It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:31 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #101 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:04 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4881
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 664
"not blindly playing joseki and always carefully thinking about the meaning of your moves" is right but "Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".

"LZ doesn't think this is locally sente": Uh, no. LZ considers global sente here. Locally, it might be sente for human analysis but maybe LZ does not use any such local analysis. LZ thinks globally, wouldn't you agree?

Clear guidelines by professionals? I have hardly ever found them clear. It has been easier to develop my own clear guidelines than to follow those of professionals, such as "Follow the natural flow of the game like water!" (Saijo Masataka et al).

6d by conventional wisdom? Could be. I have had a similar thought yesterday: pincers are ok up to 6d but 7d really prefer corner territory.

"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #102 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:17 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1518
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 218
Was liked: 681
Rank: KGS 1d OGS 1d Fox 4d
KGS: Artevelde
OGS: Knotwilg
RobertJasiek wrote:
"not blindly playing joseki and always carefully thinking about the meaning of your moves" is right but "Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".


Correct. I think that's what the page implies. You could interpret it as "learning to then follow blindly loses 2 stones", "learning to become better at choosing good moves wins 3 stones".

Quote:
"LZ doesn't think this is locally sente": Uh, no. LZ considers global sente here. Locally, it might be sente for human analysis but maybe LZ does not use any such local analysis. LZ thinks globally, wouldn't you agree?


Right. What I meant to say was "contrary to the pro advice, this move is not sente, i.e. the local answer is not best answer". I wrote "not locally sente", which is confusing.

Quote:
Clear guidelines by professionals? I have hardly ever found them clear. It has been easier to develop my own clear guidelines than to follow those of professionals, such as "Follow the natural flow of the game like water!" (Saijo Masataka et al).


I have been equally frustrated with Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals, which often come down to "in order to play well, play well". But I'm making a synthesis here, quoting opposing views in the debate "should we revise conventional wisdom with bot analysis".

Quote:
"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)


Indeed :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #103 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:31 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9443
Liked others: 2956
Was liked: 3156
Many thanks, Knotwilg. :) This is a position which impressed me greatly from Fujisawa's book. And Fujisawa was a remarkable player. :D In fact, this example and the one recently discussed by Uberdude at https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=251601#p251601 both illustrate an idea I got from Sakata, which is to ask the question, Can I get more? In both cases Fujisawa goes for more, but LZ says, You ask for too much. Maybe so, but asking myself it I can get more was worth one stone to me as a dan player. :)

My main takeaway from your discussion of LZ's play has to do with sente.

Knotwilg wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Playing actively
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . 2 . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . B B 1 . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Now to the leaning maneuver. LZ doesn't think this is locally sente and has Black counterattack with :b2:.


Well, OC :w1: is not sente, once LZ does not reply. :lol: I do recall being surprised when Fujisawa said it was, but Fujisawa is Fujisawa. ;) OC, LZ is only LZ, but I can back up LZ's non reply. Without reading it out, I can see that even if Black has to give up the :bc: stones he lives in the corner. Edit: Well it is not global sente, anyway.

Quote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Taking sente
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . a 1 . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , B . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


First of all, what LZ really wants to do here is be the first to play in the open asymmetric corner. So she settles the top with :w1:, which apparently makes :b2: urgent and so she can turn to the lower right with :w3:


:w1: is a nice, solid play that avoids the thinness of the joseki play at a. The need for :b2: is not obvious to me. Food for thought. :)

For me, one nice thing about LZ and other bots not offering explanations is that I am forced to think for myself. For instance, if LZ had shown Fujisawa's leaning attack, I would have thought about what White was threatening instead of just saying, Oh yeah. ;)

Quote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Kikasare again
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


For instance, LZ shows the turn, :w3: as sente, but now I can see that Black replies at :b4:, not because White's threat on the left is greater, but because, after the exchange, :w1: - :b2:, White's threat on the top side is smaller. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #104 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:40 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9443
Liked others: 2956
Was liked: 3156
Knotwilg wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:
"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)


Indeed :)


My impression is that today's top bots tenuki more than humans do, but they do not always bother to settle first. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #105 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:57 am 
Oza

Posts: 2465
Liked others: 15
Was liked: 3557
Quote:
Myself I may still lean and cap. But I find it interesting that the bots say: settle and play elsewhere.


In compiling the Go Wisdom appendix/index for Games of Shuei, I was struck (and surprised) by how often the theme of "settling" came up in various commentaries - over 100 examples. It was interesting to me also that gowan, who knows Japanese, mentioned the phrase kettei uchi recently. One of the problems with reading translated texts is that different translators may use different (i.e. inconsistent) terms for the same original, consistent term. I think it may be fair to say, therefore, that the concept settling appears as a more prominent concept in the Japanese used by pros than in the English read by western amateurs. In other words, the pros are not as out of synch with bot play as those amateur readers. So, well spotted.

But rather than continuing to misrepresent what pros say, my sense of the 100+ comments is not that they are recommending settling over tenuki or anything else, or vice versa. It is rather that they identify a grander strategic aim and recommend settling as a way of achieving that (e.g. rather than start a direct attack, they will settle their own weak groups first - but there is quite a range of applications). Again, I infer that pros are not necessarily as out of synch with bots as some amateurs imply.

Quote:
"Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".


In similar vein, criticising Japanese pros for what they haven't said is really what is wrong. The usual Japanese proverb doesn't even mention two stones - it just says you become weaker. But the Japanese proverb begins "joseki oboete", and if you look up oboeru in a good J-E dictionary such as the Green Goddess this is how it begins: "commit to memory; fix in one's mind; remember; know; get by heart; memorise." Nelson begins: "remember; memorise". So where does the sense of "learn" (= understand) come from?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #106 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:28 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1518
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 218
Was liked: 681
Rank: KGS 1d OGS 1d Fox 4d
KGS: Artevelde
OGS: Knotwilg
Hi John

First of all, I'm happy that, when I present the material more cautiously, you seem more appreciative of it. Even if you didn't necessarily shout at me personally, I think most of the heat in the debate comes from suggesting that "the pros are proven wrong by the bots", while it's more "our interpretation of pro wisdom is proven doubtful by the bots". You keep emphasizing that pro thinking is demonstrably closer to bot evaluation than our vigorous attacks on conventional wisdom imply and I for one will honor that corrective reminder. So, when using "conventional wisdom", I mean "the amalgamate of direct advice by professionals up to Go Seigen, advice distilled into books by ghost writers and teachings by Western amateurs of variable reliability". That's a mouthful :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
The usual Japanese proverb doesn't even mention two stones - it just says you become weaker. But the Japanese proverb begins "joseki oboete", and if you look up oboeru in a good J-E dictionary such as the Green Goddess this is how it begins: "commit to memory; fix in one's mind; remember; know; get by heart; memorise." Nelson begins: "remember; memorise". So where does the sense of "learn" (= understand) come from?


Can we take the original Japanese proverb and turn it into a better English proverb so that we can get rid of the bad proverb? Any suggestions?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #107 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:46 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9443
Liked others: 2956
Was liked: 3156
John Fairbairn wrote:
The usual Japanese proverb doesn't even mention two stones - it just says you become weaker.


The Japanese Wikipedia article ( https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/定石 ) has the two stones version, as do other Japanese sites.

Quote:
But the Japanese proverb begins "joseki oboete", and if you look up oboeru in a good J-E dictionary such as the Green Goddess this is how it begins: "commit to memory; fix in one's mind; remember; know; get by heart; memorise." Nelson begins: "remember; memorise". So where does the sense of "learn" (= understand) come from?


Well, yeah, memorize is the first meaning, but there are others, including learn. But I agree that memorize is what the proverb intends, certainly not understand.

Knotwilg wrote:
Can we take the original Japanese proverb and turn it into a better English proverb so that we can get rid of the bad proverb? Any suggestions?


"Memorize joseki and get two stones weaker" or the like would be a better translation. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #108 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:10 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8931
Liked others: 1510
Was liked: 1528
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
I agree that oboeru can mean “learn” in some contexts; learn can even mean memorize in english (e.g. learn something by heart).

As usual, context matters. And here, I think it’s obvious that the meaning leans more toward “memorize”. Why would knowing some reasonable sequences make you weaker? Memorizing a sequence and repeating it without thinking is obviously what’s dangerous.

And that’s not just for joseki - it applies to the new stuff we learn from AI, too.

Learn what pros think; learn what AI thinks; then think for yourself!

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #109 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:27 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1518
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 218
Was liked: 681
Rank: KGS 1d OGS 1d Fox 4d
KGS: Artevelde
OGS: Knotwilg
(Sorry for probably going too fast in publishing, but since Bill has already read the first chunk of analysis, I want to continue on a number of variations - should we make a new thread for the position itself?)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Playing actively
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . b . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


As mentioned on the SL page too, the real "sin" is probably to exchange A for B. If we omit the exchange, then LZ seems to like the idea of leaning and/or capping much more.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Turn and play elsewhere
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . b . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X 1 . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


This is LZ's first idea. The top remains pretty hot but first the lower left will be settled, or rather they will settle simultaneously.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Playing actively
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . b . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . 2 4 X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . 3 . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . 1 . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


The second idea is to cap immediately. :w5: is a leaning maneuver more typical of bots (a shoulder hit) fixing a weakness in the surrounding stones, which apparently urges Black to live with :b6:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Playing actively
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . b . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . 3 . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


This inspires LZ (if I may say so) to explore the shoulder hit as a starting move, with a similar result.

%%%%

These three moves get the following metrics
- the turn: 18k 55,3%
- the cap: 6k 55,2%
- the shoulder hit: 3k 55,6%

These are the main moves LZ explores on her own account. The slide starting the "catenaccio joseki" is discarded after 250 playouts, giving 53%


This post by Knotwilg was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #110 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:34 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9443
Liked others: 2956
Was liked: 3156
Kirby wrote:
I agree that oboeru can mean “learn” in some contexts; learn can even mean memorize in english (e.g. learn something by heart).

As usual, context matters. And here, I think it’s obvious that the meaning leans more toward “memorize”. Why would knowing some reasonable sequences make you weaker? Memorizing a sequence and repeating it without thinking is obviously what’s dangerous.

And that’s not just for joseki - it applies to the new stuff we learn from AI, too.

Learn what pros think; learn what AI thinks; then think for yourself!


I grew up avoiding rote memorization, if possible. However, humans have a long history of memorization, going back before civilization and certainly before writing. :) It has its place, I think. Not in memorizing joseki, because we don't know if joseki are correct, and certainly the rest of the board matters. But I think that memorizing life and death, including all variations and relevant stones, can be useful. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #111 Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:48 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8931
Liked others: 1510
Was liked: 1528
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Probably, memorization isn’t completely distinct from the thinking process. It reminds me a little bit of that “chunking” concept.

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #112 Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:51 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 363
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Liked others: 142
Was liked: 184
Rank: Australian 2 dan
GD Posts: 200
Knotwilg wrote:
Of course we can say, what works for Fujisawa works for me, or we shouldn't care about the crazy things LZ says, we can still learn from conventional wisdom, carefully developed knowledge by professionals, crystallized into clear guidelines. And if we play by yesterday's pros standards, we are still at least 6d today.

First of all Knotwilg, many thanks for the interesting example and great analysis!

I find myself wondering if LZ is identifying the next level of trick play here. I can sometimes find moves that I know are wrong but are more effective than the "proper" moves against a 10k opponent. And high dan players have no trouble doing the same to me in handicap games. I guess the top pros are still fine-tuning their judgement based on feedback of the form "this worked against a human" without any way of knowing for sure that they've found the "best" move. (And I'm not saying that LZ knows best either, just that it's giving us a different perspective.)


This post by xela was liked by 2 people: Gomoto, Knotwilg
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism
Post #113 Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:48 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1495
Location: Earth
Liked others: 561
Was liked: 239
I always have a bad feeling when I play a mediocre move and I know already my opponent will answer in a suboptimal way. But perhaps this is just part of go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group