Game five underway with the match tied up 2-2, scheduled for best of eight. What's with the colors? The original schedule I have says Kamsky should have white in game five, which would be the usual thing since they should flip colors at the half so they don't always give white after a rest day to the same player. Now Topalov always has white after the rest days. Not a big deal, but a little weird. Sorry for telling everyone Kamsky had white, but it still says so in the rules...
3.4.1 The draw for colors will be conducted during the opening ceremony. The colors shall be reversed after game 4. (The player getting the white color in game 1 shall play game 5 with the black color).
According to Macauley Peterson there in Sofia, speaking with Kamsky's second, Emil Sutovsky, this was agreed back in Dresden during their November meetings, so definitely not a surprise to the players, at least. Macauley has an item on this from Sofia in the ICC Blog.
Anyway, 1.e4 from Topalov and a French! The first in Kamsky's life, I believe.
+ Holy heck. From a defensible if inferior IQP holding action Kamsky blundered a clean pawn with ..Nb4 in a fairly simple position. He decided to give up another to get a queen + pawn endgame instead of a very bad rook endgame, but it made little difference. Topalov cleaned up efficiently and 1-0. Incredible. Brutal. Topalov leads 3-2. Kamsky almost certainly has white tomorrow. More tonight.
There is an anonymous post at Susan Polgar's site:
"Originally it was so that the colors were changed from game 5, so Kamsky should have white again in game 5. But I believe there has been some discussion about this, and therefore is was changed again. It was deceided already several days ago.""
I just asked that person where he (or she) found this. Anyway, it is a bit odd to make changes DURING a match, and not disseminating such information to the wider public ... maybe Macauley will ask at the press conference later today?
The change was decided in Dresden (well before the match) and signed into the match rules by both players here in Sofia, also before the start of the match. So, there were no changes "during" -- the information just didn't get on the official site or out to the broader chess world. I will try to find out why.
They took the game off chessbase.com? This seems to be an idiotic stance for the organizers to make. What's the point? Don't they want as many people as possible to watch the games?
Internet broadcasting really isn't so different from TV broadcasting. There is definite ownership, and money is likely involved heavily in this equation. Much like TV networks would not consider it beneficial for others to broadcast major sporting events that they have exclusive rights to, the organizers have every right to assert that Chessbase has no right to broadcast the game.
Hotep,
Maliq
But chess is not football so...yeah.
I don’t get the money issue. I would understand if there are commercials during the broadcast, but this is chess and we don’t have those types of things during a web broadcast of a game... it looks a bit like helping the home player
Imust say I am really impressed with the live coverage at the official website. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a live link has worked wiith no hassle, no error messages, and withot asking to install something. Kamsky-Topalov Sofia is one of those times. For example, I can never see the games on the Linares site; the player loads, but there is no game list. And really, Linares is more the norm than the exception. When you consider thatyou get a live video feed for free... Good stuff Sofia.
Maliq,
There is a big difference between broadcasts of chess moves on the internet and TV broadcasts of popular sporting events. It's called money. I don't see any money at all (advertisements) on the official site. And why single out chessbase but not ICC or Susan Polgar or chessdom.com?
wouldn't this be a surprise to the players then since the rules have been tweaked.liked this site!would be great from now on if any hyperlink mentioned in the post could be directed to another window tab.
I don't pretend to know how money plays into the equation, nor what deals exist or do not between the organizers and Susan or chessdom.com. What I will say is that server traffic is a very real measure of success, and if there is some correlation between such traffic and, say, likelihood that a current sponsor will ante up for future events, then it does actually make sense. In any event, there can be no real dispute over the claim that the organizers have the rights to the broadcast, only about whether others have the right to violate them without penalty.
Hotep,
Maliq
Malik,
What does Hotep mean please?
Kamsky just blundered with 35 ..Nb4 this loses a pawn and the game. Looks like kamsky lost patience with the position and missed a simple tactic... cest la vie
HardyBerger,
Hotep means "peace". And yes, Kamsky just blundered a pawn for no good reason. Perhaps he thought he was getting 2 rooks for the queen and missed the fact that the new c2 rook would fall to a fork soon afterward.
Hotep,
Maliq
oh, such a terrible blunder in a completely drawn position. Kamsly sinks into deep thought now.
"Looks like kamsky lost patience with the position and missed a simple tactic... cest la vie"
I don't think he lost patience - but he probably relaxed when he seemed to have won the middle game battle and escaped from a tricky position.
Still some drawing chances in a rook ending.
It's terrible that he would play so well on this unfamiliar terrain and then blunder only once the draw was achieved, and to a tactic that would lose him the game against even players who had an elementary understanding of tactics. How could this be?
Hotep,
Maliq
Or he can ignore the rook ending a pawn down and go for a queen ending two pawns down... :(
Now Topalov has two pass pawns. It's a lost game for Kamsky. Such a waste !!
Wow! We have all done this he has followed it up with the blunder of a 2nd pawn - he will resign in a few minutes. These positions may be theoretically equal but its a real strain to defend them as black - especially if you have no experience defending them with c5 against Nd2. Toppys move order cleverly avoided the Qxd5 line and ensured an IQP. Some credit here for him.
Kamsky will get one pawn back and he can still put up some fight - even though it is probably objectively lost.
Shipov gives some nice combinations starting with 35...f5! (rather than the blunder):
36.Qxf5 Ne7! 37.Re6 Qxg3+ 38.fxg3 Rxc2+ 39.Qf2 Rxf2+ 40.Kxf2 Nd5
or, 36.Ree2 Ne5!! 37.Nxe5 Rxc2
What went on in his mind after 37 Rxd4 ? Desparation?
Ok, so he realized he made a mistake. However any
decent player, let alone a super GM, should know in such a position one should go into rook endgame.
He allowed the exchanges of the rooks and in the process allowing Topalov having two pass pawns.
Nb4 seems like an impatient move because its trying to force exchanges instead of maintaining the balance. Kamsky did not "win" the middle game its much easier to play this position as white than black. Finally the rook ending is a technical win for white. Anyway he will now be 2 pawns down in a Q ending which is utterly lost ...
The problem, roamingwind, is probably that he couldn't actually get to the rook endgame. It is all well to say that playing down a pawn in a R + P ending gives him chances to survive, but he had no real way of forcing the queens off of the board favorably. Rather, immediate pressure was to be exerted against f7, and after meeting that, he would have to concern himself with an almost inevitable loss of the pawn on b4. Nb4 was just a terrible blunder, and it is hard to make a justification for it in a simple endgame after he had already gotten everything under control and made his pawns unwinnable.
Hotep,
Maliq
Interesting. Now Kamsky has a choice of going into
(probably lost)Ps endgame with a pawn down. Where did I put that Muller book (Secret of pawn endgame) :-)) ?
Maliq, he could easily get the queens off the board by taking on d4 and putting the queen on d5 (pinning white's queen to the king). Sure, that position would also be theoretically won, but black would have vastly better chances. A queen ending against 2 passed pawns is just completely lost.
Andy, actually I'm inclined to agree with you that white still had an edge, though it looks like Rc2 played for the trap (that worked) but let black have complete equality if he spotted ...f5.
Nope he does not get 1 pawn back its a trivial win
There was no edge in that position for white after Rc2. The game was equal, and black could hold the draw easily by taking the strategy of "do nothing". As my former trainer used to say, sometimes, you just make a move, press the clock, and ask your opponent, "Now, what will you do?"
Hotep,
Maliq
Yep I missed 45. Qe1! and 46. a3! (which were already played when you posted your reply !?). Kamsky still keeps playing, some others may have resigned already [and from the live video I had the impression that Topa was waiting for Kamsky's hand].
Update: Just when I wanted to write "Isn't Kamsky known to play until (one move before) mate sometimes?" he did resign.
1-0. Pas tres jolie. Pauvre Kamski.
Well, the immovable object has once again been moved, and now he must find a way to outplay Topalov again. This is not impossible, but with only 3 games left in the match, things are getting critical. What a shame, because he had successfully held with black against Topalov's first 1. e4 of the match and was looking forward to 2 out of 3 games as white to finish en equal match.
Hotep,
Maliq
I feel really bad for Kamsky now. In both games which he lost he actually played well. He lost due to self-destruction, not because he was out played by Topalov. Such kind of things hang heavy on your psyche.
Maliq, as mishanp already mentioned. Kamsky had a chance to go into R endgame with Qd4, much better change for resistance.
... guess this was not only the first, but also the last time in his life Gata played the french...
Btw. on the live video stream you could watch Gata after his Nb4 move. Topalov looked surprised and in the same second Gata realized his blunder and just like Kasparov in his best days, started shaking his head in disbelieve, long before Topalov actually played Nxb4 axb4 Rxd4.
And instead of leaving the stage, calm down and put up resistance, he played fast and blundered again with Qf8 (better Qxd4) and the game was just lost after.
Sad news for Kamsky supporters, but I doubt he'll be able to level the match again, not after such a horrible blunder.
35.-f5! looks like a typical computer line to me ... Kamsky didn't have computer assistance during the game (so I think, and this seems to prove it), maybe Shipov had doing his live commentary. At the start, you have to expect sudden tactical chances in a maneuvering game to have a chance to find them ... and well, Kamsky missed a more simple tactic.
Well there are stronger players around here than me, how many of you guys found 35.-f5! independently?
...Nb4 was pretty terrible, but I don't think ...Qxd4 is the answer. Certainly you'd rather defend a rook ending than a queen ending but 37...Qxd4 38 Rxc7 Rd7 39 Qa8+ and 38... Rf8 39 Rc4 don't look inspiring.
"I doubt he'll be able to level the match again, not after such a horrible blunder."
Raffael, I tend to agree with you ... but Kamsky has nerves of steel, and what is actually worse: a horrible blunder or a horrible game (#2, at least in terms of clock management)?
oh gosh... what a blunder that was. I thought Kamsky had equalised quite comfortably, and then some.
Topa has achieved almost nothing with white so far , and yet today´s got lucky and his oponent blundered .
In my country we call this: champion´s luck.
The good thing is that no one can say anymore that he is winning due to his preparation only , Topa is showing some good nerves this time too.
>In my country we call this: champion´s luck.
That's not what you called it when Topa was blundering in Elista.
37...Qxd4 38 Rxc7 Qd5 pins the White Q and forces the Q exchanges. White then would probably play 39 Rb7 then 40 Qxf3 Kxf3 41 Rd5. Still a hard struggle for Black, but imo much better than the line chosen by Kamsky.
Actually, it seems to be quite common that after a blunder, a GM will follow up with another mistake shortly thereafter. Though they're trained to have nerves of ice, it has to be a distraction when you just throw away the game like that.
There is a theory that states that the weaker player creates his own misfortune. It is hard to apply to situations such as this, however, since it was an outright blunder in a fairly simplified position that led to the defeat. Great players have dropped queens in one move, or missed winning them, and I do not know what to make of such instances.
Hotep,
Maliq
One can blunder under pressure, but I didn't see the pressure in this
game. A lucky strike for Topalov I'd say. So far Topalov has not
dominated in any way. Let's see what happens to the end. On one side
it is hard to prepare for a player like Kamski, it seems, but on the
other side, I see things that Topalov should be worried about if he
continues forward. The match dynamic is different, of course.
D.
Topa doesen't look impressive so far and I still think that Kamsky can equalize over the next 3 games. He is the right person with those nerves to play in such situations.
Agree about Topalov's level thus far. At this playing level, even if Topalov wins this match he would not be a match for Anand.
ah, but Topalov almost always gets a second air towards the end of an event, or so goes the tale.
por otro lado, es una verdadera mierda perder asi, como en el juego de hoy, pobre Kamsky, veamos que pasa
To be fair, with this playing level neither Topalov nor Kamsky is a match for Anand.
It's a tale. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. If you
look through all the tournaments, it all varies, but people love
to dramatize things and create tales...
D.
No i didn´t , why would i cheer for a player i don´t like?
Despite playing below his strenght Topa is on the lead , chances are that in some point he has to play acording his level again , i hope he can do that tomorrow and end this match before Gata bounces back.
BTW , how strong is Gata in rapid chess?
Gata beat Anand 2-0 in the rapid tiebreaks in 1994 Sanghinagar match. So pretty strong I would say!
I wouldn't call Sanghi Nagar a good indication of anyone's playing strength. That said, Kamsky is a good rapid player.
Topalov winning tomorrow still wouldn't win the match; 4.5 points are required to avoid tiebreaks.
I wouldn't say Topalov has played below his strength. At the 2700+ level you expect the draw a few games with White just because an idea doesn't work out. Topalov lost one game, a position he probably shouldn't have played into in the first place. He's scored 60% against a player rated above 2700, which isn't nothing. I thought his play today, against an opening he probably had no particular prep for, to be perfectly respectable, if not inspired. The position doesn't always permit inspiration.
Still, I'd like to see a bit more enterprising chess from him, especially against a known underprepared player like Kamsky. Where is that Najdorf?!?!
Does anyone know what Gata said in the press conference about his blunder?
http://www.wccc2009.com/en/press5.html
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately Kamsky does not want to talk; at least I don't understand a word he is saying.
@ freitag
I couldn't understand him either, but I guess even if he was in the mood to talk, he could not say anything else, than that he simply gave the game away with one move, and still doesn't understand how this blunder could happen.
Chessbase has a interesting game 5 commentary from GM Marin which could explain it a bit. In fact Gata maybe underestimated the white position (allowing h4, exchanging dark squared bishops without need, pushing d4...)and this carelessness is the main reason he got into trouble and lost.
Yes - this Marin commentary is a great antidote to all those comments about kamsky blundering in a dead level position. Just looking at computer evaluations can lead to these misassessments. In fact Topalov had gradually out manoevred Kamsky and the position was quite difficult as anyone who has had to defend these positions over the board knows. Marin points out that d4 by black was a mistake because it reduces the flexibility of his position.
I think Gata said something like: "I think Vaselin said everything, and I agree with him."
What else did they expect him to say? You can debate all night long whether a positional move is good or not. But, how do you "explain" a blunder? Yeah... so... I didn't see it.
Marin commentary is great for this game , the Fisher example is what i was hoping for Topalov to play while watching the game (exchage queens, deprive the black king from castle).
And the guy explains nicely why it doesnt work well.
Maybe Topa is playing great but in an style that i was not expecting him to play ,the Marin`s comment changed my evaluation of the game drastically.
But it is funny indeed the way chessbase like to insult Topa , there is a picture of Marin as a thumbnail for the article!
I always thought that the guy who plays the game should be the center of the article , not the commentator.
Anand had completely lost his head by then..after giving up his two-game lead..
Anyway, it'll probably be better from the stability and public interest stand point of the (unified) World Championship if Topalov wins. Not that either of these two have it in them to beat a 21st century Anand in match-play, but at least a Topalov-Anand match will generate some public interest. If Kamsky wins this, wonder how many will turn up to watch the #1 (probably >2820 by the time the WC final begins) vs the #15..
That's the first time I have heard you say Topalov blundered in Elista. Up to now your line has been that Topa played the best chess of his life but was still beaten.
Both of them can beat Anand, but yes it would be great if Topalov makes it.
I have played the French as Black all my life, and was thrilled to see it on the board. However I always play the closed version of the Tarrasch, and my encounters with the open variation have always been as white funnily enough. Its a very solid opening (unless you are Tal playing blitz against Short, when it is all too easy: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1124259 ) as Kamsky showed, holding with relative ease. I really feel for the guy. Have to say I think he's almost played the better chess so far, massacre in Game 2 notwithstanding, which was due to horrible time management. Topalov looks strangely subdued, wonder whether he thinks he can coast through it on Kamsky's blunders and the +1 lead. Leko made that mistake against Kramnik and never achieved the same heights in his career again. Hiding preparation or not, Topalov has to show something better than he's done up to now to seize this match by the scruff of its neck.
ok, I have had a closer look at the game and various analyses, and I have to say that Topalov actually played this quite nicely, but hard to believe that somebody of Kamsky's calibre cannot hold this.
More than that, d_tal, when Topalov won Game 8, rdh was the leading
proponent of the theory that Topalov cheated. That was exactly at the
time when I joined this forum and I have vivid memories of his
thrashing about. Go, check it out yourself and correct if I have
misunderstood.
D.
Manu, I picked the blunder comment from Susan's blog. Apparently that
was not quite the truth. Unfortunately, we unskilled observers rely on
someone's interpretation all too often.
Slightly off topic: I remember the times in the 80's when Maradona
would suddenly make a strange pass, nowhere near anyone... And the
commentators would state that he made a "strange move". The truth is
that that the move was far from strange, but simply there was a
misunderstanding in the team and it didn't quite work out as
intended. At that time, between Mario Kempes and Maradona, the
Argentineans were unbeatable in soccer. Once their moves became
obvious to all, they were.
D.
Maradona as a player is one of the few joys we had over the last decades in this forsaken land we like to call Argentina.
"More than that, d_tal, when Topalov won Game 8, rdh was the leading proponent of the theory that Topalov cheated."
Why not at least make a try for accuracy, Dimi, especially since rdh's daily dirt posts from that period are so easily accessible? If you're claiming that rdh accused Topalov of cheating at Elista, that's simply false.
An Anand-Kamsky match for the WC would be fantastic, a great battle of styles and approaches to the games. The two matches in the 90s - Sanghinagar and Las Palmas were quite electrifying in their twists and turns and this would be the "tie-break" after 15 years!
Caro Kann....!!! Topalov seems determined to make some sorty of statement!
Uh..oh Kamsky is showing signs of sinking into his "deep thinks". Just play! Go Gata Go!
The statement is called "making a draw with black in a favourable match situation".
Come on, everyone's always talking about the great steaks?
Caro kahn was quite predicatble as was the advance variation. Topalov has been playing this quite a bit recently with good results. In fact both he and Anand have it as a stand by defence. Of course Toppy will have reasonable chances to beat Anand in a match - the last time they played he wiped him off the board. I think attacking players like Topalov and Aronian are more difficult for Anand to handle. Anyway this match is not over yet.....
I am rooting for Gata, but I have to admit that Anand vs. Topalov would be a bigger deal, in terms of a world championship match.
Greg, I will have to go and dig them up. I do vividly remember, but can't quite point out to the particular thread. If you challenge me I will find it, but will have to sift through quite a few messages.
D.
This looks like a stone cold draw... incidentally Magnus has just rattled off 16 moves against Grischuk in apparently 2 minutes!
Just a curious question ... is chessbase compliant today? I don't see the message.
Oh dear Toppy seems to have an edge and Kamsky is starting to get time pressure
Sigh,kamsky in time trouble again with just 11 minutes to make the final 8 moves,come on,gata, win game 6!
oops I was forgetting about the time difference Kamsky is under pressure with the clock ticking if he loses this one the Kamskyites will go bananas....
"Have to say I think he's almost played the better chess so far, massacre in Game 2 notwithstanding, which was due to horrible time management."
Well, time management is part of the game too. Topalov deserves credit for consistently making moves that force Kamsky to burn the clock.
Another draw. What do you think guys, how will Kamsky try to make up the deficit?
I think Topalov will win this match. I could be wrong though :-))) It had been done before, coming back on the last game (or two)
"What do you think guys, how will Kamsky try to make up the deficit?"
Broadly speaking, today's game was the kind Kamsky wanted, with its quiet positional manoevering, but he needed Topalov to make a mistake, and Topalov didn't comply. If anything, based on GM Dimitrov's commentary, Kamsky made a minor error by pushing c4 too soon. So I think Kamsky will try to steer the remaining two games into the same types of positions, play strong moves, and hope Toppy makes a mistake.
Dimi,
I believe you are mistaken.
I think rdh said that a reasonable person might suspect Team Topalov in San Luis but that there wasn't enough evidence to persuade him that VT was actually cheating. And I definitely don't recall him (or anyone else) voicing any sort of suspicion that VT cheated at Elista.
rdh was, however, a "leading proponent" of the idea that The Player and The Manager were beneath contempt, but that's different.
"If anything, based on GM Dimitrov's commentary, Kamsky made a minor error by pushing c4 too soon".
Shipov approved of c4 but thought Qc1 (instead of Rc1) was a mistake that put Topalov on top, with Kamsky possibly simply missing a blow on d4 (16...Nd4) for the second time in two games. Though he held things together well after that.
I just saw the draw , i don´t know if it is my patzer status or what but i like the chess they are playing.
Anand has a lost position - he ducked all the sharp semi slav lines against chucky and opted for a classical slav. In a lovely game by the chuckster he gave a capablanca imitation making it look so easy....
I certainly said Topalov cheated in Elista, and that's what I think now. Not by computer assistance, of course, but by making allegations designed to destablise his opponent. I consider that cheating.
To be fair, I've always thought that Topa was an idiot savant and that it was Danailov who as mainly responsible, but since hs fans like to pretend that Topa's an entire human being who's responsible for his actions, let's go along with that.
In reply to Manu and Maradona: you do like your cheats in Argentina, don't you?!
I think Anand prepared this loss at home. That seems to be the only explanation.
Till move 23 they followed theory. After that Anand didn't make any gross blunders and Chucky didn't play any brilliant moves. Moreover, the positions wasn't ridiculously complex, so Anand should have been able to see what was coming, unless he was relying on home preparation and simply played the moves without thinking too much.
This has been a very weird game so far...
Wait a sec... After 47. Kd5 Rc3, how is Chucky going to get his King into action?
Greg, this is seriously off-topic, but I do have vivid recollection,
then, or after there was a pointed statement to that effect. Can't
find it now, looked briefly, those Elista threads are revolting to
read and recollect...
D.
¨In reply to Manu and Maradona: you do like your cheats in Argentina, don't you?!¨
I cant speak for the hole country rdh , but i will ask them and let you know later .
"Maradona as a player is one of the few joys......
we
had over the last decades in this forsaken land we like to call Argentina."
"I cant speak for the (w)hole country "
The first sentence is my opinion, no contradiction there (except the typo , sorry im working).
I didn´t even started talking of Maradona , i was answering another post , can i help you with anything?
Seems that Ivanchuk throw away the win
Making what look easy?! the game was drawn.
Topalov looks really tired in the press conference , this must be a very critical moment for him.
Great match.
Rdh is a troll whose modus operandi is based on offensive personal remarks. He also has a childlike inability to discern any complexity of opinion, george bush style. I.e. You're with us or against us. He just can't bare it that Kramnik lost badly against anand, and when his home concocted excuses, like pushing with white is what cost him the match, not that he was outpreapared and outplayed, his hate boils over, and he makes cheap and offensive remarks hoping for a bite.
Maybe I am missing some deep subtleties (but then so did all analyses posted so far), but to me today's game Kamsky-Topalov was the least interesting one of the entire match - even the 'blow' 16.-Nd4 was just good for a dead draw (or at most a meaningless =+). Of course a draw may be considered a fine result with black, but how come Topalov suddenly copies Kramnik? ,:)
As I said "Kramnik", and some other posters already provided a few keywords, I see interesting parallels to the Kramnik-Leko match:
1) Both Kramnik and Kamsky threw away a game with white against the Ruy Lopez in a ridiculous way: different variations and different ways of being ridiculous ... for Kramnik's loss in the Marshall "Rybka's" first comment makes perfect sense, that one was prepared at home.
2) Both Leko and Topalov subsequently played the Caro Kann, presumably as a drawing weapon.
If history repeats itself - and along the theme suggested by Marc Shepherd 11:57AM - the last game of the match will be a slow grinding win by Kamsknik (or is it Kramsky?) against the Caro Kann. But who knows, maybe Topalov will surprise everyone (including his seconds!?) and finally play the Najdorf in his last black game ... . Of course another possibility is that he wins with white in the next game, and we will not (yet) see Kamsky's next try against the Caro Kann.
Actually I predicted that Kramnik would lose to Anand by losing games with White in the semi-Slav - look it up if you're interested - so naturally the result gratified my monstrous ego. As I told you at the time, never bet on a newly-wed in any contest which requires intense focus over a period of a year.
As to personal abuse, I think the only abuse I've dished out so far is calling Maradona a cheat, which is hardly a controversial observation about the only player to have been failed a drug test at the World Cup.
I suppose I may have said on some other thread that you know nothing about the game - perhaps that's upset you -, but then to be fair that's hardly a controversial opinion either, is it?
Nothing you can say is really controversial rdh, but feel free to keep insulting people every time your life turns into a pile of crap.
Feels good to help you.
"Greg, this is seriously off-topic, but I do have vivid recollection, then, or after there was a pointed statement to that effect. Can't find it now, looked briefly, those Elista threads are revolting to read and recollect..."
Dimi,
May we assume that you are retracting your accusation (re rdh), since he's denied it and you can't now back it up? You don't want to be classed with folks who make unfounded accusations.
Not yet Greg. I will complete my search. Of course, if I find
nothing and realize that I have been wrong and have wrongly
accused rdh, I will apologize without delay.
Give me a couple of days.
D.
Please don't use the URL as a name. Pick one. Even your own. thanks.
Specialists say that loan help people to live the way they want, because they are able to feel free to buy needed things. Moreover, various banks give credit loan for different classes of people.