the likely top challengers for the next year or two? 

And another question: why is it that these all these best of the best level guys are all so young? All of these guys are in their twenties. Where are the guys in their 40's? Seems like only Anand. I seem to recall the Karpovs and Kasparovs of old were still going at it and being the best even when in their 40's or 50's? 

I would like Aronian to challenge, but I don't think he'll make it. The other three are possible. Also, Karjakin again, and perhaps someone like Kramnik.  Nepomniachtchi is also on the up - perhaps he'll be able to challenge, perhaps not. Same with So. 

Giri, to challenge, would have to work on his attack. He's incredibly solid, but not adventurous enough in this company.

If I was a betting man today, I'd put my money on Caruana.

As to why players are better young .. hard to say, but it probably ties somewhat into stamina. A lot of modern chess is opening preparation - remembering long variations in several different openings. That is something you don't need age to do. But playing in tournaments is physically draining, and it seems like older players aren't able to last all the way through. They don't have to fade fast, however - both Kramnik and Anand are still world class players in their mid fourties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Wesly So is also playing in Wijk aan Zee, alongside Carlsen, Karjakin, Aronian and Giri.

It's good for the sport that there is a developing rivalry and to have several genuinely good contenders, even if Carlsen may win every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kramnik is world number 2 and Anand is number 8, both over 40.... But I guess people are looking for someone to beat Carlsen, and it's unlikely to be one of them.

Personally I'm hoping for a Michael Adams comeback, but that's even less likely. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rorshach said:

I would like Aronian to challenge, but I don't think he'll make it. The other three are possible. Also, Karjakin again, and perhaps someone like Kramnik.  Nepomniachtchi is also on the up - perhaps he'll be able to challenge, perhaps not. Same with So. 

Nepomniatchi has to qualify first. Same goes everybody not named Karjakin.

Unless FIDE has changed the qualification rules, it still goes like this.

Average rating for a specific 12 month span (which screwed Kramnik over this year, he was off by just one month.) As of now it looks like Caruana might very well pick one up. But last time around, Grischuk had an impressive early rating and then Sascha started to lose rating points left and right. Anyway my point being, that I don't see Nepomniatchi clinching one of the rating qualifiers.

Then we have the two Grand Prix qualifiers. 

And then we have the Fide World Cup lottery. Which is imo Nepomniatchi's best bet. But that's really gamble on form. The format itself ofc is a bit in favour of Blitz and Rapid monsters like Nepomniatchi and Grischuk. But there's really a lot of tough opposition playing. I mean I even give Le Quang Liem a fair chance to qualify from that format.

And last but not least, there's still the organizer wildcard.  If the Russian want to sponsor the candidates, then you have to make a case for Nepomniatchi over Svidler, Grischuk, Adreikin, Tomashevsky and a few other names (maybe even Kramnik if things go really bad). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Larry Summers lost his position as president of Harvard for saying a lot less than that. 

Yeah, I mean, I think this is an actual instance of political correctness gone mad. The Blank Slate theory is just prima facie ridiculous, and has no credible empirical evidence supporting it. I get why it's potentially inflammatory knowledge, and it should be handled with care, but just denying reality is inevitably going to backfire at some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.12.2016 at 9:59 PM, Rorshach said:

Hou Yifan does get invitations, though, these days. She played in Wijk last year. I seem to remember she was also in another of those supertournaments, but I can't remember which one. And she just played Nigel Short, I believe (though he's better with his mouth these days..). However, she needs to improve in order to continue getting those invitations. ATM she's invited on account of being the best female player, but she finishes at the foot of the table, which does not endear her to the organizers. Her rating places her there, though. So (I'm rambling here, I know) she's in a catch 22 - she needs to improve to get invitations, but she won't get many invitations if she doesn't improve. 

Yes, she participated in the Master Section of Wijk twice I think. The other tournament you might have in mind is the Tradewise Gibraltar Open. Which (at least in the more recent history) has featured some heavyweights like Nakamura. And there are a few opens popping up/becoming more attractive for top players, because the invitational circuit has somewhat shrunk compared to the 1990s. E.g. Linares is in terms of top level chess pretty much meaningless now.

Anyway, two things I wanted to mention earlier, but I didn't manage to write because I was in some kinda rush to get to the stadium. 

First the invitationals. As I mentioned earlier, there are not as many as there used to be, and the once that still exist are not as well funded as they used to be. You can see that Wijk (or Tatalsteel chess as it is now known). There are just two groups now, and not three as they were in the past. And the tournament director is always very cautious, when asked about the future of the tournament. Then you have to keep in mind how those invitations work. The players get an appearence fee, which differs a bit from player to player. Carlsen can of course demand the highest prices, being the generational player he is, clear number #1 in the world and reigning World Champion. "King Loek" van Wely comes at a much lower cost. A bit harshly put, he is a bit of a filler, from the pure playing strength he is of course not as good as the top ten players. And as strongest Dutch player after Giri he adds some local hero/player standing to the tournament. Now you can guess how much Hou Yifan can charge as the strongest woman. My uneducated guess is, it will be closer to van Wely than to Carlsen.

Second, which is probably a bit more obvious. Hou Yifan probably gets way more funding from the Chinese Chess Federation, than GM Joe who is trying to hussle his way through the opens. So it's really not like her against the world. I think Natalia Pogonina explained a while ago, how the support from the Russian Federation works. She did not give the actual numbers obviously, but she explained the basic mechanism. Having that said, I wouldn't be too surprised if Hou Yifan gives up on professional chess to pursue a better paying occupation.

Edited by Notone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Notone said:

Nepomniatchi has to qualify first. Same goes everybody not named Karjakin.

Unless FIDE has changed the qualification rules, it still goes like this.

Average rating for a specific 12 month span (which screwed Kramnik over this year, he was off by just one month.) As of now it looks like Caruana might very well pick one up. But last time around, Grischuk had an impressive early rating and then Sascha started to lose rating points left and right. Anyway my point being, that I don't see Nepomniatchi clinching one of the rating qualifiers.

Then we have the two Grand Prix qualifiers. 

And then we have the Fide World Cup lottery. Which is imo Nepomniatchi's best bet. But that's really gamble on form. The format itself ofc is a bit in favour of Blitz and Rapid monsters like Nepomniatchi and Grischuk. But there's really a lot of tough opposition playing. I mean I even give Le Quang Liem a fair chance to qualify from that format.

And last but not least, there's still the organizer wildcard.  If the Russian want to sponsor the candidates, then you have to make a case for Nepomniatchi over Svidler, Grischuk, Adreikin, Tomashevsky and a few other names (maybe even Kramnik if things go really bad). 

We'll see. I thought of Nepo courtesy of Svidler, who had an offhand comment somewhere earlier about Nepo taking his chess more seriously, and, as a consequence, climbing in standing. He also had a great Olympics, but, obviously, not on the top table (he played third table, I think?). And he has climbed to 13 in the world. If it is correct that he was one of Karjakin's seconds (it was relatively widely reported, I think), he may use those preparations himself in later tournaments, which will be of help (Hammer got a big push from being Carlsen's second). And he's still young - same age as Karjakin and Carlsen. 

Of course, given the format of the qualification for the Candidates, it's somewhat a toss-up who will compete with Karjakin. I'd wager that you'll find a few of the previously mentioned names there, though :)

As for big tournaments, there are a few, but far too few to accomodate all the top players. Wijk, Baku, London, St. Louis, Stavanger, Berlin .. I think I'm forgetting some .. but as they need spectators, they tend to send invitations to the more aggressive players. In addition to the fact that the players command a starting fee. 

All those tournaments have a van Wely along, both for economic reasons, and also for local flavour (Hammer/Grandelius in Norway, Mamedov in Baku etc..)

We'll see how this plays out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a strange match: fairly exciting as a sporting contest but many of the individual games weren't very interesting to me.  Second half was better, with the noticeable exception of game 12.  I was impressed by Karjakin's resourcefulness in defence (and by his general attitude) but it felt as though Carlsen was playing below his usual level and missing winning moves he'd usually find. 

Probably just about the right result on balance, but Karjakin came very close.  If he'd found Qb3 in game 9 or ...Nxf2 in game 10 I think he'd have held on.

Rapid tiebreaks to decide a world championship are still a horrible idea.  Defending champions should stay on after a drawn match.  Pleased a challenger is yet to win that way but it's surely only a matter of time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2016 at 11:26 PM, Calibandar said:

I seem to recall the Karpovs and Kasparovs of old were still going at it and being the best even when in their 40's or 50's? 

Karpov was still playing at a very high level in his 40s, but Kasparov lost his title in his late 30s and announced his retirement from chess when aged 41  Both of them were very young (under 25) when they first became world champion too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasparov can still play, though. Looked okay when playing rapid (yes, I know it was rapid) against So, Nakamura and Caruana after St. Louis last year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0