Incredible Ivanchuk at MTel

Chucky just exchanged a queen for two rooks and has a bishop for a pair of pawns. Looks like he's going to win this one, too.

VAAAAAAA-SSEEEEEEEEEEE-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

When was the last time anybody swept the field in a round-robin of this strength?

I mean, jeez, he beat all of em! Somebody should tell him to sign up for a higher section...

The most recent analogy I can think of is the first half of San Luis 2005, with that famous 6,5/7 by Topalov, but of course these kind of exceptional results pop up now and then: it would be statistically improbable if such a performance NEVER occurred.
Good thing Moro isn't playing in Sofia, I guess, otherwise he might have indirectly implied computer cheating by Ivanchuk (without having the guts to state such nonsense explicitly, of course).

5/5. Ivanchuk sweeps the first half. Nice to see him finally put up some results worthy of his talent lately; I especially liked the wipeout of Bu Xiangzi. I have alwyas thought he was the equal in talent of Anand or Kramnik; it's nice to see he may try to do something with it.

If only this were a *single* round Robin event, Ivanchuk would have a famous victory already in hand. I hope that he uses the rest day to actually rest, rather than to start thinking about his tournament situation, and what he has to lose. That said, sometimes the easiest way to avoid losses is to eschew the safe moves, and play for the win. Not that he can count on having much choice with this crowd. Cheparinov plays "Va Banque" most of the time, Topalov will complicate, especially to exploit time pressure, Bu will be motivated to salvage something from the event.

The good news for Ivanchuk is that he gets 3 Whites in the "2nd Lap" of the event. He'll be White against Radjabov, Aronian, AND Topalov.

I hope that he holds it together. Topalov is at +2, and will have White vs. Cheparinov in round 8.

Maybe for his future events, Ivanchuk will insist that he play all of his games in a personal "Glass Cage". I'm not sure about the effects on the other players, but Chukky must find it a conducive environment in which to concentrate.

At least, he doesn't seem to have any impulses to suddenly play moves like http://tiny.cc/13-Bxf2

Ivanchuk is now virtual world number 3 with about 2776! Then again- world number 3 is not as impressive as 5/5 clean sweep here- which makes him look like world number 1.

He had 3 blacks this half too. It is unbelievable.

By the Elo expectation, even a 3200-rated player would have an expectation of less than 4.75/5 against this opposition- so would need atleast about 3200+ in order to probably score 5/5 I would think. That is it would be unlikely for Ivanchuk to have scored 5/5 if he were rated say 3180.

I am very pleased that Ivanchuk is finally back winning supertournaments (cross fingers he doesn't mess up the second half) after about a decade since his last win.

This latest Ivanchuk game was again very pleasing. White's slow play (Nh4-g6, a3, b3, g3) logically punished by central counterstrike. I should think he'll try to play it fairly safe in the second half, although the others will have to attack him of course. And Bu beaten rather badly again. Probably still in shock! Any Slav player, what was his big mistake? That ...b6 looks suspicious for one. Or did he miss the f4 idea (though i should think that is a fairly standard Slav idea)?

So, does Daaim think Bu is over-rated?

Topalov is still close to Ivanchuk. And Topalov can always "ask" hum... "require" his friend Cheparinov to give him a free win when they'll meet.

Hopefully Ivanchuk won't mess it up in the second half. I'm even entertaining the idea that he might win a few more games :-).

He should play like this when it comes to really important fights, like for the world championship. He's the only great player of his generation who hasn't gotten a shot at playing in a serious world championship match.

Good Lord! Ivanchuk has beaten Radjabov, Topalov, and Aronian WITH THE BLACK PIECES all in a span of 4(!) days!

It would probably take Kramnik over 2 years to win that many Black games against 2700s in classical games.

And in rounds 6 and 7, Ivanchuk has White against Radjabov and Topalov. They will both need to take risks if they want to win this tournament. So it is very possible that Ivanchuk could be 7/7(!!!!) going into the last 3 rounds of the tournament.

Just amazing. I have long said that Ivanchuk is the most talented chess player on the planet and for the past 5 days he has played like it.

Go Chucky!

Henry,

I will argue that Ivanchuk did, indeed, have a chance at a "serious" World Championship match when he made it to the finals of the last knockout tournament that mattered, which was won by Ponomariov. (It mattered because of all the big hitters who participated.) Had he beaten Pono, the shenanegans with the match vs. Kasparov would not have been, and the "Fresh Start" proposal would have had more success. With Danailov derailing those talks, Kasparov ended up instead trying to raise money for a match vs. Kasimdzhanov, which was unappealing to anybody. Kasparov vs. Ivanchuk would've carried a lot more attraction, to be sure.

Oh, how the landscape of chess might be dramatically different had Ivanchuk realized that pieces should move forward rather than backward in that first game in 2002!

Hotep,

Maliq

I think Bu was in a little trouble long before White got in f3-f4, starting, oddly enough, with f2-f3...

I'm just eyeballing this from work, but the critical moment seems to be after 10 Ne5(!?). Black can either take the offered pawn and suffer through an initiative by ...Nxc3, play ...Nd7 as Bu did, allowing White's idea of Na2, f2-f3, and e3-e4 (seems like mute surrender to this Slav player!), or bailing out by taking only once on c3 by 10...Bxc3 11 bxc3 Nd6.

I guess maybe Bu saw 10...Nxc3 11 bxc3 Bxc3 12 Bb2 Bxb2 13 Qxb2 Qc7 14 Re1 Nd7 15 Nxd7, and thought that by getting the knights off first he saved a tempo, but missed Topalov's Na2.

Maliq,

I see what you mean. It's not the Ivanchuk-Pono match itself that's counted as a serious match, but winning it would've given Ivanchuk a chance to actually play a serious match against Kasparov.

What I meant was that Ivanchuk never actually played such a match, while Kramnik and Topalov did, as will Anand soon.

abc,

Is Bu over-rated? Of course not. It sure is easy to pick and choose comments when one has (is having) a poor result. That's all you're doing.

I agree with Daaim, this result doesn't show that Bu is over-rated. If we were going to judge the results of this tournament, Aronian and Radjabov (who have won supertournaments lately) are way over-rated as well as Bu. They are just having a bad tournament.

Curiously, despite his minus score, Cheparinov is leaving a good impression this tournament, as well as in Baku (despite his early losses). He can be considered the unlucky one in Sofia. He threw away a good position against Topalov, a good position against Ivanchuk and a winning position against Radjabov. Cheparinov's problem seems to be that he is not able to keep the concentration during all the phases of a game and very frequently is not able to "finish the job", but he has shown his great talent. Hopefully, with more experience he will be able to improve these weak aspects of his game.

As in all tournaments, some have their bad days, and some have their good (and "lucky) days.

Chucky is having the latter, and finger-crossed, I really hope he makes 10/10. Even if he doesn't become world champion, he will be in the record books for this outstanding result.

There was a lot of picking and choosing of comments when Wang Yue had a good result.

Ivanchuk certainly read this blog and drew his inspiration what with people casting aspersions about his abilities of winning category 20 events.

Hope he can keep it going. He needs to get his deserved rewards. He has been one of the biggest under-achievers of recent times.

Regards,

SNJ

Sandorchess wrote:
I agree with Daaim, this result doesn't show that Bu is over-rated. If we were going to judge the results of this tournament, Aronian and Radjabov (who have won supertournaments lately) are way over-rated as well as Bu. They are just having a bad tournament.
---
So because Aronian and Radjabov are underperforming, Bu is not overrated?

Bu has yet, as far as I know, to do well in a strong round robin event.

Last year he scored -2 in Biel and = in the China - Russia match (avg. rating of opponents 2678 in both events).

abc,

As far as I know, before MTel, Bu has only played in ONE strong (2650+) round robin. You are talking from the basis of a grand total of ONE case.

I wonder why you include the Russia match, but not Bu's recent +3 against 2663 opposition at the Russian team tournaments, including a win against Karjakin.

Or what about his 4-0=8 against 2665 opposition at the Turin Olympiad 2006, including a win against Kamsky, and draws against Kramnik, Anand, and Aronian.

Before you say I am picking and choosing, here's a list of ALL events he played against 2650 or above average opponents. Doesn't look too bad to me.

Russian Team, 2008 2663 +3
Biel 2007 2678 -2
match vs Russia, 2007 2678 =
match vs Russia, 2006 2675 =
Olympiad Turin, 2006 2665 +4
World Team, 2006 2650 +2
match vs Russia, 2004 2670 =

My last comment is for zakki as well.

abc said:

"There was a lot of picking and choosing of comments when Wang Yue had a good result."

There's no need to pick and choose when talking about Wang Yue.

Here's statistics from ALL his results since 2006 (before 2006 his rating was below 2600, hence not relevant and not fair to be counted).

* Tournament & team results, NOT ONCE a negative score.
* As for rating expectations, he underperformed a few times, but certainly much less often than his over-performance.

* If you only want 2650+ events, he only played in 3 of them, and over-performed in each of them.

* If you want to count games since 2006
18-12=75 against top 100 (approx. 2620+ rated players)
15-9=53 against 2650+ rated players
2-0=10 against top 20

All of those are from OVERALL statistics. No picking and choosing :-).

Bu is starting to look like a Bacrot - someone who has the talent to shoot over 2700 by beating the 2600-2700, but hits a stonewall against the top ten or fifteen.

This along with his age(22) suggests he has peaked, meaning he's not, say, 2800-elo world championship material for instance.

Bu has no seconds or coach with him, but his opening prep is just terrible. Wang is just very solid and good at taking draws even though when he's losing, he might hold his own at 2650 but whether he can survive at 2700 is still too early to tell. In any case, after this mishap Bu will be a matter of yesteryear and will not get another high profile invitation for a long long time. Wang and other up and coming 2700 are not giving him much time either. Looks like making it to 2700 and surviving at that level are entirely different things, sooner or later the chinese players have to see that

Bu - Paul Keres of China?

"In any case, after this mishap Bu will be a matter of yesteryear and will not get another high profile invitation for a long long time."

Well put. Without a rare recovery (this tournament or soon after) he's out of the "exciting ages 18-23 with upside potential" group that receives many invitations, to the boring veteran "it's level or downhill from here" class.

Paul - China of Bucherest?

SH: "This along with his age(22) suggests [Bu] has peaked, meaning he's not, say, 2800-elo world championship material for instance."

Or you can look at his ratings chart over the past few years:
http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=8601445

It looks like he's climbing fast and furious.

Also, think back to Carlsen's first forays into the top tourneys: Eighth out of 10 in the Tal Memorial in Dec. 2006 (two losses, seven draws), dead last in Corus A in Jan. 2007 (four losses and nine draws).

This is Bu's first elite round robin tournament. He is only warming up :-).

Shirov's and Kamsky's first elite round robin performances were also negative.

Even Anand's first elite round robin performance was also negative :-).

Yeah, but he can forget about getting a second chance at "warming up". There are too many Bus in China now but only one Carlsen in Norway! And why can't he get anything right besides Slav? oops, and Topalov just took care of that as well.

And the point is not about a negative score, at the end of the day, he won't be the only player with a minus, but even Cheparinov plays better than him. That tells a lot.

Blame it on the Chinese focus on team events, they would rather have many Bus than to have a world-beater Carlsen

Also, think back to Carlsen's first forays into the top tourneys: Eighth out of 10 in the Tal Memorial in Dec. 2006 (two losses, seven draws), dead last in Corus A in Jan. 2007 (four losses and nine draws).

-- Posted by: Dan Dalthorp at May 13, 2008 10:19

Yes, how soon they forget Carlsen's disastrous winless -4 (+0 =9 -4) at Corus A 2007. Bu will need some time to adjust to life in the big leagues.

And for goodness sake, Bu, learn another opening besides the Slav! Gee. You make it too easy for the top players to prepare for you, witness your demolition by Ivanchuk and Topalov.

On "Bu is starting to look like Bacrot":

More like "Bu is starting to look like Bacrot, Shirov, Adams, Morozevich, Svidler, Polgar, and Mamedyarov."

That's not bad company to be in, actually, and all of those players routinely shoot up to 2720 or better (much better, in the case of Svidler, Mamedyarov, and Morozevich) and then take their lumps pretty hard in cat 20+.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the Slav. The problem is emphatically not that Bu focuses on the Slav (oddly enough I never heard any criticism of Kasparov for his devotion to the Najdorf), but rather that he has not focused (that is prepared) enough. Ivanchuk found a win on move nine, which means Bu was out of his preparation by no later than move seven or eight in what was entirely clearly a Slav complex despite Ivanchuk's omission of d2-d4.

Topalov, in a Slav proper, had a promising position before move fifteen. Bu's preparation is taking some hits, a common problem for a player as active as Bu has been in the past couple of years.

There is a pretty significant difference between the elite-debut of Bu and that of Kamsky and Carlsen. Bu is 22 while Kamsky and Carlsen were 16.

But ok, Bu is probably not grossly overrated, but he doesn't seem to be anything more than a barely-2700 player at best.

They can't all be 2750+ material.

Second chances always exist. Don't worry. Combined with his good result at the Russian teams, he would only lose a few Elo points overall. Still on track on his way up.

Yes, the real point is not about negative score, but the fact that it's only one event, and only his first event. Tells nothing actually.

It is funny to read some of these arguments. If Bu is not 2800 material then he is a failure? I guess even if he does reach 2800 that's a failure as well, since the way he does it is not as spectacular as Kasparov. Too bad.

The Chinese are right on track in producing not only one, but a whole bunch of 2700 players at once. They are so good at it some people here are feeling uncomfortable. LOL.

Yes, Zakki, there is a pretty significant difference between the debut of Bu and Carlsen, which is that Bu (and Chinese players in general) do not have as many chances to play strong players when they are under 20 years. Carlsen and Kamsky got the chance when they were teens, but Bu got his first chance only now. That's the difference. The chance.

Rather than simply measuring the age, we could measure how fast one progresses in terms of how many strong tournaments one has played in.

"They can't all be 2750+ material." And why not?

To which I would add that there is no reason to think a player cannot continue to improve after age 22. Ivanchuk seems to have really raised his game since turning 37 or 38, Anand didn't even begin to peak until after age 30, and may still not be as strong as he will ever be, etc.

Another example is Aronian, who wasn't that spectacular as a teenager. In fact, around age 21 his rank is more or less like where Bu is now. But then he started to make a strong push upwards.

Svidler, Polgar, Adams, Shirov, among others, made strong progress and stabilized in the top 5 only after 25.

Topalov's great rise (2 or 3 years ago) only happened when he was close to 30.

And even Karpov, by my recollection, didn't show his true potential until into his 20s.

Yes, Karpov was World Junior Champion (back when that really meant something, i.e., the likelihood of being World Champion someday) in 1969 or thereabouts. But his climb was anything but meteoric: my memory is he didn't acend to the inner circle (top 5, or even top 10) only between 1972-74, when he would have been something like 22-25. And of course, he continued to improve - and quite substantially - for several more years after that.

Point is, Karpov's progress was nothing like Kasparov, who was already tipped as a future WC by the time he was 16 or so.

Svidler, Polgar, Adams and Shirov have never been stable in the top 5. I agree that all of them made significant progress in their careers after age 22-25, of course.

Players who have been "Stable" in the top 5-10, let alone the top 5 is a vanishingly short list lately:

Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Leko, Morozevich, Ivanchuk, maybe Svidler ... and that's it.

May I also note that this is a Category 20 event, without a single Russian?!?!?

Well yes, what I meant by stabilized in the case of Svidler etc was that they are stable enough to advance to top 5 only after 25. But they didn't stay there for long.

Being stable for more than 5 years in top 5 has always been hard. In the 1980s, only the 2Ks plus Timman and Beliavsky managed. In the 1990s, still the 2Ks, plus Ivanchuk, Anand, and Kramnik. Also Salov, whose career covers late 1980s to early 1990s. And more recently Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, Leko, plus maybe Morozevich.

An example of a player who progressed slowly but surely is Beliavsky.

Before 25, Beliavsky was not even top 20. In his late 20s, he started to climb into top 20, but then rapidly moving up all the way, he reached top 5 by the time he was 30. He would stabilize there, from time to time at the 3rd spot right under the 2 Ks.

And of course there is Korchnoi, the king of the late bloomers, who really started knocking at the door to the top only in his late 30s. So along with this youth revolution there is also a case for late bloomers. And I think its a welcome sign, with fresh talent coming from both ends.

Actually, according to the Sonas rating, Korchnoi was already top 5 by the time he reached 30, among others by winning the Soviet championship before he was 30.

But yes, that was relatively late, and besides, he kept gaining strength even into his 40s.

Many others reached top 5 after age 30: Polugaevsky, Stein, Larsen, Portisch.

This is not because in that period it was not possible to bloom earlier. Spassky and Fischer were close to the top by the time they were 20.

And of course we have the opposite case.

Some people who bloomed really fast, say getting early on into top 10 when they were 20, only to stay briefly and be surpassed by others who came at a later age.

Example: Grischuk and Ponomariov reached close to the top before Aronian, who is slightly older. But eventually Aronian caught up and surpassed them.

Coming a little later is not a big deal, in fact it is common. What is more important is stability once one gets there.

Ba humbug. Enough already about wunderkinder. Who is how strong at what age. It palls. Remember their little hands have to be strong enough to move the pieces. Gimme a 70 year old world champ any day. (drop a hint to Kaspy Mig, thats when I want to see him out of retirement)

it is probably difficult to compare the situation now with the situation before the "computer era". and well, it is easily proven wrong that you cant (skill-wise) be a top player if you arent there when you are 22. of course it might be hard to get invitations to top tournaments if you are older, which is a completely different matter, and maybe that which is in fact more interesting.

many seem to assume that the top 5 players are also the best. when it is clearly not that simple, and especially not the top 10.

like Gashimov pointed out, to get a high rating you have to play in the top tournaments, because it is in fact much easier to keep a high rating there. Of course you would have to perform reasonably well, but assuming you can put up some kind of fight, it is much better to play in top tournaments and draw most games, and often end up at -2 or -3. people just barely above 2700 wont lose many rating points. Take Leko for instance, he is considered a stable top 5 player, and is obviously very good, but it is not obvious that he would keep the rating he has if he were playing in strong open tournaments only. in fact he probably wouldn't, because in the end chess is too much of a drawish game. to gain RP he'd need to score maybe +6 and more in 10-round events, and if he just has one bad event he could drop like 40 points, just like that.

Gashimov has not been playing in the top tournaments, one reason is of course that there are already 2 and it is not that interesting with 3 out of 8 in a tournament being azeri GMs. 'course, if you do very well you will get the invitations, but at the cost of someone else from your country most likely. "Stability" isnt such a simple term to use when you are speaking about the top 20 in the chess world right now, even when a player does well it has much to do with the funds he gets and with competition he has.

I'm not sure about Leko, he is considered 'solid', 'drawish' and 'stable' only against the elite. He may in fact, be far more aggressive against the lesser lights.
Petrosian for example was capable of playing risky, attacking chess against low rated players. It was only against the top that he chose safety first.

Good comment, jaideepblue.

Who said Petrosian is always just draws?

Look at Petrosian's record at the Olympiads, where his opponents are mostly below his level. He was easily producing +9 and +10, even at the 1st board, while his team members at lower boards were getting less.

Also check out his many good results at Soviet championships and interzones, against strong opponents. Wouldn't have happened if he did win enough.

Yah, and it works both ways. Shirov for eg plays ultra-aggressive stuff which blows away the "ordinary" super GMs. He plays pretty much in the same mode against the elite, but against players who are as good or better at calculation (notably Anand and Kasparov) he often comes unstuck.

henry:
"They can't all be 2750+ material." And why not?

Because ELO measures performance relative to your peers? I was refering to (professional) chess players in general of course, not Chinese players in particular (why would I? a players potential is independent of his nationality, even if opportunity isn't).

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's a certainty that Bu won't make progress in the future, that would be silly. But so far, he looks a lot more like a Bacrot (if even that) than an Aronian.

Anyway, dragging up ancient history to somehow support the notion that a late surge is not uncommon is just silly. _Today_ it is uncommon.

Also, pretending that for instance Carlsen has been unfairly advantaged vis-a-vis the likes of Bu is stupid. Carlsen was 2698 at 15, 27 points ahead of Bu at the time. Carlsen _earned_ his first invites, and Bu has only recently gotten to the point where such an invite could be deserved. Nothing unfair about it.

BU is getting punked like a 80 pounder at the beach during summer break...they are just taking turns busting him...its a joke to watch.....

BU is getting punked like a 80 pounder at the beach during summer break...they are just taking turns busting him...its a joke to watch.....

-- Posted by: booo.yeah at May 16, 2008 01:33

Well in Round 8 Bu has a very favorable endgame against Ivanchuk! Bu may not win but he almost certainly will not lose his White game against Ivanchuk.

"Carlsen was 2698 at 15, 27 points ahead of Bu at the time."

Wow, I didn't realize the difference was that huge. 27 points higher is really another class.

Oh, the hilarity.

Besides, who claimed that 27 points 'is really another class'? I don't think even Topalov would make that claim.

But sure, blame the tournament organizer for prefering a 15-year old 2698 to a 20-year old 2671 (though Carlsen was probably rated 2675 when he got the invitation).

WTF has happened to Aronian this tournament????

He wins Corus, dominates Amber, and now +0 -4 =4??????

WTF?

Maybe Ariane's ditched him.

No, rdh and Gormally have been making menacing prank calls to his hotel room. That was cheap, I know.

Uh oh, Bu beat Topalov. Not that the event is salvaged for Bu, but at least he now has company in the cellar. Bu and Aronian play for last place in the Final round tomorrow. Aronian has to win as White, else Bu will get 5th place on Tie-Break (more wins). I guess that Topalov felt that he couldn't rely upon Cheparinov to hold Ivanchuk, so that he had to play for the win as Black against Bu. It appears as though his two wins against his compatriot Cheparinov may not be enough. Maybe Danailov will find some excuse to change the last round pairings, and have Topalov play Cheparinov a 3rd time this event.

Maybe Sofia 2009 will feature a Quadruple Round Robin, 4 player event? That ought to be enough to cinch victory by Topalov!

"Maybe Ariane's ditched him."

Yeah, I know exactly how he feels. Whenever my girlfriend stops giving me sex my game really goes downhill... on the other hand too many wild all-night orgies have the same effect, too.

My humble apologis to BU-yeah, terrific effort, it shows he will always be a man to the droppings eater Cheparinov. But I don't how Larry Cristian picked the game of the day yesterday as Topalov-Cheparinov..I knoew he prepares for like 5 minutes while downing a couple of pints and packs of smokes..but his comments were an embarassment to any human as he kept praising the insipid play of Cheparinov and crisized only 1 move!!!! of his. I would not waste my time listening to any Larry Cristian'scomments again. It has been noted that he was aloways lazy but his analysis to me and fellow senior masters made us laugh until we realized that a potential great player is now nothing but a pathetic commentator who is lazier than even when he was player, but how can you be surprised. On a positive note I recommend the Nick De Firmian analysis of BU-Topalov as excellent and thourough for amateur to maser, thaqnk you Nick I was ready to quit my subscription to the site, please do more analysis and send Christianson to Betty Ford so he may win at least one championship.

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/34/ivanchuk07hz8.jpg

I believe an ELO style statistical analysis of Cheparinov's performance in this tournament would show that there is a low probability that he would be 0-0 vs. Topalov. Since it is only two games, that would barely be prima facie evidence of irregularity. RJ Fischer might be suspicious; Ivanchuk simply won. I like that solution. He too went 1-1 vs Cheparinov. A kind of justice.

Hey Fred - Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Not to be a Larry apologist, but what have you done? When you've won some US Championships and written some books, let us know.

After reading mr. Walters's inspiring comments, I went to chessames.com to check out his games and see how real chess is played... Strangely enough, no games were to be found.

Various google attempts also failed. Then I checked the USCF ratings service and found a Frederick Walters. This player hadn't been active for a good while, and only had a correspondance rating of 1375 to his name. So no way that can be the same guy.

Still looking forward to his book, though, "How I beat that bitch Cheparinov at chess with both my hands strung around his pencil neck".

Well, "Fred Walters" did claim to be a senior master: "...his (Christiansen's) analysis to me and fellow senior masters made us laugh..."

But, as others pointed out above, that claim has as much behind it as Bush's claim to be a benefactor of the Iraqi people. (FIDE also shows no rating for a F. Walters.)

Maybe "Walters" intended to refer to himself and fellow senior masturbators, but in his haste forgot to type the rest of the word.

It is not so clear. Maybe Fred Walters was referring to Larry Christiansen and his i.e. Larry's fellow senior masters. Fred was therefore just laughing in unison with the masters, without being one himself.

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