Check out the Ninja message boards for Russianbear's translation of Yuri Vasiliev's Sport Express interview with Kramnik, which took place in Bonn after the match. (Please reference and link when you steal it.) Some highlights:
Kramnik: At this time, Anand is the model of preparation, he is the best in the world! And when two equally matched opponents face off, that becomes a decisive factor.
Vasiliev: In game 10, when the game was waged on "your territory", it appeared that Anand didn't stand a chance. Was it not possible to pick variations like that from the very beginning- variations where the struggle is based around tiny nuances?
That was the whole thing: the opponent didn't me allow to do that, thanks to his preparation that was the most ingenious. A match is a fight between two concepts. We have completely different styles. In that particular game I managed to drag him into the territory where he wasn't that strong. And indeed, I outplayed him rather easily. But his preparation was great and he purposefully imposed his style upon me.
You've said you are going to change your game. Does that mean you are going to make your repertoire with black more aggressive?
In general I don't think I have some sort of game problems. I need to change my preparation approach. It is in that respect that I am behind Anand, and perhaps, behind Topalov, too. I don't have a team that works constantly. There is a need to create it. This is exactly what I am going to work on. If I am successful at that, I am sure I will be on the very top again.
Well, you are not giving up hopes to regain the title, are you?
I am not old yet. Anand and Ivanchuk will be 40 soon, but the game is at the very highest level. I still have time. I am sure I haven't shown all of my potential in this match and I expect to enter the struggle for the world championship title again.
I'm a little concerned for Kramnik hearing him blame the match loss solely on being out-prepared. Sure the Meran work by Anand was great, but it's what the Meran represents that was the bigger problem. Kramnik was okay in those openings, but he got completely outplayed in the complex positions that resulted. You can't always control what type of game you're going to get. This is why I called attention to his loss to Morozevich at the Tal Memorial a few weeks before the match. Kramnik again looked confused in a sharp position with an open king.
Kasparov discusses this in his upcoming New In Chess article on the match, drawing the parallel to how Kramnik got him to fight on uncomfortable turf in 2000. With so many aggressive sharp young players on the scene now it's hard to imagine Kramnik staying "at the very top" unless he works on this aspect of his chess instead of trying only to avoid it.
At 32 years of age, is it possible for Kramnik to reinvent himself? That is, to do as Mig suggests, improve at playing complex positions instead of simply avoiding them?
I would think the answer is no. Kasparov was relatively bad at defending passive positions (as was Fischer), Capablanca was not Alekhine. Is it fair to suggest that Kramnik not be....Kramnik?
Mig's 100% right. However good Kramnik is on his turf, his turf is too narrow to seriously compete for the world title now. He simply is not going to get to the title match playing for win only with white.
As for reinventing yourself at 32... Ivanchuk reinvented himself at 40. 2 years ago he looked safely out of contention for the title of the strongest player. Look at him now. He might never get to the title match, but he is playing the chess of his life and his results last year are second to none.
So the real question is not whether it can be done at 32, but whether Kramnik can do it. I hope he can, but I doubt. Kramnik constrained himself for too long, He did make an effort to play normal chess again a couple of times, but every time it was ending badly for him. One might think that he can do it more freely now without the burden of the crown. However, imagine Kramnik playing sharper and losing, falling out of top 10, not getting Linares invite...Will he find the strength to continue his return to normality then?
What has changed about chess that suggests Kramnik's style is insufficent now, and yet perfectly sufficient in 2000, 2004 and 2006? He lost his match with Anand, that suggests it, then again, to blame the loss on his "style" seems a gross oversimplification.
Ivanchuk's results have been excellent lately. What suggests this is as a result of reinventing himself?
"However good Kramnik is on his turf, his turf is too narrow to seriously compete for the world title now."
Oh, please. Kramnik has been one of the world's top players for over a decade with a winning record against just about every sharp player in the world.
In their respective match losses, Kasparov and Kramnik were out-prepared; each was obliged to do battle in his opponent's choice positions while at a severe time disadvantage.
It would have been silly, after London, to advise Kasparov to work on the positional aspect of his game and it's silly now to advise Kramnik to work on his tactics.
The biggest difference between the two men is how they handled being out-prepared.
After the Game Two loss and subsequent near-losses Kasparov panicked, exhausted himself retooling his openings, and conceded limp draws in two white games after only fourteen moves.
After three losses in six games, Kramnik fought hard to get back into the match, won Game 10, played the Najdorf in Game 11, and had the better of it in the second half of the match.
You don't judge a "fighter" by how he plays when he's winning, but by how he plays when everything's on the line and he's getting beat.
Preparation at Kramink’s level, at the highest level, is not only about knowing opening lines, it’s more about forcing certain concepts/problems upon your opponent. The game against Morozevich that Mig mentions is not the only one where he had problems when facing fire around his king (without too much thinking i can name 3 more); those types of positions is certainly something he needs to work on.
And speaking about him working on his chess; i don’t think he needs to broaden his opening repertoire. He knows the stuff he plays exceptionally well. And his turf is not too narrow; it cant possibly too narrow. What i think he lacks is decisiveness. Think Qc7 against Anand, or that game vrs Grischuk, with white, in Mexico few years back.
Regardless of the fact that he achieved playable positions in the games he lost, he looked very unsure of himself and was always behind on the clock. We didn’t see the best Kramnik in that match.
I don’t think that he will have a lot of problems with the new fritz generation. On talent alone, even at age 30, he can beat most of them. Despite what the plebs thinks about him he a former world champion and one of the greatest players of the game, ever! There is no denying that.
Greg Koster,
"It would have been silly, after London, to advise Kasparov to work on the positional aspect of his game and it's silly now to advise Kramnik to work on his tactics".
The point is that if Kramnik wants to regain the title now he should start at the bottom of the ladder (or rather in the middle). Kaspy's style was well suited to climbing back the whole ladder, Kramnik's isn't. The fact that Kramnik handled all aspects of losing the match much better than Kaspy did changes nothing of the above.
rockrobinoff,
What has changed compared to 2006, 2004, etc? Isn't it obvious? Kramnik's position on the ladder has changed. His style was good for playing WC matches, not so good for playing Grand Prix style tournaments. Can't see him winning Grand Prix by playing Petroff.
Correction in age please! Kramnik is 33 and Ivanchuk/Anand are 39(Anand will be 39 in December).
An honest interview and a very good attitute from Kramnik. He gives due credit to Anand and at the same time he makes known his intention of fighting his way back. Good!
I knew the gap between the players were huge. Anand was playing like an established 2900+ player (not just a performance level)! It is the combination of memory, calculating ability, sound judgement and precision, and speed to top it all. So it is going to be a tough luck for anybody, not just Kramnik!
He kills with the speed!! :)
(Warning: 1000th time comment repost follows...)
The problem no one mentions (will forces me to) is Kramnik's real physical decline after illness.
He hasn't recovered, and if thus far probably never will.
He's gone from 2750 tactical strength to 2650 tactical strength.
Besides the one-move mate (Nf8 Qh7++) he overlooked against Fritz, he also admitted considering f4 in Game 9, allowing another one move mate in Qh7 ++ (bishop on d3).
That's stuff any 11y.o. 1400-rated player sees instantaneously, without thought. His tactical acuity's gone.
Ivanchuk apparently never lost anything off his game, that's why he could reinvent himself at age 40. Kramnik's done as a championship contender.
Correction: (And the song goes...)
He kills with his speed!!
Mig:"With so many aggressive sharp young players on the scene now it's hard to imagine Kramnik staying "at the very top""
Somehow I don't buy this argument just in itself. If Kramnik plays better chess in his own style and prepares well he shouldn't be worse. It is like the left hand advantage in tennis.
OK, I guess Mig ment that Kramnik has become more vulnerable in any position requiring sharp calculation and he should come out of his comfort-zone to fix that leak.
Of course it's possible to learn from mistakes, even at 33. But it's hard to acknowledge those mistakes in the first place, and right now Kramnik doesn't sound like he is already there. He takes the easy way: Perfecting the things he knows well and does well already.
Topalov would be a good example for reinventing himself. He worked on his fear of losing, and made the step from top-level grandmaster to world-championship contender. Kramnik's case is different, since he doesn't worry about losing, but to improve, he will have to have a good look at his own weakness first.
Quality will show. Kramnik is clearly a (very high) quality player, neither this match defeat nor any perceived passivity in his style can change this. But I would love to know what happened if Kramnik invested the next three years working on pure tactical aggression. I don't think he has much left to prove, having been world champion. So why can't he just have some fun and let the results take care of themselves?
I wish the interviewer had asked him about game 6. That seemed to be Kramnik's kind of territory yet didn't seem to put up much resistance.
I have to say Kramnik is an excuse maker . He was not out-prepared but outplayed on the board . He sat for hours trying to understand the position which Anand did much faster than Kramnik could . This shows why Anand is a la Capablanca gifted to find good moves and brush off second right moves right away. As for game 10 , the strong novelty from Kramnik - Re1 did the talk - and was nice performance from Kramnik to shake Vishy .
Ivanchuk has a large advantage in that his opening repertoire is probably the broadest in any elite player. Kramnik will have to reinvent himself with two or three openings, and there's a limited amount of magic and surprise you can do with so little arguments...
To all the Kramnik naysayers, let's keep things in perspective here. Don't forget he played a hyper-prepared and focused Anand. Against such opposition anyone can be made to look bad. But objectively, Kramnik only looked bad in the beginning of the match where he was always in time trouble due to Anand's better preparation. Towards the middle and end (I don't count the last clinching game since Kramnik had to play to avoid a draw) Kramnik clearly had the match momentum shifting his way.
If there's one knock against Kramnik in this match, I thought, was that he did not show the kind of champion's nerve or heart in tough positions. Otherwise, the rest could be chalked up to Anand's superior preparation and great form over-the-board.
Kramnik will be back. You can count on it.
"If there's one knock against Kramnik in this match, I thought, was that he did not show the kind of champion's nerve or heart in tough positions."
The fine art of trying to sound like someone who knows something about chess.
you know, that was really uncalled for.
"The fine art of trying to sound like someone who knows something about chess."
Sorry, I don't have the credentials of... oh wait, you're another internet nobody as well. Please don't act like you're anything else.
Do you know what an "excuse" is? In the sporting realm it has to do with self-affixing blame for the superior play of an opponent. It often features woulda-coulda-shoulda longueurs, but it can be more easily identified as failing to give credit to the winner.
In the posted interview Kramnik congratulates Anand for superior preparation:
"At this time, Anand is the model of preparation, he is the best in the world!"
And even while musing on the spot about making changes to his game, he gives additional credit to his opponent:
"I need to change my preparation approach. It is in that respect that I am behind Anand"
Not once can Kramnik be found to be dismissing or downplaying the chess of his opponent, and he doesn't knock his own play either:
"In that particular game I managed to drag him into the territory where he wasn't that strong. And indeed, I outplayed him rather easily."
He speaks highly of his own chess in an overall losing effort, which is another acknowledgment of the strength of Anand's chess in the match victory.
So you did not have to say "I have to say Kramnik is an excuse maker" because, at least from what we are shown of the interview, this is certainly not true.
I know Kramnik mentions the "outprepared" thing a lot. But watch this. He says,
"I am absolutely sure Anand didn't work more than I did, because I worked a lot. (But he and his team did it more effectively.)"
"The huge number of new ideas (was surprising). He wouldn't run out of novelties: in any opening, in any position, there were fresh and well-worked out ideas."
I am sure Kramnik would have prepared more than Anand. He was just counting on matches alone. Ineffective preparation is not likely to be true because of his previous recent match exposures. He admits the preparation difference is huge. That means, to close the gap, he needs like 5 years (life time!) to prepare for Anand's 1 year preparation. Just like for computers to go one level deeper you need double the processing power/effort/speed. It was not just the wide variety of preparation, it was the depth that Kramnik couldn't come to terms with. In optimal moves (or forced moves) you can understand the depth that you go in, but Anand kept on choosing suboptimal moves and still he looked to be in familiar territory! Imagine how much preparation you have to do and how much moves you need to keep in memory for that. If your memory is not that good enough, it will immediately take a dump! The match results would have been much different if draw offers (in Game 2 & in Game 11) were banned!
"Just like for computers to go one level deeper you need double the processing power/effort/speed."
That is correct for binary search trees. It is much worse for chess because of the large (>> 2) branching factor.
Z.D.
I agree. Kramnik's personality has been one of the revelations of the match for me, and has certainly made me a fan. (As long as he is playing anyone other than Anand.) I have never seen a sportsman talk so candidly about his failures, assess his abilities without either arrogance or false modesty... even after such a bitter loss, I don't see any attempt in his remarks to salve his ego. He says that he worked at least as hard as Anand, that he spent a full year focused only on the match and was still beaten squarely. Never heard a top sportsman talk like this after a loss, except maybe in golf. He seems to know exactly how good he is and doesn't need to project a larger than life image. (Kasparov, for example, had an excuse after every loss and wanted everyone to believe he was invincible.) I am sad that some Anand fans don't appreciate it, but Kramnik really doesn't need any defense from this charge of making "excuses". His interviews are pretty clear on the point, for an objective reader.
The word "outprepared" can mean many things.
a) you studied the wrong openings
b) you studied the right openings, but opponent found several novelties you were not prepared for
c) you studied the right openings, the opponent was not able to surprise you with his "away-from-the-board" preparation, but you were outclassed in ability to play the types of positions that arise from the chosen openings and lines
d) you, for whatever reason were not in as good a mental or physical condition, heading into the match, as your opponent
Kramnik is being accused of C. The suggestion, made by osbender, Mig and others is that there is a range of positions that Kramnik does not play as well as a GM his level might be expected to, and a well-prepared opponent can force Kramnik into those positions.
I think Kramnik is talking too much about preparation , he did that after Elista too.
In Elista he was very lucky that Topalov converted a 1 1/2 - 1/2 into a 0-2 in the first two games, and after the scandal exploded very few people would admit that Topalov dominated big part of the match.
Kramnik is an excuse maker , and saying that the second half was dominated by him is not understanding that Anand was facing his own fear to lose.
Of course he will play humble while losing, but what would be the story if he had won.
Like Anand said its good that we wont hear anything like that anymore.
His opening preparation is the choice of a player who never had to qualify for a single match to the crown.
It is easy to understand why Anand was worse off in the second half -- he used up his best opening ideas during the first half, and then Kramnik was able to show his preparation. I think Anand hinted as much in one of his interviews in the Indian press. I don't believe Anand has any special psychological weakness which made him lose game 10. Mig said after Anand's win in game 6 that Anand has "bur[ied] his own reputation for lacking a killer instinct." (There were similar comments during the Mexico WCC after Anand beat Morozevich and took a +3 lead.) Yet, this corpse keeps getting exhumed...
Sooner or later someone was going to show up and turn on the hate, which was inevitable following Mig's chum-toss to the sharks with "I'm a little concerned for Kramnik". PircAlert's post was too tangled in onanistic outer space to count, but Manu jumps right in there:
"Kramnik is an excuse maker"
Find an excuse from the interview on this thread and post it for us.
"saying that the second half was dominated by him..."
Who said Kramnik dominated the second half? Certainly not Kramnik, and that's likely because he didn't dominate the second half.
"is not understanding that Anand was facing his own fear to lose.
Kramnik wasn't facing the same fear? Considering he was somewhat behind on points, that's fantastic! He must be a lot cooler under pressure than you imagined.
"Of course he will play humble while losing, but what would be the story if he had won."
Hmmm....considering that both players have an idea of sportsmanship and humility very different from yours, I'm guessing the story would be roughly the same with roles reversed.
"Like Anand said its good that we wont hear anything like that anymore."
The way you relay what Anand "said" reflects what you wish to be true instead of the truth: at no time after the match was Anand quoted as gloating over his win and/or taunting his opponent.
"His opening preparation is the choice of a player who never had to qualify for a single match to the crown."
Interesting algorithm here. Your insight into his preparation must be staggeringly deep. Let's forget for a moment that Kramnik actually did play a qualifying match, losing to Shirov a decade ago. So let's say Kramnik actually defeated Shirov. Can you demonstrate how Kramnik would have instructed his team to help him prepare for the Anand match a decade later? What different "choices" would he have made?
i never like this kramnik dude with his arrogance. he is just one lucky cheat who got installed with the crown in the first place. how could u guys accept his legacy in lieu of his past. a champion should behave like a clean sheet without any stain of bad blood. whoever supports his credibility should check their souls coz it really matters when you look at yourselves in the mirror and find who that person really is.
I said this:
"Like Anand said its good that we wont hear anything like that anymore."
You said this:
¨The way you relay what Anand "said" reflects what you wish to be true instead of the truth: at no time after the match was Anand quoted as gloating over his win and/or taunting his opponent.¨
Anand said this :
Q: Kramnik said a few nasty things before the match. Did that fire you up?
A: Well, you can imagine what I would have had to listen to if I had lost the match. When you see such things, it has to give some extra motivation. I’m happy that I will not have to listen to such things any more.
I can draw something too if it makes things easier 4u.
so is this why kramnik and anand were so nice to each other throughout the bonn match ?
http://tinyurl.com/6qkzb2
"I can draw something too if it makes things easier 4u."
By all means draw something 4me. There's no gloating nor taunting in that response from Anand regarding his motivating factors before the match.
So why not draw me a self-portrait of U crying and holding your breath till U turn blue in the faint hope that Anand would mock his opponent like the poor sport and toilet hound U want him 2 be?
Manu is right. It does indeed sound like Anand is taunting Kramnik there. Once again it shows Anand has no class. You really need to be a jerk to end up being more bitter in victory than your opponent is in defeat.
I'm glad russianbear has recovered from Kramnik's loss and is back in form :)
Never said Anand was taunting... just illustrating my point.
(@clubfoot) : You wrote a psychological profile on me based on false facts and then you get mad like a child.
Im not showing you my drawings until you behave like grown boy.
:)
Kramnik did a Spassky!
Correction!My url is:-
http://www.chatur.wetpaint.com
and NOT
http://chatur/wetpant.com
Sorry for the typo!
Kramnik showed he was down, by his body language.Poor Psychology!
"Never said Anand was taunting... just illustrating my point."
Your only proved your point was false, like everything else in your earlier post: laughably false and dishonest.
Now now, I would never presume to write a psych profile; however, you lie too often to be taken seriously. So forget the drawings -- are you going to explain how Kramnk's prep for Anand would be different had he defeated Shirov? Do share with us.
Manu is just clueless, as allways.
Anand:
"Whether he was taunting me, but didn’t believe it or whether he believed it and then he was taunting me, I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. We also hit back on certain things. I mean, he taunts me AND I TAUNT HIM BACK, it comes with the territory." http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5003
My emphasis.
I don't think Kramnik has taunted Anand deliberately, but if Anand is quoted correctly (as everyone assumes when it comes to Kramnik's statements) he admits that he has taunted Kramnik.
Unless we want to play some silly "waaahhh, he started it" game, I don't think neither him nor his diehard fans should have anything to complain about when it comes to Kramnik unless they also complain about Anand. Possibly even more about Anand, as there is no evidence that Kramnik ever meant any harm, but Anand is openly admitting it.
By saying this I'm not targetting Anand, only the hordes of Kramnik haters who repeatedly used a couple of dubious statements blown up beyond all reasonable proportions in a campaign to "prove" that he was a big bad bully.
@Clubfoot / Rubinstein :
Now im laughably false , dishonest and clueless?
You are getting too emotional for my taste.
I don´t know what to say , last time i have this position i was in the kinder.
"last time i have this position i was in the kinder"
Forget about last week.
I meant the position of having to deal with children.
This is becoming spam , anyway thx for your thoughts .
Kramnik fans unable to digest defeat are burning the midnight oil studying "tauntology"? Incredible!
acirce,
Anand is just trying downplay everything to cover Kramnik. Its like he is saying "You taunt me, I taunt you, We taunt each other!" like friends. That is not admission of anything!! Got me? :)
If Anand has taunted Kramnik, I need proof!!
It is not just the taunts, the far reaching implications of the taunts on the chess world was the cause of concern for Anand. In any case, Kramnik was gracious in his defeat for whatever be the reasons! Let us leave him alone!!
Kramnik haters like jaideepblue, unable to digest defeat of their fetish, continue to drain their pus all over this thread while showing no respect whatsoever to the new WC champion; tautology hovers over their bloody-simpleminded attacks like mold over a cheese.
I don't think we are Kramnik haters , we just don't believe him (4 whatever crazy reasons).
But dont be afraid, you got us paralized with your insults and cheap profiling.
Anand made some comments equating his various FIDE titles with Kramnik's match-title. Kramnik made a comment or two to the effect that the match title was more prestigious and that he expected to get the WCC title back.
Small potatoes.
After Anand's "no big deal" comments, anyone who still can't "get over it" deserves what they get from Clubfoot.
So in your opinion ,one actually can ¨deserve¨ agression for expresing his mind.
Interesting theory! , you would be the great mediator ever.
Manu,
Anand and Kramnik speedily and maturely resolved any trivial differences between them and moved on.
Some folks in this blog, for whatever reason, nevertheless insist on continuing to vent their aggressions against one of the players. If these folks get some of their own back from Clubfoot I can't say they deserve much sympathy.
Greg,
You know what ?
You are right , lets punish them ,rules don´t aply to them, because they are wrong.
I like your style.
“I don't think neither him nor his diehard fans should have anything to complain about when it comes to Kramnik unless they also complain about Anand. Possibly even more about Anand, as there is no evidence that Kramnik ever meant any harm, but Anand is openly admitting it.”
anand is a gentleman and even makes excuses for krmanik by saying “it’s nothing, i did it too”. anand hasn’t taunted anyone, compare with kramnik:
“He takes chances, he is always lucky a little, as I noticed. He played 1-1 with both 2nd and 3rd players and had no winning chances in any of these games. this is very usual for him as a real tournament fighter”
for a kramnik fan this is him praising anand because he says he is tournament fighter but read it three times, is so sarcastic and negative that no other top player would say so about anyone. krmanik just lacks class, he could learn from anand there too.
"but read it three times"
More like "read it three times, over and over, straining to draw at least a drop of blood for my Kramnik-bashing purposes...ah! There we go! I'll write 'no class' here"
Both Kramnik and Anand are champions and both are lucky. Show me a pro in any sport who was never lucky somewhere along the line and I'll show you a loser. Anyone inferring sarcasm and negative sentiment in this statement needs to do something with his life. But handlethetruth probably just isn't very lucky.
Nor does Kramnik's assessment turn back on himself for a favorable comparison -- "I, on the other hand, have never relied solely on luck..." -- which would indeed show no class. Instead Kramnik was pointing out distinct differences in tournament style: he uses the term "tournament fighter" for Anand perhaps because he (Kramnik) has never been a real fighter in tournament play and he knows it.
"krmanik just lacks class, he could learn from anand there"
You hate him so much you've forgotten how to spell his name? Anyhow Kramnik has nothing to learn from Anand in matters of class; however, handlethetruth could learn a great deal of class from Kramnik.
It's funny that Kramnik fans should think Anand has been taunting Kramnik. The way Kramnik disrecpected Anand even after he lost the title last year was incredible. And so did many of his fans like Russianbear. The stuffs Kramnik said clearly indicated that he was such a sore loser.
Anand on the other hand, had to respond everytime after Kramnik and the press would insult him/mock his other hard-won titles. Vishy did most of the talking on the board unlike Topalov and Kramnik. Even this statement, "imagine what I would have to listen had I lost" came only because he was constantly insulted by Kramnik and his Russian fans/media. He was 100% right in saying that. If he had lost, Kramnik would have done and said everything he could do dump Anand and take him out of the picture. Thankfully, it didn't happen.
The whole chess world knows what a nice guy Anand is. For a person who took all these insults for so many years, Anand has responded well both on and off board. He simply humbled Kramnik- both on and off. Bravo, Anand!
@Krish >
Thats why i wrote: " Of course he will play humble while losing (Kramnik), but what would be the story if he had won.
Like Anand said its good that we wont hear anything like that anymore."
Meaning that for some time we will have this "humble" Kramnik , and for some of us thats a relief.
RussianBear, gregkoster and Mig are pretty much the only posts here that I read. I completely agree with gregkoster that since Anand and Kramnik have resolved their differences and moved on, so should the rest of the folks.
But this comment from Russian suggest he hasn't moved on either, and jumped at the first opportunity to bash Anand again. Seems like it is ok for Kramnik to say that "I've loaned the title to Anand", but not for Anand to say "I mean, he taunts me and I taunt him back, it comes with the territory."
Russian, I will gladly add you to the list of people without class -- Ninja status notwithstanding.
You don´t read my posts?
Why God, why?
Why hasn't anyone written a book about this match? I find this very surprising! This must be the first World Championship in over 100 years without a book having been written about it.
Bareev's masterpiece is the best chess book I've ever read.
Let's hope he titles the next edition "From London to Bonn."
If you're in a not good position and have got no money to go out from that, you will require to take the personal loans. Just because that would aid you unquestionably. I take consolidation loans every year and feel myself OK just because of this.
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