| Over the past two years I’ve gone from C-player
to A-player over the board. In OTB tournaments since last March I
have 24 wins against 4 losses and 5 draws in games against non-masters,
with plus-scores against every category from expert on down. I’m
not master-strength yet, but there’s no doubt I’m getting better fast.
And one of the things that’s helped me to do this the most is postal chess,
both through regular mail and electronically. |
| By playing postal you force yourself to study every
aspect of the game in a very concrete context – trying to win! This
improves both your knowledge and your analytic abilities. And one
of the especially fun things about postal chess is that you can experiment
in opening variations that you might never get to over the board with confidence.
Let’s face it: if you’re not a professional, even if you have a good memory,
it’s almost impossible to know all the strange sidelines and ideas you
might face even in your favorite lines. But in “open book” chess
you can play to wherever you want in that great body of theory and try
to debate interesting positions just like the GMs do. Even a class
player like me can have some games of theoretical interest playing postal,
and so can you! |
| In this article I wanted to share some of my most
interesting postal games with the readers of Michigan Chess.
All of these games were played by way of electronic mail, over the Internet,
which makes for a slightly faster pace than in ordinary postal. Each
of the half-dozen games that follows contains either a theoretical novelty
or an interesting and thematic plan that worked out successfully.
I have used the masculine pronoun throughout, for which I apologize to
any offended readers; of course chess players can be female or male. |
|
S. Stidd (1817) - R. Massimo (1761)
[C63/05] Spanish: Schliemann (Berger)
Internet,1998
|
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5
| This move initiates the extremely sharp Schliemann
defense. The tactical complexity of the line means that it is one
which rewards homework and good over the board calculation.
While the main lines are generally considered better for White, over its
history the defense scores as well as anything else (54 percent for White,
46 percent for Black), with less than 1/3 of all games ending in draws. |
| There are many ways of playing the Schliemann.
4.Nc3 is generally considered White’s best move, though even such a notoriously
unromantic chessplayer as former World Champion Anatoly Karpov wrote (in
Winning
with the Spanish) that 4.d4 “is worth scrutinizing in more detail;
this very sharp line, involving a piece sacrifice, can be recommended to
all lovers of a tactical melee.” The main line after 4.Nc3 is 4...fxe4
(4...Nd4 is also a main line these days) 5.Nxe4 d5 (5...Nf6 is also
possible) 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5 (7...bxc6 loses to 8.Bxc6+ Bd7
9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Qe5+ Be6 11.f4 exf3 12.d4 Nf6 13.d5, though 7...Qd5 has its
supporters, including Karpov) 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.Ne5+ c6 11.d4 Qh4+
12.g3 Qh3 13.Bc4 Be6 and White will develop his QB with a small plus according
to NCO. On the other hand, this is the very line in which
Speelman beat Timman in the 1989 Candidates’ matches, and analysts there
are who claim it viable, so caveat emptor. I quote all this only
to illustrate the sharpness of the variation – if you could have foreseen
all these moves over the board without a book, I suspect you’ll be ready
for the big time in no time. The line seen in the present game, in
which Black attempts to play the King’s Gambit a tempo down, was introduced
by the mad Russian Duz-Khotimirsky in 1907-1908, who played it three times,
winning twice (including a game against the noted Curt von Bardeleben)
and losing once. It is not really correct but, like most variations
of the Schliemann, has some bite if White is inaccurate. Black is
arguing that 3.Bb5 is a wasted move, and it is true that one would not
normally play ...Bb4 in most lines of the King’s Gambit with Black, but... |
| A deviation from the standard line here, which begins
with 6.0-0. The point of this innocuous-looking move is not innocuous
at all: the idea is to play 7.Ne4, simultaneously hitting the bishop
and threatening to wreck Black’s kingside pawn structure with 8.Bg5.
Moreover, Black cannot reasonably exchange knights on move 7, because then
after 8.dxe4 White’s extra pawn at f5 is protected and Black’s lines to
White’s kingside are all blocked up. On 6.0-0 NCO suggests
the materialistic variation 6...0-0 7.Nxe5 Nd4 8.Bd3 d5 9.Nf3 Nxf5 10.Bxf5
Bxf5 11.d4 Bd6 12.Ne5. White is up a clear pawn and has finished
developing, so he is unquestionably theoretically better. But Black
has the bishop pair, open e- and f-files on which to attack, and a free
game! This is not sufficient compensation, but it is a reasonable
gambit position from which to attack, if that is what one likes.
Tal once tried 8.Nf3 in the above line against Spassky (Moscow, 1957) but
after 8...c6 (Mikhail Tseitlin recommends instead 8...Nxf5 9.d4 Bb6, although
Black’s compensation is still quite unclear) 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.Bd3 d5 11.Ne2
Be5 12.Ng3 Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.d3 exd3 15.Qxd3 Qxd3 16.cxd3 Bxg3 17.hxg3
Bxf5 Spassky had secured complete equality, and the game ended in a draw!
So one must be careful even in these ‘dubious’ lines... |
| In his book Winning with the Schliemann,
which both players owned, the Grandmaster and noted opening theorist Mikhail
Tseitlin suggested this move as an improvement to the passive 7...Be7.
It is true that moves like 7...Be7, which led to a quick Black loss in
Riemsdjik-Klip, Dieren Open 1989, make no sense in a gambit line: if Black
does not have good active continuations there is no point in playing
the gambit! Since 7...d6 8.Nxc5 likewise seems unpromising for Black
(and lost quickly in Westerinen-[IM Larry] Evans, Gausdal 1981), Tseitlin’s
idea (for which he gives no analysis) seems the only reasonable try left.
Since the present game refutes it, or comes very close (see the final note),
it may be that 6.d3 refutes 5...Bc5 altogether! |
| White has also won here with the simple 8.0-0, but
as above I find that line less convincing; Black can start developing his
counterattack. |
| Unbeknownst to either of us - I did not yet own
ChessBase - all of this had happened before in a game Suraci-Howard from
the 1948 US Championship in South Fallsburg. Now Suraci continued
with the materialistic if plausible 11.g4 and eventually lost. My
plan was somewhat different; I wanted to hold the f-pawn with the knight
while bringing my queen towards Black’s king! Therefore I played... |
| ...to keep Black’s QN from returning to the defense of the kingside.
It was the idea of playing this and following it up with 12.Nh4 that led
me to try 6.d3. |
| At this point Black, perhaps becoming aware of the
troubles in the main lines ahead, embarked on a faulty combination, and
the game concluded in just two moves: |
| Rick had intended 13...f5 and 14...Qf6, starting
to open lines against my king and with threats against my different pieces,
but White can counter this simply with 14.Rg1+ and 15.Qh5, among others,
so Black resigned. It is worth asking, however, what might have happened
after the expected 11...bxc6. My plan was 12.Nh4! with the idea of
Qh5. The obvious defensive try, 12...Kh8 13.Qh5 Qg8, |
| loses on the spot to the sacrifice 14.Ng6+! After 14...hxg6 15.fxg6,
Black has an unpleasant choice between 15...Rg7 (15...Re7 falls afoul of
the same combination) 16.Bg5+ Rh7 17.Bxf6+ Qg7 18.Qxh7# and 15...Rh7 16.gxh7
Qxg2 17.0-0-0 Bxf2 18.Rf1 when Black’s being down the exchange and exposed
king should decide matters quickly. Going back a little, tries such
as 12...Ba6 also fail, e.g. 13.Qg4+ Kh8 14.Qh5 Qe8 15.Ng6+ hxg6 16.fxg6
and Black should quickly succumb. The tempo gained by the attack on the
rook after fxg6 is obviously the key to these variations, so it seems that
12...Re7 is the best try, supporting Black’s pawn center and aiming at
White’s uncastled king. Still after 13.Qg4+ Kh8 14.0-0 or even 13.Qh5
Qe8! 14.Qg4+ Kh8 15.0-0 it seems hard not to prefer White substantially;
his king is out of danger and he still has his pawn and pressure against
the black king. Nonetheless, unless Black can find something new
here it would seem that Duz-Khotimirsky’s old idea of 4...Nf6 and 5...Bc5,
playing the King’s Gambit a tempo down with Black against the Lopez, is
out of business. |
|
|
S. Stidd (1895) - J. Rosenhouse (1898)
[E73/04] King’s Indian: Schwarz (Averbakh)
Internet,1999
|
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5
| This early bishop development characterizes the
Averbakh variation of the King’s Indian Defense. The basic idea is
to restrict Black’s activity as much as possible, which of course is what
KID players generally live for. It is also an extremely flexible
variation for White, keeping open the option of playing on either wing. |
| This move, which emerged in the late 80’s, is considered
better and more flexible than the older 6...Nbd7. 6...c5 and 6...h6
are also main lines, but beginners take note: 6...e5?, the standard King’s
Indian move, is a blunder, punished immediately by 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8
9.Nd5, losing the exchange or a piece because the Nf6 cannot be sufficiently
defended. |
The point of this move order is to avoid the lines
arising after 9.Bd1 (or 9.Bf3) 9...Nh5
10.Bxh5 gxh5 11.Nge2 f6! 12.Bh6 (‘?!’ according to Margeir Petursson’s
King’s
Indian Defense: Averbakh Variation, but his alternative, 12.Be3, can
be met by h4!, which is listed as unclear in NCO) 12...Bxh6 13.Qxh6
Qg6 14.Qd2 f5 15.f3 b6 (= NCO) 16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Ng3 Bd7 18.0-0 h4
19.Nge4 Nc5= (Petursson), Petursson-Grivas, Katerini 1993. Black’s
idea in this line is obviously partly inspired by the famous third game
of the 1972 Spassky-Fischer match, where the idea of allowing doubled h-pawns
to break White’s bind in KID/Benoni type positions first came to widespread
attention. This match will also be relevant to the next game discussed... |
| If Black tries 9...Nh5 in this position, NCO
claims that 10.Nge2 f5 is unclear. However, Petursson recommends
11.f3, saying that with that move “A typical Sämisch position has
been reached. The tempi won or lost are not relevant, as practical
experience has shown that in such positions White has somewhat the better
chances.” He recommends queenside castling, immediately after 11...Qf7
or 11...Kh8 or a little later after 11...Nc5 12.Bc2 a5 13.exf5 gxf5
14.0-0-0 with h3 and g4 to follow, “creating attacking chances and at the
same time fighting for the vital e4 square.” |
| Both players have to pay attention to move order
in this variation. Black is basically going to get to play two of
the three moves ...Nc5, ...Nh5, and ...Bd7, and each side needs to understand
the consequences of playing any of these three moves at a given time, which
also depends on where White relocates his light-squared bishop from e2. |
| Here we have reached one of the standard theoretical
positions in the Averbakh. NCO regards 12...b5!? as interesting
here, and it might be a good way for Black to improve on the counterattack
that proved too slow in this game. 12...h5 is good for Black after
13.h3 Nh7 14.Be3 h4 15.g4 hxg3 16.Nxg3 f5, but Petursson
found an improvement to this line against Djurhuus (Gausdal 1995) with
13.Be3! (NCO claims a small plus for White right here) 13...Nh7
14.0-0-0 b6 (14...f5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.d6 c6 17.Na4 winning a pawn
– Petursson) 15.h3 h4 16.g3 Qe7 (16.hxg3 17.Nxg3 f5 18.exf5 gxf5
19.Bh6 with a big plus - Petursson) 17.Rdg1 Kh8 18.f4! with “excellent
attacking chances on the kingside” and a big plus according to Petursson.
The third possible move, which Jason actually played, is NCO’s ‘standard’
move for Black. |
| Not a novelty, but I like the move better than NCO’s
recommended 13.0-0 Ng8 14.Rae1 f6 15.Be3 f5, as played in Tisdall-Manninen,
Gausdal 1995. NCO assesses this position as unclear, although
Tisdall managed to win. This continuation is not bad, but it seemed
unprincipled to me for two reasons. First, under normal conditions
if White castleskKingside in the Averbakh it is because he has already
fixed the kingside pawn structure. Indeed, often in the Averbakh
a kingside pawn storm is actually a ruse, designed to create a safe haven
for the king behind pawns on the fourth and fifth rank rather than the
first and second in preparation for a breakthrough on the queenside. As
is well known, the main virtue of the Averbakh is its flexibility; by castling
KR right here White sacrifices some of this flexibility and gives Black
a chance at a standard King’s Indian kingside attack. Second, Black
has just put his king on the h-file, where my rook is, and in playing f3
I have already given support to a standard Sämisch-style kingside
pawn storm. 12...Kh8 therefore seems to me almost to demand forceful
retaliation! A little analysis of 13.g4!? also bolstered my opinion
of it. If Black responds by playing a move like 13...Ng8, with the
intention of following up with 14...f5, I can respond with 14.Ng3 and continue
to control the f5-square. 13.g4!? therefore at least appears to contest
Manninen’s plan, which GM Joe Gallagher thought good enough to rate “unclear”
in NCO despite Black’s loss with it. And finally, in the one
game in my database where this variation had occured, Black played a response
which seemed simply too loosening to me, which my opponent duplicates... |
| This ambitious counterthrust on the queenside leads
to sharp play, but I think it insufficient for Black. |
| There is no going back now. |
| This is actually the first new move. A game
between two female masters not yet out of high school, Hoang Than Trang
and Ruth Sheldon, continued 15...Rb8 16.Ng3, which also led to a White
win in the 1996 Women’s Under 16 World Championship. Nonetheless,
I like Ms. Sheldon’s move better; it has the virtue of developing Black’s
queenside attack and moving the rook to a more useful square. Indeed,
this move would have been better for Jason at a number of points in the
coming melee. |
| Jason told me that he did not even consider this
recapture, but it is clearly best. 16.Qxe2 unnecessarily slows down
White’s attack, while 16.Nxe2 Qb5 fits in perfectly with Black’s plan of
counterattacking the queenside. After the text White’s knight is
still defending b5, his queen is still on the proper diagonal, and his
rooks are connected and ready to double on the h-file. Everything
is in place for the coming attack. |
| Black does not have time for this. Better
here or on the previous move would have been ...Rb8, which would at least
allow Black to trade off the dark-squared bishops and reduce some of the
pressure after 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.Rh3 Bf6 20.Rah1 Rf7 21.b3 Bxg5 22.Qxg5.
White still seems better to me, but if Black beats off the attack he will
have much the better ending due to White’s worthless bishop on c2. |
| Tempting but incorrect was 19.Rxh7+ Kxh7 20.Rh1+
Nh6 (20...Bh6?? 21.Bxh6 Nxh6 22.Qxh6+ Kg8 23.Qh7#) 21.Bxh6 Qf7!! (Counterattacking
against f3 and eyeing c4) 22.Bxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qh6+ Kf6 24.dxc6 (24.Qh4+ g5
25.Qh6+ Ke7 26.Qxg5+ Ke8 is a little better for Black) 24...Qc4+ 25.Kd2
Rh8 26.Nd5+ Kf7 27.Qxh8 Rxh8 28.Rxh8 Qd4+ 29.Kc1 Qg1+ 30.Bd1 Qf2! and both
sides are forced to force a draw: White is threatening to queen the
c-pawn, Black to mate on b2 after ...Nd3. White can play either 31.Bc2
Qg1+ or 31.Rh7 Kg8 32.Nf6+ Kf8 33.Nd7+ Kg8, with a repetition in both cases.
My decision in the game was simpler: I couldn’t find a forced mate
or win of decisive material after the sac, so I didn’t. |
| Ultimately, Black will be forced to play this move
so that he can defend along the seventh rank. White is threatening
20.Rah1, 21.Kd1, and 22.Qh2, and ...Nf6 is not sufficient to protect h7. |
| Does Black have everything under control? |
21.Be3!
| Black has defended his king, but now White abruptly
switches to the weak queenside and the game ends in just three moves. |
| This is a blunder, losing a pawn, the exchange,
and the game. 21...cxd5 22.exd5 is not to be preferred, since it
opens a crucial diagonal against Black’s king, but once again counterattacking
with 21...Rb8 is the best option. After 22.Bxc5 dxc5 23.Ba4 Qd8 24.Bxc6
Bg5 25.Qc2 Ne7 26.Bb5 White is up a pawn with the better position, but
Black can try to keep fighting. |
| Jason had seen enough, and resigned. |
|
|
W. Townshend (UNR) - S. Stidd (1817)
[E31/08] Nimzo-Indian: Leningrad
Internet,1998
|
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5
| The Leningrad variation of the Nimzo-Indian defense
was, famously, a favorite of Boris Spassky, who scored many sparkling victories
with it. In the Nineties regular practitioners included Bareev, Yermolinsky
and Yusupov, as well as the talented young players Dao Thien Hai, Irina
Krush, and Krishnan Sashikiran. Generally the first player will have
a small initiative, for which Black is compensated by White’s poor pawn
structure, especially the weak pawn on c3. Theory resolutely regards
this line as equal. |
| White has some other options here. NCO
suggests 10.Qc2 Qe7 11.Bd3 g5 12.Bg3 b5 13.cxb5 Nxd5 14.Bf2 with equality.
10.e4 is also sometimes played, but given that Black has over a 60% success
rate against it, it is probably not best. |
| This flexible move is usually played at some point,
and allows Black to continue responding to White along covered ground. |
| Now we are back in the main line. 11.Qb1 has
also been tried here with some success, controlling f5 and eyeing b7.
After 11.Qc2 g5 12.Bg3 b5 we are back in the note to White’s 10th. |
12...e4
| This move is somewhat controversial, leading to
positions rated as unclear by BCO2 and as better for White by NCO.
At the time I only had BCO2, though, so I decided to play into it.
It’s a good thing I did, since otherwise I might have missed the chance
to play an interesting novelty at move 16. |
| This is the position that BCO2 assessed as
unclear. 14...Ne5 is also a try, but in these positions Black probably
does not have enough for the pawn, and he lost (though this was more due
to sending the queen on a pawn-hunt too early than to the opening per se)
in Timman-Kudrin, Wijk an Zee 1985. 14...Qxe4? is incorrect, as after
15.Bxd6 Qxg2 16.Ng3 Black’s king is more exposed and his position is looser
than White’s. |
| This countersacrifice is surely White’s best try
for an advantage in the position. |
| After this move the position is regarded by NCO
as better for White, and indeed Yrjola-Schlusser, Nordic Championship 1985
led to a White victory. I am not sure matters are so clear, however.
Instead 16.Nc1 has been played twice, leading to a win in Timman-Hulak,
Zagreb 1985 after 16...Ne4 17.Qf3 but a loss nine years later in Sokolov-Morovic
Fernandez, Wijk an Zee 1994 after 16...Ne4 17.Nd3 Nxg3. Hulak’s evaluation
of 16.Nc1 in Informant 39, however, was dim (‘?!’), and he recommended
instead 16.Qd3 with the idea that the position was equal after 16...e4
and 17...Bf5. His justification for this claim lay in the possibility
of responding to17.Qf3 with 17...Nd6 (!, Hulak) instead of 17...Nxg3, which
justifies Timman’s queen move. Hulak claims that this is good for
Black, citing the line 18.Nd3 Nxc4! 19.Qe4 b5 20.0-0 (20.d6 Bb7!?) 20...f5
21.Rxf5 Bxf5 22.Qxf5 Qf7 where it is not quite clear for what White has
given up the exchange. |
16...Ng4!?
| This is the novelty in this game, although at the
time I played it I was just working out of BCO2 and so had been
on my own since move 14. The Yrjola-Schlusser game continued 16...Bg4
and after 17.0-0 0-0-0?! White’s attack on the queenside proved to be worth
much more than Black’s on the kingside. The purpose of my move is
to work on developing Black’s kingside, simultaneously getting the knight
out of the way of the f-pawn and making a threat. Of course moves
developing the bishop are safer, but the ideal location for the bishop
(along the b1-h7 diagonal) is currently controlled by the white queen. |
| This is a blunder, justifying Black’s idea.
Fritz is superficially attracted to 17.h3? Nxe3 18.Qe4 Nf5, but this is
a mistake; after 19.Qxe5 Qxe5 20.Bxe5 0-0 White cannot castle due
to the threat of Ne3, winning the pawn on c4, and if he leaves his king
in the center ...Re8 will be strong. If White tries instead 19.0-0
this line becomes a true gambit after 19...Nxg3 20.Nxg3 0-0 and I find
it hard to believe that he has compensation. |
| The best, and possibly only, move here is 17.Qd3,
where Black can either try to block things up with 17...e4, transposing
to the position judged equal by Hulak after 18.Qd2 Bf5 and a subsequent
...Nf6, or play 17...f5 18.0-0 and now 18...Bd7 followed by ...b6, ...0-0-0,
and attacking on the kingside seems like a possibility. (Fritz likes
18...h5, which is optically impressive, but it’s hard to believe that Black
can really attack like this already with so little development accomplished.) |
| Now I would maintain that Black is better.
White has wasted a move with his queen, and Black’s bishop is controlling
the most important diagonal on the board. This position is an argument
against using computers in postal chess, which is illegal in any case.
Fritz favors starting an attack immediately with 17...f5, but these lines
peter out to even at best, while this move does not occur anywhere among
the strong program’s top choices, but it clearly leads to a better game
for Black. |
| It would be pointless to drive the knight back with
18.h3, since the bishop’s presence on f5 secures the very strong e4 square
for him in any event. |
| Now that White’s KN is no longer defending the bishop
on g3, e4 is all the more attractive a posting for this adventurous fellow! |
| I’m not sure this move of mine is so good.
It does soften up White’s kingside pawns for the coming attack, but on
e4 this knight was a monster, dominating many important squares in White’s
position. On the other hand White’s bishop on g3 was not exactly
a valueless piece either. In any case I don’t lose my advantage with
this move but simply 21...b6 may have been better. |
24...a5!
| Did I mention that the 1972 Spassky-Fischer match
would come up again? This is really Fischer’s exclamation point rather
than my own. In Game 5 of that match, where Fischer equalized the
score by winning with the Nimzo-Indian as Black, the challenger played
this move in response to Spassky’s a4 thrust. His idea was that the
weakness on b6 was more than compensated for by the blocked position that
resulted, which doomed Spassky’s light-squared bishop to passivity throughout
the game, as Gligoric explains in his famous book on the match. The
situation here is different; Fischer’s king was safely tucked away
on the kingside, and both sides had more pieces left on the board.
But my king can defend b6, and because my bishop is controlling the b1-square
it will be hard for White to get his rooks to the b-file and develop an
attack. I felt that by the time White could rearrange his pieces
effectively my kingside pawn storm would come crashing through, and this
was certainly justified by the play that followed. Nonetheless, I
don’t know that such a move would have occurred to me without Fischer’s
example, so many thanks to our American world champion! |
| Now that Black has blockaded the potentially dangerous
passed d-pawn, White has to come up with something to do. He decides
on the extremely long knight maneuver Na1-c2-a3-b5, getting his knight
to a great square but at the cost of four moves. I have to strike
now... |
| 29.Nb5 is not really any better; after 29...Rd7
30.Qf2 f5 31.e4 hxg3 32.Qxg3 Qf6, 33.exf5 is thwarted by 33...Rdh7, winning. |
| Opening a path for my QR to get to the h-file and
protecting e5. |
| If 36.Nc6, I had planned 36...R8h3!, deciding matters
instantly: after 37.Qf2 g3 38.Qg1 Rh1 39.gxh3 (or 39.Qxh1 Rxh1 40.Rxh1
Qg4+ 41.Ke1 Qe4 with similar problems as in the game continuation) 39...Rxg1
40.Rxg1 Qh5+ 41.Ke1 Qf3 and now the combined threats of Qxe3 and Bd3 are
impossible to defend against. |
| White is lost; 37.Rxh1 Rxh1+ 38.Ke2 Qf5! is
simply a faster version of what happened in the game. |
39...Qf5!
| Attacking on the light squares with brutal effect.
The immediate threat is 40...Qf1#. Moving the rook away along the
second rank allows 40...Qf1+ and 41...Qd1#, and 40.Rd1 runs into 40...Qc2+
41.Rd2 Bd3+ 42.Kf2 Qxd2#. So White has to try... |
| This wins because there is no defense against the
threat of ...Qxc4+ with heavy loss of material or mate to follow.
A fitting end to a Nimzo-Indian; White cannot defend the very pawn
weakness he accepted in exchange for the bishop pair! |
|
|
Continued in Part II
|
|
© 2000 Sean
Stidd
|
|
