Weekend 2

[photos, pgn]


Oxford 1

Oxford 1 2237 Cheddleton 1 2372
w Zakarian, David 2379 1 – 0 Gormally, Daniel W g 2520
b Harvey, Marcus R 2346 0 – 1 Hebden, Mark L g 2516
w Eckersley-Waites, Tom 2267 0 – 1 Hawkins, Jonathan m 2480
b Rose, Matthew 2282 1 – 0 Eggleston, David f 2367
w Dickinson, Tim R 2152 0 – 1 Arkell, Keith CC g 2429
b Smallbone, Kieran D 2219 ½ – ½ Bellin, Robert m 2355
w White, Michael JR f 2229 1 – 0 Van Weersel, Arlette wm 2189
b Miranda Gonzalez, Nicole 2027 1 – 0 McKenna, Jason P 2121
4½ – 3½

David Zakarian, as reported in more detail here, won in some style after a tricksy game against Danny Gormally, where his prepared 2. b3 anti-Sicilian led to some novel formations after a Dragon-style response from the GM. I particularly liked 17. f5! which keeps the Bg7 quiet at the risk of long-term pawn problems – if things don’t work out.

Zakarian – Gormally (W, 23)

The crux of the game comes as early as 23.c5! throwing another pawn to the fire while attempting to promote the d-pawn. 23. … Bh6+ preferring a blockade 24.Kb2 Bf4 25.c6 Be5 26.Rxe5! fxe5 27.Nb5 Rd8 28.Kb3 a5 29.c4 bxc3

30.Kxc3 gxf5 which seems to have stemmed the flow while holding two extra pawns, but the impressive black armies are now liquidated as the Knight dances in and out with 31.Nxd6! Rh6 32.Nxf5 Rxc6+ 33.dxc6 Rxd1 34.Kc2 Rd8 35.c7 Ra8 36.Ne7+ Kg7 37.c8Q Rxc8+ 38.Nxc8 and 1-0 (46).

Hebden – Harvey (37, B)

Marcus survived the grilling that Mark Hebden normally provides those coming to test his repertoire with the White pieces, but the ending he reaches before time control is difficult – the d-pawn is quite weak, and even if it can be saved it will be at the expense of concessions elsewhere. 37…. h5 38.g3 Kf6 39.Kf3 R8d7 40.Ke4 e6 and, just in time for the time control, this more or less prevents direct annexation of the pawn. Unfortunately for Black, there’s another hole in the ship that can’t be plugged: 41.c5! bxc5 42.Rxc5 Rb6 Marcus now accepts that continuing to defend the d-pawn is pointless, and looks for compensation elsewhere … 43.Rxd4 Ra7 44.g4 hxg4 45.hxg4 a5 46.g5+ Ke7 47.Ke5 is virtually zugzwang, so ... … 1-0 (63).

On Board 3 Tom was the more actively placed (for 1-2 pawns deficit) but in reality his rook was virtually trapped, and a series of retreats and a side-stepping king ensured its demise:

Eckersley-Waites,T - Hawkins,J

28…. Ng4 29.Nxc5 Bc8 30.Nd3 Ke8 31.Bd5 Nh6 32.Nc5 Kf8 33.Rxd7 Bxd7 34.Nxd7+ Ke7 and the compensation never materialised (as it were) 0-1 (58)

Matt’s game — (the last to finish) looked at an earlier stage a candidate for an earlier resignation, by the other player. Compare these two positions:

Eggleston — Rose (B, 22)

Eggleston — Rose (W, 34)

and you can see the amount of progress that Black has made towards saving the game. Black has freed up his position quite a bit, even though White has managed to retain that extra pawn. CB Lite sees it still as more or less +1, probably accurate enough as the relative strengths of each remaining rook cancel each other out, and the kings are inactive passengers. But, with time control approaching, White error-ed out with some inaccuracies, which cumulatively first lost the advantage, then a couple of pawns: 34.c6? (Kb2) Rb1+ 35.Rb2 Rc1 36.Rh7 Rxf3+ 37.Ka4 Rfc3 38.Rb6 Kg6 and now the c-pawn is stopped, the White rooks cannot prevent the f-pawn from marching down the board. 39.Rc7 f4 40.Rb4 f3 41.Rbb7 Rxc6 and 0-1 (61)

Board 5 featured a curious end to an entertaining and creative game by Tim:

Dickinson — Arkell (W, 40)

Tim has sacrificed a piece, but in this position he resigns (0-1) because 40. g4 will prevent his king from joining the fray via h3-g4, and 40 … Rg8 will force off the rooks and leave an easy enough win for Black. True enough as far as it goes, but does White have to exchange rooks? After 40. g4 Rg8; is 41 Rh6 an alternative? Moves by the bishop will allow Rc6 (or better), while 41. … Kg7 42. Rg6+ forces a repeat of the position.

On Board 6, Kieran played a game which ensured the win by securing the “½” in 4½, and offered his scoresheet to the journalist in the event that nothing more interesting emerged. As it happens, things did heat up in due course, but here’s the end of

Bellin — Smallbone (B, 28)

Play continued 28.... Nxd2 29.Kxd2 Kf7 30.a4 and the hands were shaken (½-½, 40) at the time control — a little puzzling to see which bone was being fought over here in the remaining 12 moves. (Maybe it was a Smallbone? — Ed.)

So, one down with two to play, and the bottom boards ended late, but in our favour:

White — Van Weersel (B, 31)

Mike had recovered from something approaching equality in the opening to rebuild to this position, when this part of the crowd was asking how White would break through after 31. … Na6, when the c7 pawn seems secure. Instead Arlette dashed our hopes and played 31…. Nxe4+ 32.fxe4 Rxe4 33.Rd3 Rf4+ when Mike had a different task to win, which happened on move 53. Most likely she refused the defensive 31...Na6 because after 32.Nc6! Rd7 33.gxh5 gxh5, the Na6 is dominated by the Nc6 and Black is condemned to sit and wait for the axe to fall in one of many weak places.

This left the all-Oxford clash on bottom board, which saw Nicole steadily accumulate pawns while not getting phased by the apparent pressure being ranked (and f-filed) against her, while two diagrams show the influence of the Black-squared bishop:

1. McKenna — Miranda (W, 23)

2. McKenna — Miranda (B, 23)

In diagram 1, Jason decided to carry on attacking: 23.Ne4 Bxe3+ 24.Kh1 f6 etc, although in retrospect the more sober draw obtainable with 23. Qxg5 hxg5; 24. Rh3+ Kg8; 25. Bh7+ was better; while in diagram 2, the bishop returns with versatility in attack and defence to conclude proceedings: 33.Qe8 Bxd6 34.Rd3 Bf8 35.Rfd1 Qf2 36.Ne3 Bc5 37.Ng4 Qxc2 38.Rd8 Rf8 39.Nxf6+ Rxf6 40.Qg8+ Kg6 41.R8d3 Qxd3 0-1

Oxford 2

KJCA Kings 2075 Oxford 2 1997
w Khandelwal, Ankush 2219 1 – 0 Nixon, Rodney 2011
b Jones, Victor GL 2207 1 – 0 Ludbrook, Matthew 1999
w Jones, William EG 2111 1 – 0 Hayward, Philip T 2002
b Ball, Laurence 2055 ½ – ½ Colburn, Paul 1995
w Maguire, Robert 1922 1 – 0 Rawlinson, Christopher JA 2055
b Bayliss, Lyall CP 1937 1 – 0 Woolacott, Samuel 1922
5½ – ½

Things in Division 3 on Saturday didn’t start that well. Though getting well used to arriving on time these days – benefits include the quick shower and Footie Focus before sitting down at the board – plans this time went askew as some mangled hotel administration left at least some of us waiting til after 2pm before allocating room keys.

All this happened before the prize giving, which conferred, inter alia, some annual bouquets on Witney CC; then we had confirmation that Dugg had picked up some bug in Sri Lanka which prevented travel (so Oxford 3 were down to 5 players). Then we got another quick call that confirmed we were down to 5 players on Oxford 2:

Maguire - Rawlinson,C (W, 7)

To quote the pgn, which eloquently provided the match report: “7.Be3 f6 Death by mobile phone.”

Infrequent visits to the match suggested things weren’t going that well over the board, either, and where we weren’t getting drilled, we were gnawsing it up ourselves. On top board, Rod was cruising to a +2.5 advantage to the diagram, when a self-destruct button came into view:

Khandelwal – Nixon (B, 25)
25. … Bxe2 26.Nxe2 1-0

On board 2, Matt L seemed to be going through his well-rehearsed Tarrasch routines, and was sitting fairly well in this position:

Ludbrook – Jones V (B, 15)

Not the most exciting position you’ll ever see, but our guy doesn’t have the backward pawn. And Black thought it a good idea to open up the position: 15. … e5?! 16.Nxe5 Bf5 17.Kg2 Nxd4 when my monster awards this a +0.50 to White, but after 18.Bxe4 Bxe4+ 19.f3 Nc2 20.Qe2 Nxa1 the position has been reversed (-1.75 and 0-1, 40) so it’s legitimate to ask what’s gone wrong in the meantime. The computer cleverly suggests instead 18.Bc4! dxc4 19.Qxd4 when there are standard threats (Qxc4; Qc4+ and Nf7+) to bother Black.

Jones,W - Hayward (B, 18)

On board 3, Phil got himself into the sort of mess any Alekhine player will recognise (diagram) and then decided to hit his way out of trouble, when perhaps some stodge (… Nc5) might have been more effective. As it was, there followed a neat mopping up of material operation by White: 18…. d5 19.c5 d4 20.cxb6 dxe3 21.Rc7 Re8 22.Rd1 Re7 23.Rdxd7 1-0

Sam Woolacott on 5 seemed to be dynamically equal in an endgame (slightly worse pawns, but hey ho), lost a pawn, then the game ended up in a loss (on time?):

Woolacott – Bayliss (B, 31)
31…. Rc1+ 32.Ke2 Rc2 33.e5 Rc5 0-1

This left the only shaft of light in Paul Colburn’s draw on board 5 – where his opponent successfully defended a rook ending a pawn light.

Oxford 3

SCS 1810 Oxford 3 1757
w Jarvis, Derek A 2018 0 – 1 Neatherway, A Philip 1925
b Heard, Andrew H 1930 1 – 0 Terry, Sean 1926
w Taylor, Robert P 1976 0 – 1 Henbest, Kevin B 1725
b Lutton, J Arnold 1815 1 – 0
w Graham, Neil 1762 0 – 1 Asatryan, Robert 1610
b Ballard, Edward 1362 0 – 1 Irving, Alastair 1602
2 – 4

Oxford 3 overcame a 1.5 deficit to win 4 – 2. My own loss on board 2 blinded me to the success on all the other boards, so it’s time to review these:

Jarvis - Neatherway (31, B)

Phil’s game was a largely manoeuvring one, where White tried to push queenside pawns, and Black the central pawns. By the diagram, it’s visually clear who has succeeded in strategy and play continued 31. … e3? [Fritz: 31...Bxf2+ 32.Kh1 e3 when 33.Bxc4+ is met as in the game] 32.Bxc4+? [Fritz: 32. Rxc4 will hold, with a piece to the good in a position complicated by that f-pawn] Qxc4 0-1

On board 3 Kevin picked up a pawn early, and didn’t relinquish the reins much til the run-in, when there were some nervous moments around then:

Taylor - Henbest

27…. cxb4 (Nxb4) 28.Qd3 Qe4? 29.Nxe3? (29.Rxe3!) Qxd3 30.exd3 Re8 31.Kf2 0-1 as … Bd1 will scoop the pool.

Board 5 saw the debut of David’s son, who fended off some tricky stuff in the Blackmar Diemer, before dealing with the unsound stuff:

Graham - Asatryan

14.g4? Bxe5! 15.dxe5 Qg6 16.h3 Bxg4! (neat) 17.Re3 Bxh3+ 18.Rg3 Qf5 19.Rf3 Qg4+ 20.Rg3 Qxc4 21.Rxh3 Nd7 0-1

while Alastair recorded his first win this season for the team when Black lost control of his piece placement – and he scooped them up:

Irving – Ballard (W, 18)

18.e6 fxe6 19.Bxe6+ Rxe6 20.Rxe6 Nd8 21.Re8+ Kf7 22.Rxd8 a5 23.R1xd7+ Bxd7 24.Rxa8 and 1-0 (41)


Oxford 1

Guildford 2 2316 Oxford 1 2201
w Sarakauskas, Gediminas m 2403 1 – 0 Zakarian, David 2379
b Plat, Vojtech m 2425 ½ – ½ Rose, Matthew 2282
w Ciuksyte, Dagne m 2353 1 – 0 Eckersley-Waites, Tom 2267
b Wall, Gavin m 2330 1 – 0 Dickinson, Tim R 2152
w Hunt, Daniel 2274 1 – 0 Smallbone, Kieran D 2219
b Osborne, Marcus 2255 0 – 1 White, Michael JR f 2229
w Thompson, Ian D f 2281 0 – 1 Rawlinson, Christopher JA 2055
b Granat, Russell G 2213 1 – 0 Miranda Gonzalez, Nicole 2027
5½ – 2½

The appearance of Nigel Short in kibitzer / spectator mode during the Saturday game meant only one thing — Guildford 1 was noticeably stronger this weekend, and this meant in turn that Guildford 2’s average rating leapt from 2189 (Round 2) to 2316 for this round.

Sarakauskas - Zakarian (25, B)

Rose - Plat (W, 17)

On top board an interesting technical struggle in an opening which seemed to cross nomenclative boundaries but which was probably a Pirc, and David’s 11…. c5 was ambitious and committed both sides to finding play in a new enough position (or so I reckon). By the diagram position it’s clear White has won the piece placement battle, as the Bf5 has no easy retreat after 25.g4 so it’s time to go random with Bxg4 26.hxg4 Qxg4 27.Qd3 Qh4+ 28.Kg1 Ng4 29.Qg3 Qh5 and 1-0 (35).

Meantime, on board 2, Matt finds an interesting way of exploiting the white-squared geometry of the black pieces: 17.Nxd5 Qxd5 18.Bc4 Qd6 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.d5 Nc7 21.Qc3+ Qf6 22.Rxe8 Qxc3 23.Rxc3 Nxe8 24.dxc6 bxc6 which is enough to secure a pawn on move 29, and a lasting initiative — but Black struggled as Matt had the previous day and was rewarded with a draw (½ — ½, 49).

A fantastic game on board 3 saw fireworks all the way to the ending, and then a long session spent converting the advantage. Initially it seemed like Tom had the advantage:

Ciuksyte,D - Eckersley-Waites,T (B, 19)

as the fireworks started with 19…. Nxd5 20.Nxf7 (Nce4) Rxc4 21.Nxd5 Qxd5 (Rxc1) 22.Nh6+ gxh6 23.Qg4+ (bxc4) Kf7 (Bg5) — some computer-generated options are bracketed — leading to play which fluctuated in terms of evaluation but generally saw Black on top, missing some chances (36. … Bf1!) in a random position to find clear advantage — after the time control, the position edged back towards White:

(44, W)

44.Rh5+ Kd4 45.e5 dxe5 46.Rhxe5 Nd2 47.h4 Rh6 when White slowly pushed those pawns upfield to exchange each, for one of the black minor pieces: 48.Kh3 Be4 49.Re8 Rd6 50.g4 Bd5 51.g5 Ne4 52.Kg4 Nf2+ 53.Kg3 Ne4+ 54.Kf4 Nf2 55.R1e2 Nd3+ 56.Kg4 Bc6 57.R8e7 Bd7+ 58.Kg3 Bf5 59.h5 Rd5 60.g6 Bxg6 61.hxg6 Rg5+ 62.Kf3 Rxg6 63.Rd7+ Kc4 64.Re4+ 1-0

On board 4, Tim was looking to take advantage of the unprotected Ne5, but found it had decided on much the same plan, in reverse:

Dickinson — Wall (B, 16)

16. … Nxd3! 17.cxd3 exd3 18.Qe3 Qc6+ 19.Kh2 Bc5 — these three pawns are more than value for the piece, but there’s more to come: 20.Qf4 Kb8 21.Bd2 Rd4 22.Qg5 h6 23.Qxg7 Rh7 0-1

On 5, Kieran lost a pawn early to a youngster who refused to allow much counterplay in what had become a Sicilian of sorts, while Mike White completed his 100% weekend with an efficient win against Marcus Osborne, who had an exchange sacrifice foisted on him on move 18. Meanwhile, on Board 6 there had been a lot of pauses and headscratching in the game involving Chris Rawlinson, including a long time spent over (if memory serves) move 13 — but no tell-tale telephone sounds that had spoiled his game the day before, which meant that Chris was well in with a shout. The game ended with White showing a marginal plus, but uncorking a maximal error:

Thompson - Rawlinson,C

22.Rad1 f3 23.Nxf3 Nf4 24.Qc3 Rxd1 ahhhh 0-1

To end, Nicole may have had some idea of what was about to hit in what a cricket commentator might have called her “f3 / h3 areas”, as a few moves earlier Russell had decided not to nab an exchange:

Miranda Gonzalez - Granat (W, 22)

23.Qd2 Qh6 24.Rae1 Rfxf3 25.gxf3 Qxh3+ 26.Qh2 Bxf3+ 0-1

Oxford 2

Oxford 2 1982 Gloucestershire Gambits 1982
w Nixon, Rodney 2011 0 – 1 Hosken, Nigel K 2124
b Panayotov, Ivo 2053 1 – 0 Martin, Peter 2050
w Pozimski, Szymon 1978 0 – 1 Waterfield, John W 2037
b Terry, Sean 1926 0 – 1 Dodwell, Phil 1924
w Neatherway, A Philip 1925 ½ – ½ Taylor, Geoffrey P 1934
b Ludbrook, Matthew 1999 0 – 1 Baker, Patrick 1826
1½ – 4½

For Oxford 2, could anything have got worse on the Sunday? Absolutely, yes, it could have. And did. A tough match against the Gloucs Gambits saw us nearly approach three points before dramatically collapsing to another wholesome defeat, and if our opponents fought well, we certainly gave them every opportunity…

Ivo played a fine game, recovering from a lost exchange to force a better, then won, position from here:

Martin – Panayotov (B, 35)

35…. Nd4! 36.Rxc8 Nf3+ 37.Kf1 Nxc8 38.Be1 after which the Knights run riot and the d-pawn, when promoted delivered mate (0-1) in 54.

Adding that neat win to a solid draw from Phil N, we seemed to be verging on 2 ½ points when Szymon reached this position from an adventurous opening:

Pozimski – Waterfield (17, B)

When that extra pawn and a 3-1 queenside majority seemed to more than outweigh the two (pesky) bishops. But it wasn’t to be – even if nothing seemed too wrong after 17. … Kf8 18.Nb6 Be6 19.Bc4 Ke7 20.0-0 h6 21.Rfe1 f5 22.Bxe6 Kxe6 in the end that Knight on e4 got to run riot and it was 0-1, 41.

Play at my board was all the more … adjectival. Thanks to an unsound pawn sac, I had reached this position when it’s clear that Black is better. Both queens are attacked and I had three clear options to consider:

Dodwell – Terry (B, 27)

Option (a) 27 … exf3 should win a piece as after 30. Bxc7 Rcb8 leaves both bishops en prise. Messy, but satisfactory enough – Fritz rating: -3.25. Unfortunately I didn’t stop to find Rcb8, so moved on to

Option (b) 27. … Nce5 seemed a lot better, because eventually there will be an invasion on d3 or g4 – Fritz rating: -6.72 rising to -8.00. Here I thought ‘but what if 30. Qd1? My queen is pinned.’ So, for being unable to calculate 27...Nce5 28.Qd1 Nxf4 29.gxf4 Nxd3+ 30.Kf1 Qxf4+ I went for

Option (c) 27.... Nxf4 which after 28.Qxf4 Qxf4+ 29.gxf4 e3+ picks up a Fritz rating of -1.56. You get what you pay for, I suppose, although this rises fairly quickly to -2.53. And stays there until about move 50, after which this position is reached, when I’ve added too many inaccuracies to be in charge of myself, much less the result:

(Black to play)

and the game concludes 54…. Kh5 [54...Rxg5 55.Rxg5 (55.fxg5+ Kg6 56.Rf6+ Kg7) 55...Nxd3 is certainly better, but I couldn’t see straight by now] 55.f5 Rh6 56.Nh3 Nxd3 57.Rg5#

Matt L was just surviving his game on board 6, when it all unravelled again:

Baker - Ludbrook

24…. Re5?? [24...Rac8 25.Rd7 Re2] 25.Nf6! Ng7 26.Bh6 Rg8 27.Nxg8? (Bxg7+ mates in 4) Kxg8 28.Rxg7+ Kh8 29.Ra7 1-0

Last to finish was Rod, who didn’t seem to be favourite here with the two knights ending:

Nixon – Hosken(W, 44)

And the game concluded 44.gxf3 gxf3 45.Ng3 Be3+ 46.Kf1 Bd3+ 47.Ke1 f2+ 48.Kd1 Bf4 0-1, although Fritz points out the little trick 44.Ne5+ with the point … Ke6 45.gxf3 gxf3 (Kxe5 is better) 46.Nxf3.

Oxford 3

Oxford 3 1717 The Full Ponty 1971
w Foster, Chantelle L 1858 0 – 1 Sully, David 2076
b Henbest, Kevin B 1725 0 – 1 Adams, Mark A 2007
w Ehr, Jennifer 1794 ½ – ½ Davies, Peter L 2005
b Asatryan, Robert 1610 0 – 1 Perrett, David 1956
w Irving, Alastair 1602 0 – 1 Thomas, Gary 1909
b 0 – 1 Dixon, Chris 1878
-½ – 5½

An under-manned and understrength team was outgunned by the Full Ponty who weighed in at close to 250 points / board higher.

This didn’t stop Chantelle from giving David Sully (a former Cowley member) a good run for his money:

Foster – Sully (W, 19)

Chantelle played the enterprising 19.Nh6+ gxh6 20.Qg3+ Bg7 21.Rxd5 Qb8 22.Qd3 Nf8 and didn’t quite get enough compensation for the piece. (0-1, 61) Looking again with the computerised beast shows that after 19. Nh6+ gxh6

(a) 20.Rxd5 is well worth a punt as 20...Nxd5 leads to mate in 3: 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qxf7+ and Qxg7#. This would mean that Black might have to consider 20. … Bg7; 21.Bxf6 Bxf6; 22. Qg4+ regains the piece with good play

(b) But if 20. Rxd5 is worth a punt, then Fritz shows that 19. Rxd5 (i.e. from the diagram position) is just better. All the nice looking variations above come into play, except without a piece sacrifice on h6, which is kept in reserve. Play could continue 19.Rxd5 Qb6 20.Nh6+ gxh6 21.Rxd7 Bg7 22.Rxb7 which is quite pleasant for White.

Skipping past Kevin, who dropped a piece against the second of 3 2000 players, Jennifer played very composedly to record a strong draw against the third such:

Ehr – Davies (25, B)

25…. Rc8 26.Nf5 Bxf5 27.Bxf5 Rcd8 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 ½-½

On Robert’s board there was a lot of good play to get to this point, when the position is still double-edged:

Perrett – Asatryan (B, 28)

28. … Rg8 A sensible move. Fritz (as is his wont) offers 28...b4 29.g6 (29.Ne2 fxg5 30.f6 Re4 is better for Black) 29...bxc3 and concludes it's an (exciting) draw: 30.Rxh7+ Kg8 31.Qf1 Qe7 32.Rh8+ Kg7 33.Rh7+ 29.g6 fxg6 Another sensible move, but Fritz prefers ... Rg7.

30.fxg6 Rg7 31.Ne2? [31.Qf5] 31...Qe7 After White's last this is now equal, but not quite as yet drawn. 32.Rxh7+ Rxh7 33.gxh7 Qe4+? 33...Qxh7 is better, when after 34.Qxh7+ Kxh7 35.Nf4 it is easier to defend the black central pawns. 34.Qxe4 dxe4+ 35.Kf4 Kxh7 36.b4 Bd5 37.a3 Kg6 38.Ng3 and the rest of the game (1-0, 51) was easy enough, particularly after the exchange of minor pieces. 1-0

On the last playing board, Alastair got out-theoried and missed a trick – a dangerous thing to happen in the Scandinavian:

Irving,A - Thomas,G (W, 9)

9.Be3 looks innocent enough but now Black seizes the initiative more properly by the reins. Instead 9.Ng5! causes a lot of problems Rxd4 10.Nxe4 Rxd1+ 11.Bxd1 Bxe4 when White seems to be OK, with an exchange 9...Nb4 grrrr 10.0-0 Nc2 11.Qd2 f6! not 11...Nxa1 12.Ng5 Qc2 13.Nxf7 12.Rac1 e5 when 0-1, (25) is, if not inevitable, a not unreasonable outcome.

9 February 2012


View pics.