Apr-13-25
 | | KEG: The 1902 Monte Carlo Chess Tournament had come down to a single re-play. After the completion of 21 rounds, there was only a single game to be re-played that was poised to decide first place: Maroczy vs. Tarrasch Going into this potentially final game, the scores of the leaders were: Maroczy -- 14.5 (plus one replay)
Pillsbury -- 14.5
Janowski -- 14.0
Teichmann - 13.25
Schlechter --12.0
Wolf -- 12.0
Tarrasch -- 11.75 (plus one replay)
Under the strange rules in this tournament, there was a half-point at stake in this final game. If Maroczy won or drew, he would be the tournament winner and Pillsbury would have to settle for 2nd. If Tarrasch won, then he would take fifth place and Maroczy and Pillsbury would have to contest a play-off match for 1st place.. If Tarrasch lost, he would finish 7th. If the game were drawn, Tarrasch would share 5th through 7th with Schlechter and Wolf. Obviously much more was therefore at stake for Maroczy (and for Pillsbury) than for Tarrasch. For Maroczy, a draw was as good as a win. Since he had White for this final game, and since Maroczy and Tarrasch over the course of their careers drew 11 of their 16 games, Maroczy was a strong favorite to emerge as the winner of the tournament. Given Tarrasch's outstanding tournament career, the difference between 5th and 7th places was probably not of monumental importance. Nonetheless, and as will be seen, Tarrasch--though he allowed Maroczy to obtain a theoretically drawn Bishops of opposite colors ending by move 16--was always a resolute competitor and made some real efforts to complicate. For most of the game Maroczy had at least a draw well in hand. But after some uncharacteristic sloppy play by Maroczy on move 23, Tarrasch had serious winning chances. When he missed this single chance, Maroczy breezed to the tournament-winning draw with ease. Incredibly, the following year, first place in the Monte Carlo 1903 tournament came down to another final-round showdown between Tarrasch and Maroczy. On that occasion, it was Tarrasch who only needed--and obtained-- a draw to win the tournament. 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
The Berlin Defense to the Ruy Lopez which was very popular at the time. Given its potentially drawish nature, Pillsbury (a very interested on-looker) must have been disappointed as he witnessed his prospects of catching Maroczy disappearing. 4. 0-0 Nxe4
5. d4
This, rather than 5. 0-0, is most usually played here. 5... Nd6
6. BxN dxB
7. exd5 Nf5
8. QxQ+ KxQ
click for larger viewMaroczy as White, needing only a draw, must have been delighted at the way the opening here ha played out. While Black has the two Bishops and White has a potentially weak e-pawn, Black's winning prospects seem minimal. And as Maroczy's subsequent play confirms, he was entirely happy to achieve a draw. 9. Rd1+ Ke8
10. Nc3 h6
Entirely sound, though 10...Ne7 is most usually played here. 11. b3
11. h3 is the most usual move here, but the text, which develops the White Bishop on the long diagonal, was entirely safe and logical. It left: 
click for larger viewPillsbury must have been moaning at this point. A peaceful result--and first-place for Maroczy-- seemed extremely likely. He must have expected Tarrasch to play something safe and sound such as 11...b6 or 11...Be6. But both he and Maroczy must have been startled when Tarrasch injected life into the position with: 11... g5?!
click for larger viewWas there going to be a battle-royal or would the always careful Maroczy find a way to steer the position into something truly drawish? |
|
Apr-14-25
| | KEG: Post II
12. Bb2
Displaying his usual sangfroid when presented with unexpected aggression by an opponent, Maroczy calmly went about developing his pieces and securing his small but real advantage. 12. Ne4 was another fine move.
12... Be6
A key theme now in the game was whether and when either player would venture g4. Tarrasch's last move indicated his aggressive intent, but he was apparently not prepared to make a further attacking commitment just yet. 
click for larger view13. Ne2
13. Ne4 looks indicated, and had Maroczy been playing to win I suspect that is what he would have played. But Maroczy needed only a draw, so caution (as reflected by the text) is what he sought. This caution made him extremely difficult to defeat, especially when he had the White pieces. 13... Bc5
Had Tarrasch been seeking only a draw, he presumably would have responded with 13...Rd8. But recognizing what was at stake (especially for Pillsbury), Tarrasch continued to try to keep the game going. 
click for larger view14. Ned4
But Maroczy--for whom first prize here would be (and turned out to be) a major achievement that could place him in line for a match for Lasker--sought exchanges and equality rather than trying to capitalize on his small positional advantage with 14. Nd2. 14... NxN
This made a draw more likely but it was sufficient to give Maroczy what advantage remained. The alternative--and it was a good one--was the more aggressive 14...Ke7 which might have led to some excitement, e.g., 15. NxN+ BxN 16. e6. That likely would also have resulted in a draw, but with some interesting imbalances. Pillsbury was probably rooting for Tarrasch to try 14...Ke7. 15. NxN
click for larger view15... BxN
Here it suddenly appeared that Tarrasch had decided to play it completely safe and allow what looked like an almost certain draw based on the resulting Bishops of opposite colors. The more enterprising move was, of course, 15...Ke7. 16. RxB
16. BxB seems obvious, but Maroczy was hoping for more wood-chopping. 16... Rd8
Giving Maroczy exactly what he wanted: the chance to swap at least one pair of Rooks. 16...c5 or 16...a5 would have livened matters up a bit with little risk for Black. 17. Rad1
Why trade just one pair of Rooks (with 17. RxR+) when there was a chance of even further exchanges! 17... RxR
18. RxR
click for larger viewTarrasch and Maroczy were superb end-game players. So with Bishops of opposite colors, a draw now seemed obvious, right? As will soon be seen, however, there was still plenty of play in the position, and the climax of this game still lay in the future. |
|
Apr-15-25
| | KEG: Post III
18... b6
Preparing c5, which Tarrasch could just as well have played immediately. 19. f3
A typrical Maroczy prophylactic move, restricting the scope of Tarrasch's light-square Bishop. 19... c5
Returning the favor and constricting Maroczy's Bishop. This was all very nice, but the game still appeared to be an inevitable draw. 20. Rd2 Ke7
21. Kf2
Another cautious move, declining even to venture 21. g4. 21... a5
click for larger viewPillsbury, looking on, must by now have despaired of any prospect of a decisive result. This sure looked as if peace would soon be declared. But here, something strange happened. Maroczy, one of the most precise end-game players in the world, got sloppy and went to pieces. Was he overwhelmed by the occasion. Maroczy was on the verge of winning this 1902 Monte Carlo tournament. This would be the highlight of his career to that point. Maroczy had some fine prior results to his credit. At Nuremburg 1896, he had finished second just a point behind Lasker and ahead of Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Janowski, Steinitz, and Schlechter. At London 1899, he had tied for second with Pillsbury and Janowski behind only Lasker and ahead of Schlechter, Blackburne, and Tchigorin. He had won the small Vienna 1899 tournament ahead of Schlechter and then tied for third with Marshall at Paris 1900 behind only Lasker and Pillsbury. Even more impressively, he had tied for first at Munich 1900 with Pillsbury and Schlechter, (but then had to withdraw from the playoff series with illness after losing the first game to Pillsbury. A fine resume. But now he was about to win Monte Carlo 1902 over a world class field (missing only Lasker). All he needed to do now was draw this simple Bishops of opposite colors ending. Did the occasion overwhelm him. In my mind, what now transpired supplies the answer: 22. Ba3
Not a losing move by any means, but not a useful one either. The clearest road to a draw lay in 22. g4 locking down the game entirely. Nonetheless, nothing terrible had occurred and Maroczy remained a heavy favorite to draw this game. 22... a4!
Creating some life in the previously sterile position. But Maroczy should still be able to hold the game easily, right? The position, after all, was now: 
click for larger view23. b4??
Unimaginable from Maroczy! He would still have been fine with 23. g4 or 23. c4 or even with 23. Bc1 or 23. Bb2 of...but why go on? Now suddenly, Tarrasch--who probably could not believe his eyes--had what may have been a theoretical win, the position now being: 
click for larger viewUnless I am missing something, Tarrasch had, at the very least, strong winning chances with 23...cxb4; e.g., 24. Bxc5+ [pretty much forced] c5 25. Ba3 [25. Bc3 Bxa2 would only make things worse for White] Rd8! [and not 25...Bxa2 26. Rd6 and White can survive] 26. RxR KxR 27. Bc1 Bxa2 leaving Black with an extra pawn, a passed soon to be protected a-pawn, and excellent winning chances if not a simple outright win. How could Maroczy have let this happen at this key moment in his career? Even more bizarrely, Tarrasch let this chance slip, playing...instead of 23...cxb4: 23... Bxa2?
click for larger viewAs I will discuss in my next post on this game, Maroczy now managed to escape with a draw. He would have other great triumphs; e.g., his first place at the double round-robin Ostend 1905 tournament; a tie for first with Janowski at Barmen 1905, 2nd place at the mammoth Ostend 1906 tournament ahead of Akiba Rubinstein among others; 2nd place a half-point behind Rubinstein at Karlsbad 1907; a tie for first place with Schlechter and Duras at Vienna 1908; his tie for first with Alekhine and Bogoljubow at Karlsbad 1923; etc. But his first great triumph was here at Monte Carlo 1902. And he nearly blew it! |
|
Apr-16-25
| | KEG: Post IV
24. bxc5
click for larger viewIf Tarrasch had intended to play 24...b5 here (which is arguably slightly stronger), he now decided otherwise, and pretty much forfeited any realistic chance to exploit Maroczy's awful 23rd move. 24... bxc5
25. Bxc5+ Ke6
26. Ke3 Ra8
Still looking for some way to punish White's 23rd move, but the opportunity to do so had almost certainly passed, the position now being: 
click for larger viewBlack now wins a pawn, but it is almost certainly not enough in light of the Bishops of opposite colors. 27. Ba3
Trying to hold onto the White e-pawn would have led to disaster; e.g., 27. Bd4? a3! Maroczy was not likely to commit another major indiscretion! 27... Kxe5
click for larger viewDespite the pawn plus, Tarrasch had scant winning chances. 28. Rd7
This counter-play pretty much guaranteed Maroczy the draw he wanted. 28... Rc8
A bit of cat and mouse by Tarrasch. On its face, 28...Ra7 is better. But Tarrasch probably wanted to gain time and get to the move-30 time control before playing Ra7: 29. Rd4 Ra8
30. Rd7
Obtaining the same position as after White's 28th move, but this time Tarrasch played the superior: 30... Ra7
click for larger view31. Bd6+
This looks cute, but it gave Tarrasch the chance to torture Maroczy a bit more. 31. Bc5 or perhaps 31. Kd3 were simpler ways to play for a draw. 31... Ke6
32. Rxc7
click for larger viewThe draw was still almost certainly inevitable, but Tarrasch made a final effort: 32... RxR
33. BxR
click for larger viewWith the Rooks off the board, is there ANY way for Black to muster up any winning chances. Spoiler alert---almost certainly now. But the position holds a wrinkle before peace can be declared. I will discuss this final wrinkle in my final post on this game. |
|
Apr-17-25
| | KEG: Post V
Confession time. For reasons I can no longer fathom, I had thought that Tarrasch still had at least practical chances here with either 33...a2 or maybe 33...Bc4. But after wracking my brains a bit, I have been forced to conclude that neither move would have caused Maroczy much trouble at all; e.g., (A) 33...a3 34. Kd2 Bc4 35. Ba5 [35. Kc1 or 35. Kc3 are simpler, but as I now see even if 35. Ba5 White is still fine] a2 36. Bc3 f5 37. g3 f4 38. gxf4 gxf4 39. Kc1 and Black has nothing; (B) 33...Bc4 34. Kd4 a3 35. Kc3
Oh well. Evidently Tarrasch never had any winning chances 23...Bxa2? Anyway, back to the actual game:
33... Kd5
No better or worse than anything else.
34. Kd3 a3
35. Bd8
click for larger viewNow White gets his Bishop on the a1..h8 diagonal and/or the White King comes to the rescue. Unquestionably, therefore, Black no longer has any winning chances at all. The game concluded:
35... Bc4+
36. Ke3
36. Kc3 make the draw even clearer.
36... a2
37. Bf6
click for larger viewBlack's chances to promote his a-pawn were now kaput. Therefore: DRAWN
Maroczy thus won the tournament and by 1906, after Maroczy had followed his triumph at this tournament, finished 2nd only a point behind Tarrasch at Monte Carlo 1903, and had an even greater triumph at Ostend 1905 and then tied for first at Barmen 1905, Maroczy came to New York (where he demolished a very young Capablanca in a 2-game match and entered into serious negotiations for a title match with Emmanuel Lasker. The match never took place. I doubt Maroczy would have had much of a chance (he never once took a game from Lasker throughout his career), but I suspect a Lasker-Maroczy match would have been far more interesting than Lasker's slaughter of Marshall in their 1907 world championship match. |
|
| Apr-17-25 | | stanleys: < Maroczy came to New York (where he demolished a very young Capablanca in a 2-game match> I nave never read about this mini match. Do you have the gamescores, and/or an article relating about it? Thanks in advance |
|
Apr-17-25
 | | Sally Simpson: I googled: 'Maroczy - Capablanca 1902' and got this; AI Overview:
"In 1902, Geza Maroczy defeated José Raúl Capablanca in a match, with Capablanca losing all five games without scoring a point." I tried again and got.
AI Overview
"In 1902, Gzszá Maróczy won the Monte Carlo chess tournament, placing ahead of Harry Nelson Pillsbury, and was recognized as a top player. During that same year, Jose Raul Capablanca was still developing his chess skills and placing fourth in the Cuban National Championship. While they didn't play each other in a formal match in 1902...." I tried again and did an F5 refresh and was told about the apparent 5-0 match again. Its wrong. |
|
Apr-17-25
| | Sally Simpson: I tried again and this time I was given.
AI Overview
"In 1902, Geza Maróczy and José Raúl Capablanca played a match where Maróczy won all five games, with Capablanca not scoring a single point, <according to Chess Notes.> I followed the given link. It take you too Edward Winter's; 'Capablanca on Maróczy' https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... Further down that page we see;
"...The result of the match was total success for Maróczy, for his opponent lost five games without being able to score a single point." The main difference being this was a match between Maroczy and Géza Nagy see Maroczy vs G Nagy, 1928 I think this is where the 'AI Overview' got itself all confused. |
|
Apr-20-25
| | KEG: My only source for the 1906 two-game Maorczy-Capablanca match is the recent biography of Maroczy by Laszlo Jakobetz, who (on p. 126) includes the following quotation from Maroczy himself: "We [i.e., Maroczy and Capablanca] first met in New York in 1906. We played two games at the Manhattan Chess Club. I was at the peak of my chess career, and young Capablanca could not handle me, just like the others at that time. However, his style of play showed such originality and depth that I even told Marshall, who was watching, to be glad that this man was not American, because then his championship reign [i.e., Marshall's reign as US Championship] would soon come to an end. The match they played three years later in 1909, which the [then] 21-year old Capablanca won with a score of 8-1, proves how well I judged him." I do not know of any scores for these two 1906 games between Maroczy and Capablanca, and was until these most recent posts on this site of any claim that Maroczy had won five games from Capablanca. Maroczy and Capablanca played eight classical tournament games between 1911 and 1930. Their first two games (at San Sebastian 1911 and London 1922) were drawn. In their remaining six tournament games between 1924 and 1930 (by which time Maroczy was well past his prime, Capablanca won three and drew three. They also drew a Rapid Transit game in 1924. Thus, any games Maroczy won from Capablanca back in 1906 were to be the only games in which he ever defeated the great Cuban champion. To his credit, Maroczy made clear in the above quotation that he did not consider the two games played in 1906 as any true indication of their respective strengths as chess players. Maroczy was a fine champion, but he never achieved--or claimed to have achieved--the level of Capablance (or of Lasker or Alekhine at their respective peaks). |
|
Apr-20-25
 | | Retireborn: <KEG> Thanks for that. Does the Jakobetz book contain any annotated games? |
|
| Apr-20-25 | | Olavi: And what source does Jakobetz give for that quotation from Maroczy. Because it's stunning news.
It is well known that Maroczy carried out negotiations about a match with Lasker at the time, so his being in NY need not be questioned. |
|
Apr-21-25
| | KEG: <Retireborn><Olavi> The Jakobetz book does not supply the moves of any of the games. His source is a book by Ferenc Chalupetsky and Laszlo Toth about Capablanca. This book states that the reflections by Maroczy quoted came from 1943. Jakobetz goes on to throw some cold water on his account: "Arpad Foldeak, a chess historian in the 1980s noticed that Maroczt actually predicted the opposite [of his claim that Marshall would be supplanted by Capablanca], Marshall's victory against the 'genius young man' in 1909. It is a pity that no news or games have been preserved from their personal meeting (unlike Forgacs' quick victory against Capa, which he achieved in 1907 at the MCC). As they say, time beautifies many things, although Maroczy later revised his stance." We can--as <Olavi> notes--be confident that Maroczy was indeed in New York in 1906 to close the deal on a purported match with Lasker. Given Lasker's domination of Maroczy in the games they actually did play, it is probably just as well for Maroczy's reputation that the match did not take place, although Lasker was likely not as his best in 1906, playing as he did only one tournament between 1900 and 1909: Cambridge Springs 1904 in which he finished tied for 2nd with Janowski behind Marshall |
|
| Apr-21-25 | | stone free or die: Capablanca is one GM whose canon is almost certainly fully flushed out - so it would be a great accomplishment, and extremely difficult, to find any new games by the GM. (So I didn't have too great hope in Jakobetz having the games, figuring if he did, we (= <CG>) would too.) As to Maroczy's remarks - I don't find them far out of line. He achieved his peak round about 1905, and so was close his prime in 1906. The question is how did he compare to the then-young Capablanca? As always, EDOchess provides a good accounting:
http://www.edochess.ca/top.graphs/g... In 1906 <Maroczy> was ~2633 (vs. peak of 2667), whereas <Capablanca> was ~2516. It would not be surprising at all for Maroczy to sweep a two game match (though I didn't do the exact calculations to quantitate). Maroczy was the #2 player between 1904-1906, only Lasker surpassed his EDO rating. Still, Capablanca, though lower-rated in 1906, was on a steep rise of about 50 Elo/year. It should have been obvious to all who played him that he was improving without ceiling during this time. Additionally, I can easily imagine <Maroczy> knowingly gauging <Capablanca>'s performance and potential even from just two match games, and making the prediction as quoted above in regards to Marshall (who isn't even included in the EDO top-rated players graph of 1900-1910). |
|
| Apr-21-25 | | Olavi: What bothers me is that we have Maroczy, arguably world number one of active players (http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...) visiting the Manhattan Chess Club in 1906; all sorts of games of his survive from that visit. But not these with Capablanca, nor does Capa mention them in My Chess Career; even though he was already the best player in the club - and won a rapid transit tournament ahead of Lasker, as he writes. They kept score of simultaneous games (OK, the opponents did it themselves...) but not of these?! |
|
| Apr-21-25 | | stone free or die: I see, you doubt the match, and, in consequence, the quotes. This is one for the researchers to dig out.
For a starting direction we have <Ferenc Chalupetsky and Laszlo Toth about Capablanca> with Maroczy's comments from ~1943. I would imagine the local NYC press, or US magazines, would at least have a word about such an encounter. (I'll have a look, distractions premitting..., though my local library is closed due to Patriot's Day (aka Marathon Day)!) |
|
Apr-22-25
| | KEG: The fact Capablanca didn't mention losing two off-hand games to Maroczy at the Manhattan Chess Club in 1906 when he was only 18 years old does not mean the games never occurred. In 1908 the 16-year old Alekhine rashly (quoting Reinfeld) challenged the veteran Nenarokov to a match. After losing the first three games, Alekhine resigned the match. Many years later, in his justly famous "My Best Games of Chess," Alekhine did not include these losses in his statistical record of his career. If Alekhine could do that in the case of a formal match from age 18, Capablanca could certainly have declined to mention the result of two off-hand games when he was even younger. If these games did indeed occur, it is a shame we don't have the score (whether because they were not recorded or not preserved). But I see no reason to doubt Maroczy's account. |
|
| Apr-22-25 | | Olavi: <KEG> I am not so much doubting Maroczy's account; I do think that such games would have been reported contemporaneously. It was the done thing, such games were not off-hand the same way they would be called later. Lasker's Chess Magazine is another possible source worth checking. |
|
| Apr-22-25 | | stone free or die: <Olavi>, sorry if I mischaracterized your objections. I just started looking at the American press coverage of Maroczy's 1906 visit. <<KEG> ...reflections by Maroczy quoted came from 1943> Do we know more about where Maroczy's 1943 comments came from? The primary sources specifically? |
|
| Apr-22-25 | | stone free or die: Not to draw any premature conclusions - but it's clear that the contemporaneous literature had no mention of a direct encounter between Capablanca and Maroczy. So I'm thinking it extremely doubtful they had a formal match of any kind, and that if they did play any games, they were casual. At least during Maroczy's early spring 1906 visit to the US. |
|
Apr-23-25
| | KEG: My only indication as to Jakobetz' source is the previously quoted (by me) statement in his book that: "In 1943, recalling Capablanca, Maroczy wrote the following in Ferenc Chalupetsky and Laslo Toth's book about the Cuban world champion." There is no indication that the two games were part of any formal match or that Maroczy considered that they reflected anything about their respective strengths once Capablanca reached adulthood. The fact that Capablanca excelled in a speed tournament says little about how he would be expected to fare at classical chess at age 18 against a top seasoned pro such as Maroczy. From what Maroczy said, the games did no more than convince Maroczy that he was playing a likely top future champion. Given what he has said, I doubt we would learn much more about either Capablanca or Maroczy if the scores of the two games suddenly materialized beyond what we already know: Maroczy in 1906 was one of the two or three finest players at classical chess in the world and that Capablanca was a spectacular talent whose future likely triumphs were already evident to Maroczy. |
|
| Apr-23-25 | | stone free or die: I quickly reviewed the discussion thread here; it's clear I'll have to give it another go, slowly and carefully. I'm going to fill out Maroczy's US visit a bit more today, just for the sake of doing it - by supplementing the newspaper coverage with that of ACB and other periodicals. As far as the Maroczy comments - we have
<<KEG> Maroczy by Laszlo Jakobetz, who (on p. 126)> and going upstream...
<<KEG> His source is a book by Ferenc Chalupetsky and Laszlo Toth about Capablanca. This book states that the reflections by Maroczy quoted came from 1943.> This book is obscure, understandably, being published during WWII in Hungary, with a limited edition run. <"Capablanca sakkozói pályafutása és játszmái - 1888-1942"
- (Chalupetky Ferenc-Tóth Laszlo
- Hungarian Chess World 1943)>
https://www.muzeumantikvarium.hu/it... Cleveland's White Collection has it:
https://search.worldcat.org/title/4...
Of course I'm still wondering about the context of the comments, and would like to consult the last mentioned book. |
|
| Apr-25-25 | | Olavi: Maroczy's Hundert Schachpartien (1921) from his own pen has no mention of the 1906 visit, but why would it. There is a ten page biographical by Marco, but he just goes through the tournament record. |
|
| Apr-25-25 | | stone free or die: <Olavi: Maroczy's Hundert Schachpartien (1921) from his own pen has no mention of the 1906 visit, but why would it.> Yes, true. His visit to the US was a combination of professional purpose and to meet Lasker for discussions on a WCC match. I doubt he would consider any of his games as significant (and it was reported his often played under less than optimal conditions - e.g. immediately after traveling and without a rest day, etc., etc.) But we do know for a fact that he and Capablanca overlapped on at least one occasion, and where in the vicinity of each other during his time in NYC. It is conceivable they played one or two offhand games, much like when Petrosian was dragged over to play Fischer during one of his early visits to Russia. And even though I would like to read the original texts, I believe the postings here citing Maroczy's writings from 1943. |
|
| Apr-26-25 | | Olavi: Maroczy has a reputation as a lazy writer, but it is not so bad (I'm digressing off the topic.). When a position has interested him he goes deep. |
|
| Apr-27-25 | | stone free or die: Also risking going slightly off-topic, while catching up on my Winter readings I can across this: <
C.N. 12136. Lasker on Maróczy
From Emanuel Lasker’s column in the New York Evening Post, 2 May 1908, page 9: ‘Maróczy has the emotional nature of the Magyar, and is therefore as variable as his moods. He can play all styles, the highest and the lowest, and neither his upper nor his lower limits have yet been determined. Hence he is somewhat of a riddle, that could be solved only if he pitted himself against the foremost masters in match play, but he resolutely declines to do so. Perhaps he likes to remain a mystery.’
>
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter...
(Hasn't been properly filed away yet - don't blame me, it's Winter's system) |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
