Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Carlsen and Chess in The New Yorker

| Permalink | 80 comments

A classic and huge (7000 word) New Yorker piece on Magnus Carlsen in this week's New Yorker by DT Max. Unfortunately that's an abstract only since they've put it into their subscriber-only area on the web, but I'm asking them if a few chess sites can run the text in full, or at least excerpt heavily. It's great stuff, far more in-depth than just about any mainstream chess article in memory. The author worked on it for nearly a year. As I said, classic New Yorker. Max spent many interviews with Carlsen and also talked to his early trainers, Kasparov, and various top players during the London Chess Classic.

The piece also spends a lot of time on computers and how they have influenced this generation of chessplayers. Is Carlsen different? What does it mean to be a positional player in the computer age? Instead of just the usual conjecture, he talks to many players about it directly, including Anand. There are also lots of juicy bits that only long interview sessions can produce. Players are used to the chess press and they/we are used to the players. We tend get them only at tournaments and to go through the motions a lot. But the dynamic changes with the mainstream press for some reason. The questions are different, the attitudes are different, and the answers are often very different. (Topalov in the Spanish press comes to mind.) There's more the Kasparov-Carlsen training relationship and split than has been made public, and the bits about Kramnik will also be grist for our commenting mills for a long time to come.

But at its heart it's a piece about Magnus Carlsen, an outside perspective that helps illuminate where and how the former wunderkind sees himself, his chess development, and his rivals. A lot of the piece is given over to Carlsen's own descriptions of his games and what does and doesn't inspire him. It's certainly the "first draft of history" that good journalism aspires to be. It shows Carlsen as a real person, not a caricature. He's young and cocky but also self-deprecating and unsure of being a celebrity instead of a player.

Carlsen is often identified with, as he puts it, the "new Information Age." Certainly before the age of online play it would have been nearly impossible for someone from Norway -- which the British grandmaster Nigel Short has called "a small, poxy chess nation with almost no history of success" -- to rise to No. 1 by the age of nineteen. But Carlsen's casual attitude, Kasparov says, makes him "somehow immune" from the homogenization of modern chess. Carlsen has described himself to Der Spiegel as "chaotic" and said that he had a tendency to be "lazy." In the lead-up to tournaments, when the other players are testing out strategies on their computers, Carlsen is often staying up late playing video games or online poker. Before tournament days, he likes of get plenty of sleep -- optimally, ten or eleven hours -- waking up an hour or two before the start. "It's no secret the the best players' opening preparation is much deeper than mine," Carlsen told me. In London, the went into some games with only the first move chosen; most players typically map out their first dozen or so moves. He believes that things even out because, as he put it, "I'm younger and have more energy, and it's easier to adapt."

Probably my favorite line in the piece is "if Carlsen plays in a tournament in less than clean clothes, chances are that Henrik did not come with him." Grab a print copy just in case we don't get permission to run the full thing online.

Carlsen was already thinking ahead to the Amber chess tournament, which is being played this month, in Monaco. ... "I really, really want to win and restore the power balance." He added, "I just have to improve so much myself now." He was even willing to let someone help him, if that's what it took. In the days after Fashion Week, he had contacted Wesley So, a rising seventeen-year-old Philippine grandmaster, and offered to pay his way to Europe if he would train with him. In London, Carlsen had described So to me as his stylistic opposite. "I think his entire training has been with a computer," he had noted with amazement. When I last spoke to Carlsen, he was in Majorca with So, and they had been working together. Carlsen once told me that if chess ever stopped being fun for him he'd "have to do something else." He added, "If you have that feeling all the time, what's the point of playing?" But, for now, he was appreciating the new training: "We'll see if something good comes of it." If he wound up playing more like other modern players, so be it.

I was honored to spend many hours with the article's author, an abecedarian chessplayer himself, and the equally tenacious fact-checker going over the chess language aspects of the piece and verifying quotes. The time we spent on the Kramnik-Carlsen game from London alone was crazy. (Though I still don't like the way the opening is described almost as if Carlsen didn't play the Chigorin's on purpose.) Aside from it being interesting and sort of a duty to the community and my beloved The New Yorker, I took it as a chance to repay Max for writing one of my favorite books of a few years ago, the fascinating The Family That Couldn't Sleep on prion diseases. Of course there will still be things in the piece that sound odd to we chess folk, inevitable for a mainstream piece that can't spend 200 words explaining zugzwang -- or the subtleties of the Chigorin's Defense.

As accustomed as we all are to "Check!" being presented as fatal and the board being set up the wrong way round in mainstream output, I was very impressed with how much time and effort they put in to getting things right even though only a very tiny percentage of the population (us) would notice the difference. No matter how many times I said things like, "a computer's opening book is a customized database, not an engine" or "when we say white scores 62% it doesn't mean white wins 62% of the games" Max never replied, "who gives a sh*t?" At least not until we got off the phone.



Eventually you can buy and download the iPad version of the complete issue at $5.

Time to buy one of those iPads, I think!

Can't wait to see the full article!

This isn't the mainstream media, but Part II of the extremely in-depth readers' interview with Ruslan Ponomariov has just been published (in English): http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1449

It's interesting to see that a player who's still as young as Ponomariov really grew up in the pre-computer age!

On Carlsen and Kramnik - I think that was one of the most interesting topics from Part I of Ruslan's conference, as I mentioned on my site: http://bit.ly/fTkAFD

Thank you Mig for trying to get the article for us.

Go Magnus! (That was for you Thomas...just kidding!)

Yah, I'm hoping at least for an unsecured PDF version of it so I can liberally copy-paste excerpts here and on ChessBase without having to retype so much. The author said he'd send me one. In the past they've let us run full pieces, but maybe not without waiting a bit. Will see.

Anyone with a Kindle in the US can probably get a 14-day free trial (or just subscribe!) and read the article. Sadly that doesn't seem to be possible from Europe :(

oooh nice ... did he say why he chickened out of the wcc qualifiers ... oh, i see, they dint ask. hmm - convenient

"say white scores 62% it doesn't mean white wins 62% of the games""

But what does it mean ? Really, I always thought thazt was its meaning of an Opening percentage.

Hint: it means "white wins 62% of the games" only in a perfect Sofia world where draws don't exist.


62% white wins, mean 38% loss or draw.

Now Daily Dirt says, it does not mean that. So, what does it mean then?

curious, here is another hint:

If it was 50%, would you conclude that white won half the time and black the other?

"say white scores 62% it doesn't mean white wins 62% of the games""

If you play 100 games with white you score 62 points. That obviously does not mean you win 62 games and lose 38.

"a computer's opening book is a customized database, not an engine"

I agree with that. I think that Humans should be allowed to refer to opening books when playing engines. It would make it a little fairer, sadly I doubt it would help much, computers are just too good.


They should also be allowed to use old/slow engines and tablebases. The main question imo is to see if a human can strategize well enough to make the computer pay for his "horizon" weaknesses.

Is the author, DT Max, a one-off writer or a regular contributor to the New Yorker ?

He is not mentioned in the list of contributors on the New Yorker website.


If he is a one-off writer, he might be more likely to be a chess specialist than some of the regular contributors.

--It's certainly the "first draft of history" that good journalism aspires to be.--

See the classic "How the News Makes Us Dumb", particularly Chapter 6 "Why News Product Looks Nothing like History". Your beloved NYer is likely better than the immediate news cycle, of course.

The above sentiment is claimed as from the WaPo's Phil Graham. Would a historian use 1985 vintage material as a template for Kasparov (Test of Time), or treat it a bit more critically with later events?

He's a regular contributor to the New Yorker, but not a columnist.


He's definitely not a chess specialist, though at least he plays and has taught his son. He thought my calling him a chessplayer above was overstating it, but I thought it was relevant to mention he actually does play the game, unlike so many who write about chess as if describing an insect. Most of our jargon was foreign and he really didn't want the game descriptions in particular to sound bizarre. That takes a lot of effort when you think about it. Imagine all the vocabulary you'd have to learn to describe the course of a professional tennis game if you had no idea there were terms for forehand and slice, the scoring system, etc.

62% is the total percentage of points available. Since draws are worth half a point, it doesn't tell you how often white wins. You can get 62% with +62 =0 -38, of course, but more likely from something like +42 =40 -18. Both equal 62% for white. You divide the draws by two and add half to each to get the percentage of total points. The author and I actually discussed this passage a lot (about the Chigorin), because saying White wins 45% of the time actually sounds bad to a tyro who doesn't realize 50% of the games are usually drawn so winning 45% is fantastic. And saying "White wins 45% of the time, black wins 23% of the time, and the rest of the games are drawn" is way too wordy and superfluous.

So he went with the "white wins twice as often" which is accurate and makes the point of it being good for white to a non-expert audience. It has its own problems, of course. White wins twice as often in the Petroff, too, if not more, but that's totally different because 70+% are drawn so it's only 54% for White (guessing, too lazy to check). E.g. +12 =82 -6 is also winning twice as often, but it's just 53% for White, a great score for Black, while the Chigorin's 62% is fantastic for White. Database stats for specific lines are pretty silly for the most part, since a single game can overturn decades of results. But when a scan of a few hundred games between Master players and better after just two moves gives 62%, it's usually safe to say offbeat and probably not wrong to say dubious. "Surprise weapon" to be charitable, and with a hat tip to Morozevich, of course.

I'll ask DT why they didn't get into Carlsen's WCh dropout, though I must say there wasn't really much ambiguity in Carlsen's open letter. It was a business decision. He may just not have had anything interesting to say about it. One of the great things about the piece is that it's not our usual "chess beat" article, dominated by whatever is happening at the moment, what we call news. I learned a lot, actually. The stuff on his years coming up and on his family life is good in particular.

I have the PDF of the piece now so if they don't put it outside the paywall I'll keep excerpting choice bits for the next week or so between Amber threads. But really it's a landmark piece and worth whatever you have to shell out for it. I'll tease with this juicy bit, which is an intriguing piece of deflection.

"Kramnik is said to resent the attention that Carlsen gets, and to take special pleasure in beating him. It must particularly rankle Kramnik when Carlsen adopts a blasé pose -- declaring, for example, that losing at Monopoly upsets him more than losing at chess. Carlsen's dislike of Kramnik might be even stronger. He blames his former tutor Kasparov, whom Kramnik dethroned in 2000: "Kasparov really hates Kramnik. And so by listening to Kasparov... it's really hard not to get some of these thoughts myself.""

The first bit is ironic because of course Kramnik is the famously blase one, and I doubt he much cares if Carlsen tries to out-blase him. But Carlsen does admit that he was particularly chuffed to beat Kramnik a month later in Wijk, so it can't all be Garry's influence! Anyway, no real mud was flung. Later, I like the bit, "Kasparov still seems to look out for Carlsen, though, as if worried about a careless nephew."

Okay, ONE more teaser:

"After a chess match, he went to his computer and played more chess online, especially if he had just lost. He still does this, now under pseudonyms. "I do it to blow of some steam," Carlsen says. "It might have the positive effect just to show myself that I can actually win a game of chess.""

Test of Time wasn't journalism, but I'm sure it provides plenty of insight into Kasparov at the time and I'm just as sure it would be interesting to confront Garry with his old comments. Just as it will be interesting to see this piece in the light of how Carlsen develops. First drafts can change quite a bit. My point was more that unlike all the chess beat snippets we get, this is from a writer who will never have to speak to any of these people again, and vice-versa. He spent many months going back to people, following up, etc. and yet isn't stuck in the clique. Outsider with access is a powerful dynamic.

55% actually

A business decision? - Call a spade a spade, will you!

outrageous comments from Carlsen about how he hates Kramnik. He really is a little boy after all. The fact that Kasparov hates Kramnik is not a surprise. Kasparov likes hating other people.

Eh? I didn't get anything about Carlsen hating Kramnik. I thought it was an interesting insight about how he thought Kasparov's passions sort of infected him, which makes sense. I do think "hates" is quite strong for Garry's feelings about Kramnik, at least by now, six years after he left the pro game. Garry generally talks about Kramnik and his chess quite respectfully these days, even if he still doesn't miss a chance to get a dig in.


Boring. They just plugged him in to Fritz about the time he started speaking and had a grandmaster train him from morning to night. There is nothing spectacular about Carlsen. If it were not him, it would be one of the dozens of Chinese whose parents do the same thing.

The reason Carlsen will not have the same sway as Fischer is because Fischer, for the most part, went at it alone.

Finally, Carlsen has all the personality of a nail. He's somewhat of a dimwit whenever they place the mike in front of him, no? Going around with that cheap suit, prostituting himself for the first sponsor.

****END AUDIT****

Regarding your hopes for an unsecured PDF, are you against pdf decrypters? They come in handy for copying and pasting that which couldn't be copied and pasted before. (I realize you have the PDF now and maybe it is unsecured, but for future reference ... unless you're morally against the tool, there's no need to retype.)

Did you read the article you yourself actually linked to?

Carlson's quote:

"Kasparov really hates Kramnik. And so by listening to Kasparov... it's really hard not to get some of these thoughts myself.""

The doctor told me I had a frugal infection. He prescribed me some ointment and I used it sparingly.

A mop and bucket played a game of chess. The mop cleaned his opponent off the board and the bucket was quite pale.

If the Godfather ever plays the Sicilian again you, make sure you don't capture his knights. Otherwise you'll wake up with a horses head next to you in bed!

Dear Mr. Fischer apologist (already one count against you),

"There is nothing spectacular about Carlsen." ??

Really? That's brilliant. After you've finished your dinner of chinese cabbage and bitter melon,
why not take your puny and cynical personality somewhere else far from here.
Aren't you also a skier? How about planting one foot firmly in front of a nascent avalanche, while the other one is in your bright green mouth.

Norwegians have not always been as even-tempered as young Magnus:

In tournaments, computers should not have access to databases of games or opening books but should have to rely solely on "brute force" calculations. You know, the way human beings do it (i.e. no electronic databases allowed to humans.)

The problem with Kramnik is that, like Petrosian, he plays not to lose. Kramnik's approach is the opposite of Alekhine, Fischer, and Kasparov.

What about the opposite approach: Computers can not have access to game or opening electronic databases. The computer can play only using brute force calculation. At one Trillion calculations per second, the computer should do just fine.

You have interesting reading habits, Ashish. An obsession, or just a stumble upon? When I was 12, I found a book in the library about Medieval-age torture. That was enough to send me away from that subject forever. I like sleeping at night.

Heck fire, some of my correspondence games are torture enough.
And all of this has pretty much zero to do with young Magnus, who is one hell of a good chess player.

Why this finetuning with access to opening books, when it's soon time to turn to the final frontier of human vs machine: the kentaur vs engine (same hardware+book environment), and see how much longer the human presence will bring a clear added value to just machine play. (Of course, draw odds going to the machine, as in case of a draw no human added value was demonstrated.) With the latest engines, I suspect you already have to be quite a strong player to convincingly demonstrate your added value. Maybe we are not too far away from restarting the man vs machine matches, or setting a prize for the first engine to defeat a GM-kentaur, like in the good old 1980-es.

Correction: a prize for the first engine to *draw* a GM-kentaur, playing with the same engine.

I think you mean centaur.

No, let's leave it at kentaur. I kinda like the sound of that. ;)

He's a Rybka-man!
He'll refute any plan
(even Caro-Kann)
He's Kentaurzan!

(apologies to Ray Stevens)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaBWBmYfqVQ&feature=player_embedded is a quite interesting/funny chessboxing video by two developers at CCP (of MMO Eve Online game).

Personally I would bet on the boxer, unless they play a *lot* of moves before/between rounds.

So, is this online-only, or can we find it in the dead-tree version of the magazine? And if so, which month?

Might cause me to make a rare trip and puchase something on paper. (Sony ebook user, and apparently New Yorker is not available...)

In fact, chess books and magazines are about the only things I buy on paper these days.

I hope if Nakamura has any family in Japan, they are safe.

kentaur isn't a word. It has no meaning.

Of course it has.

"There is nothing spectacular about Carlsen"...
Yeah, Pearl Spring, London, Wijk ann Zee, etc. Yawn.

Now that centaur vs kentaur so well overshadowed my point on computer chess, let me try another one. I wonder if anybody would be interested running Rybka or Houdini on the initial chess position *for months, or maybe years*, on a supercomputer or a computer grid/cloud. Would be quite a thing to look at the resulting judgment on our standard openings, as well as further investigate the novelties that would no doubt abound. I for one would happily offer my computer to participate in such a distributed computing project if somebody cared to set up one.

It was nice to see Carlsen shittin himself tryin to salvage a draw after blundering his queen.

Some people may say it was an insult to chucky that carlsen played a full 15 moves after blundering, but i loved every minute of it - he would've been squeeming inside

"I wonder if anybody would be interested running Rybka or Houdini on the initial chess position *for months, or maybe years*, on a supercomputer or a computer grid/cloud."

I presume that would actually make much less sense than running a computer on later positions. Still, I don't know if you had this in mind, but Ruslan Ponomariov just mentioned doing the same thing :)

- Which first move for White is objectively, i.e. analytically, the best? 1.e4 or 1.d4?

I don’t know. I remember once trying to leave the opening position all night for the computer to analyse, but that hasn’t yet yielded any sort of conclusion :)

- Is the opening position won for White?

For now, as far as I know, it hasn’t been possible to prove a win. Again, I’m still waiting for the computer’s final verdict :)"


Beautiful day. Carlsen loses both, Aronian wins both. Power balance ... mmpf

That's what a real creep would say; you and chess auditor likely being one and the same. And we will never forget that you said that.

I was speaking of the earlier comment. You know, the one that established your identity.

ok genius! though..

1. if you were it wouldnt be rocket science to figure our IP's
2. if you were you wouldnt be on a forum compiling the ego scale and waltzing 'my ninny bigger than your ninny'

I could go on but since you arent it would be lost on you

Totally off-topic, but what happened to the Live Ratings list? It seems to be the Mostly-Dead Ratings list now.

Live Ratings is still live ratings. It is just that the top players haven't played any rated games since Tata Steel.

Wrong - at least two rounds of the German Bundesliga (played 26th and 27th February) are missing. Active 2700ers were Wojtaszek, Eljanov, Gashimov, Vachier-Lagrave, Bacrot and Vitiugov. I hope that frogbert is OK and just busy with other things!

I missed that from Pono, but I think months on a supercomputer is incomparable to a night on a PC in terms of useability/credibility of the result. Of all the positions, the initial position has been left to the realm of fashion, taste, prejudice and superstition, rather than serious analysis. Time to try as soon as we start possessing the necessary tools -- situation kindof similar to the history of other computing intensive tasks like weather prediction.

I like news stories on chess, even though they tend to simplify the narrative. But why such silly pictures?

Anything you say now is colored by your creepiness.

ok ken, you win. i've sent u a pair of my soiled underwear that you've been hounding me about. now get off my back like you promised.

Kenh wrote:

"When I was 12, I found a book in the library about Medieval-age torture. That was enough to send me away from that subject forever."

I wish there was something that would send you forever away from this blog. Your pontificating is much like Medieval-age torture, except maybe more drawn-out.

Normally I cannot stand mainstream media coverage of chess, but I have begun reading this article and it's really really good, as are all New Yorker profiles of extraordinary individuals.

egad, what a game by the ol men. wowie!

Oh, so you want to be associated with george the creep? You agree with what he said above?

After 6 rounds, Carlsen is back... Chucky has scored 3.5/4 on the top two rated players... Both leaders (Aronian and Anand) lose for the first time... Nakamura gets spanked again... Giri still showing he is a rookie...

Aronian is still very impressive... will he be the one to challenge Anand in 2012?

After 6 rounds, Carlsen is back... Chucky has scored 3.5/4 on the top two rated players... Both leaders (Aronian and Anand) lose for the first time... Nakamura gets spanked again... Giri still showing he is a rookie...

Aronian is still very impressive... will he be the one to challenge Anand in 2012?

"Aronian is still very impressive... will he be the one to challenge Anand in 2012?"

I think so, too. Seems he is in his best form ever.

Of course Aronian is a serious WCh candidate, that´s stating the obvious. But I wonder what Amber 2011 adds to the story, for two reasons:
- He already won the event before, so this edition doesn't really indicate that "he is in his best form ever".
- The WCh cycle has rapid only in tiebreaks (true, it could matter) and no blindfold; it will be impossible to win a lost position because the opponent drops a rook ... .

On the other players: Why is there no Amber update from Mig? It might have to do with Nakamura's result, "Nakamura tied with Kramnik!" would be an odd headline not giving credit to other players ,:) . Actually I wouldn't call Nakamura's result all bad, after all it's his first experience with this format - but obviously he and his fans were hoping for, expecting or predicting more.
Giri has the same problem as Nakamura, and his time is still to come (both might do better in future Amber events, but it won't happen).
Kramnik has a genuinely bad event, he can do better than this - at least he could in earlier editions of Amber. Grischuk demonstrates that Tata 2011 was just an accident for him.

Nakamura isn't killing the field in the rapid games either. Why is that?

you are a nutcase of the highest caliber.

Seriously, you think Mig isn't blogging just because Nakamura isn't doing well? Mig has made what 16 blog posts in the last 3 months? This includes when Nakamura won Tata. This is only a post every 5 days (hmmm date on this post is 5 days ago).

You state Grischuk's Tata as a blip on the radar yet you imply that Nakamura's standings in Amber is the norm (implying as well that Tata was a blip).

You think Aronian isn't in his highest form ever? He broke 2800? He has suffered few losses in quite some time including being undefeated at Tata.

Are you just trying to insult every player you can?

Maybe fans should spend more time improving their own game instead of criticizing the best.

Sorry to be so harsh but seriously... do you read your own comments?

That wasn't one of Thomas' best posts, but he was right about Aronian. You haven't been paying attention - or paying attention long enough. Aronian has been winning elite events for several years now. He's been pretty consistent for some time, regardless of rating points (he was making his way up the ladder). He has long been a real force to be reckoned with when sufficiently motivated, which isn't 100% of the time (unlike Nakamura).

Haven't heard from the Nakamura or naka-fronting crowd lately. All quiet on the western grandstanding front. I wonder why? Heh.
But he's playing good chess. Yea he's had to eat a little crow after a brag about his chances at Amber, but he'll be back to spoil someone else's tournament soon enough.

"Nakamura isn't killing the field in the rapid games either."
He was still exhausted from the blindfold games ... not my idea, but his own tweet: "Playing some pretty decent blindfold games, but highly impressed at how many ridiculous blunders I am making in rapid because of it!"

Another explanation might be that he isn't quite as strong in rapid as he and others think. Did he have earlier successes in rapid at the highest level? Cap d'Agde comes to my mind, but from his opponents only Ivanchuk was really "Amber quality" (Carlsen played there in 2008, but 'avoided Nakamura' by losing the semifinal against Chucky). He once played the Mainz rapid open to finish around 10th place, losing in the final rounds against Gashimov and Mamedyarov. Did I miss something??
Even his (classical) Tata win just makes him a top10 player, nothing less but also nothing more.

As to Aronian, I just wanted to say that Amber (blindfold and rapid, after all, some people seem to forget?) has limited "predictive value" for classical events including the WCh cycle. And I pointed out that Aronian had won Amber before, 2008 and 2009 to be precise. Is it insulting to suggest that winning again wouldn't necessarily make him "stronger than ever"??
Maybe if he sets a new record score - he needs 7/8 from the remaining rounds to equalize Anand's "best ever" Amber score back in 1994. Runners-up are Anand himself, Karpov once and Kramnik at several occasions with 15.5/22 or 16/22 (including Kramnik in 1994, only good for second place). If Aronian gets such a score, I will readily admit that he's stronger than ever ... in blindfold and/or rapid.

These data are from the "Amber tour" @ http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=233774#pid233774 , compiled by "ebutaljib".

Got a hold of the New Yorker piece about Magnus. Well written. Learned a few things, although given its wide-ranging nature - it's not just about Magnus, I was a little surprised at the omission of the Magnus - Hikaru relationship around the recent World Blitz. That would be of interest to anyone. Still a good read even for someone who follows the scene closely.

I was surprised (and a little vindicated) to read that Magnus broke off the Kasparov relationship because Gary is such a PITA to spend time with. Surprised only that it made it into the article.

I wish all of our great chess players could have grown up in families where mom, dad and kids all sit down to eat dinner together every day.

The details of French cheating story now at ChessVibes were a little shocking to me. I wasn't one the posters here who thought the allegations were a folly, but I didn't suspect either that the mechanics of the cheating was so planned and, well, devious. Good grief. In retrospect it seems Maxime V-L must have ice in his veins to have played as well as he did at Wijk aan Zee with all the knowledge of the affair in mind.


Magnus is Fisher with a good family. There are alot of similarites between the two. Whether Magnus will be World Champ is up to him.

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net

Coach Factory recommended you to buy Coach Kristin Bags, the one which can fully display women's elegance and nobleness.coach factory stores embodied both strength of style and features, as well as what else are you able to request only one bag?

Coach Outlet has become a popular shopping experience for consumers around the world, and a desirable distribution channel for manufacturer's and retailers.In terms of the quality and superior design that make more and more customers are satisfied to Coach Factory Online.Welcome!

Thanks for the marvelous posting ! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back later in life. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job,

I like your web site and I appreciate the quality content you are publishing for free for your visitors


Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on March 14, 2011 6:05 AM.

    Amber at Last was the previous entry in this blog.

    Cheating Cœurs is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.