|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2005 > Schiller's or Reinfeld's Books?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Schiller's or Reinfeld's Books?
|
|
| Ray Gordon 2005-03-22, 5:51 pm |
| Pick ONE collection.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-22, 5:51 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:11:03 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Pick ONE collection.
Some of Reinfeld's books, especially earlier ones he co-authored or
ghosted, were pretty good, IMO. And Tartakower called him "an
outstanding theoretician". So, I'd go with him, even though he never
finished his "How To Castle" with its intended follow-up "How to
Castle Queen-side" (just kidding).
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-03-22, 5:51 pm |
| In article <bbo041poe2sh2u0irr8ok9o49pcd0kh74p@4ax.com>, Mike Murray says...
quote:
>
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:11:03 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Some of Reinfeld's books, especially earlier ones he co-authored or
>ghosted, were pretty good, IMO. And Tartakower called him "an
>outstanding theoretician". So, I'd go with him, even though he never
>finished his "How To Castle" with its intended follow-up "How to
>Castle Queen-side" (just kidding).
Eric has at least a few useful titles -- John Watson, for example, speaks highly
of his book on the Chigorin. I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
chess openings and his Tarrasch Defense stuff to be pretty good. Perhaps his
best work was with Watson on the Big Book of Busts --- I used several of its
suggestions successfully for quite a few years.
Maybe I'm not familiar with any of Reinfelds better earlier works, but while I'd
ignore most of Schiller's books, there some I definitely would want to have.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-22, 5:51 pm |
| On 22 Mar 2005 10:38:07 -0800, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Eric has at least a few useful titles -- John Watson, for example, speaks highly
>of his book on the Chigorin. I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
>chess openings and his Tarrasch Defense stuff to be pretty good. Perhaps his
>best work was with Watson on the Big Book of Busts --- I used several of its
>suggestions successfully for quite a few years.
quote:
>Maybe I'm not familiar with any of Reinfelds better earlier works, but while I'd
>ignore most of Schiller's books, there some I definitely would want to have.
Actually, I'm in the same boat with Schiller's books -- was going
mostly on the negative reviews I've read lately.
"Dr. Lasker's Chess Career" (reissued as "Lasker's Greatest Chess
Games, 1889-1914") was a good book, which I think Reinfeld co-authored
with Fine -- they never finished the second part. I also enjoyed
"Tarrasch's Best Games of Chess".
quote:
>
>Randy Bauer
| |
| Sarcasm 2005-03-23, 9:52 pm |
| Schiller is the worst god damn chess author in America. All his books
have tons of mistakes and they're sloppy! Seirawan and Silman are much
better. Sheesh
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-03-24, 3:52 am |
|
Randy Bauer wrote:
quote:
> In article <bbo041poe2sh2u0irr8ok9o49pcd0kh74p@4ax.com>, Mike Murray
says...
quote:
never[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Eric has at least a few useful titles -- John Watson, for example,
speaks highly
quote:
> of his book on the Chigorin.
John Watson has a critical blindspot - Schiller is a friend and
co-author.
I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
quote:
> chess openings and his Tarrasch Defense stuff to be pretty good.
Perhaps his
quote:
> best work was with Watson on the Big Book of Busts --- I used several
of its
quote:
> suggestions successfully for quite a few years.
I have yet to find a Schiller book that isn't a cheapo disasterbase
dump. My "favorite" is a Cardoza toss-off in which Schiller misses the
Greek gift sacrifice in his annotations.
quote:
> Maybe I'm not familiar with any of Reinfelds better earlier works,
but while I'd
quote:
> ignore most of Schiller's books, there some I definitely would want
to have.
quote:
>
> Randy Bauer
It's a shame. Some of the early Reinfeld books, such as his book on
Lasker (cowritten with Fine) are quite good.
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-03-24, 3:52 am |
|
"Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111634895.438528.91880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Randy Bauer wrote:
> says...
> never
> speaks highly
>
> John Watson has a critical blindspot - Schiller is a friend and
> co-author.
>
> I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
> Perhaps his
> of its
>
> I have yet to find a Schiller book that isn't a cheapo disasterbase
> dump. My "favorite" is a Cardoza toss-off in which Schiller misses the
> Greek gift sacrifice in his annotations.
>
> but while I'd
> to have.
>
> It's a shame. Some of the early Reinfeld books, such as his book on
> Lasker (cowritten with Fine) are quite good.
>
I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I know
much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of Fine's
participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller, because
some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of Benjamin and
Watson.
My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books were less
than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be pretty
good.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-24, 3:52 am |
| "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> writes:
quote:
> My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books were less
> than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be pretty
> good.
I like Schiller's writing. Any mistakes deep down in the chess
analysis are mostly of concern to more advanced players than me.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-24, 3:52 am |
| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:40:38 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
>I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I know
>much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of Fine's
>participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller, because
>some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of Benjamin and
>Watson.
I think Reinfeld worked much harder on his earlier books and aimed at
a more skilled audience. Later, say 1949 and after, he seemed to
realize he could copy, paste, find catchy titles, and churn 'em out
rapidly and probably make a lot more money.
Speaking of catch but misleading titles, I remember ordering "How to
Think Ahead in Chess", which he and Horowitz wrote, naively believing
it would teach techniques of calculation and planning. It turned out
to be an early repertoire book advocating the Stonewall Attack for
White, the Dragon Sicilian and Lasker's Defense to the Queen's Gambit
as Black.
My first Staunton chess set had red and white men, because that's what
he recommended.
| |
| skoonj 2005-03-24, 3:52 am |
|
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:XcZ%d.52219$534.36398@twister.nyc.rr.com...
quote:
> Pick ONE collection.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
Does the "winner" face Pandolfini?
-T
| |
| FiFiela 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
|
quote:
> My first Staunton chess set had red and white men, because that's
what
quote:
> he recommended.
I had forgotten that. I wonder if he got some sort of kickback or deal
for making that recommendation. How many manufacturers of red/white
Staunton sets could there have been?
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
| Randy Bauer wrote:
quote:
> could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be
> good because of Fine's participation?
_
Although his beginner books are often
criticized, I have also seen praise for
his books on famous players. One hater
of Reinfeld posted a
rec.games.chess.analysis note that said:
_
"I'm into playing out games, and
I've been playing out some of Capa's
game from Reinfeld's collection today,
and I've said more than once that I
thought he did a good job with that.
I think he also did a good job with
'Brilliancy Prize Games of the Chess
Masters'."
_
William Hyde "strongly recommend"ed
Reinfeld's book about Tarrasch and
later added:
_
"I also liked Reinfeld's books on
Keres and Nimzowitsch, ... The
annotations to the Keres games are
much lighter than Keres' own,
naturally, but they're not bad for
those of us under 2200, and there
are many games in the Reinfeld
collection not in Keres' own books.
_
For what it is worth, I think I
learned the most from his book on
Tarrasch."
_
According to the Oxford Companion:
_
"Reinfeld ... was a good but not
great player, twice New York State
champion, for example, and capable
of beating the best on a good day."
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
| FiFiela wrote:
quote:
>
> I had forgotten that. I wonder if
> he got some sort of kickback or deal
> for making that recommendation. How
> many manufacturers of red/white
> Staunton sets could there have been?
_
I also do not remember Reinfeld making
such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
referred to was a certain sort of cheap
chess set with plastic pieces that was
sold with a board with red and black
squares. At one time (decades ago)
such a set was almost the only sort of
cheap set one could find. A club with
little money might consider such sets.
| |
| David Ames 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
|
Randy Bauer wrote:
quote:
> "Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111634895.438528.91880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Murray[vbcol=seagreen]
<ray@cybersheet.com>[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
several[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
want[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I
know
quote:
> much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of
Fine's
quote:
> participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller,
because
quote:
> some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of
Benjamin and
quote:
> Watson.
>
> My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books
were less
quote:
> than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be
pretty
quote:
> good.
>
> Randy Bauer
It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess, by Samuel Reshevsky, was
written by Reinfeld.
David Ames
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
| David Ames wrote:
quote:
> It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess,
> by Samuel Reshevsky, was written by Reinfeld.
_
Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:
"you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
these annotations?"
(See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> David Ames wrote:
>
>
> _
> Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
> E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
> appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:
>
> "you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
> would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
> these annotations?"
>
> (See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)
The full item, on pages 321-322 of KCK, is very interesting, pointing
out a number of contradictory claims about "Reshevsky on Chess." John
Rather of Chess Review says Reinfeld wrote it, Reshevsky in 1985 writes
indignantly to Hugh Myers, saying "Every word in that book was written
by me!", and Reuben Fine claims he wrote an introduction for it at
Reinfeld's request but there's nothing by Fine in the book. If Reinfeld
did indeed write the book, then his very laudatory review of the book
in CR was both self-congratulatory and deceptive when it praised
"Reshevsky's superb notes," as CHESS noted, saying "In his fury, Fred
Reinfeld has rather let the cat out of the bag."
Such a possibility notwithstanding, I would say that on the whole
Reinfeld's work is very superior to Schiller's. Reinfeld was rarely
great, but I'm not aware that he ever churned out anywhere near as much
consistently awful trash as Schiller does nearly every book.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
| On 24 Mar 2005 09:55:39 -0800, "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu>
wrote:
quote:
>FiFiela wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.
As I remember, there were a fair number of Staunton sets available in
Red and White.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I also do not remember Reinfeld making
>such a suggestion.
Most of my chess books are in storage, but I believe it was in "How to
Get More Out of Chess" or "How to Play Chess Like a Champion". His
claim was that the red color gave one a cheerier outlook when
studying. Sure, I believed it.
quote:
>Perhaps what was
>referred to was a certain sort of cheap
>chess set with plastic pieces that was
>sold with a board with red and black
>squares. At one time (decades ago)
>such a set was almost the only sort of
>cheap set one could find. A club with
>little money might consider such sets.
As I remember, the Windsor Castle set cost something like twelve
dollars in 1958. According to the feds' inflation calculator
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
that's almost eighty bucks in today's debased currency.
The dye evidently weakened the Red (plastic) pieces -- they
continuously chipped and broke, while the White ones are still good as
new.
House of Staunton sells a reproduction in *wood* for about $150 retail
on their site. Kind of a reverse twist on things, going from a
plastic original to a wood knock off.
| |
| Ray Gordon 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
|
quote:
> I also do not remember Reinfeld making
> such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
> referred to was a certain sort of cheap
> chess set with plastic pieces that was
> sold with a board with red and black
> squares. At one time (decades ago)
> such a set was almost the only sort of
> cheap set one could find. A club with
> little money might consider such sets.
Hey! I won the fourth grade lunchroom title on that type of set!
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-24, 5:53 pm |
| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:38:17 -0800, Mike Murray
<mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
>others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
>"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.
I can see that my reply might be misinterpreted. Reinfeld recommended
only the *color* red and white. The set I bought to implement his
suggestion was the Windsor Castle.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-27, 9:51 pm |
| "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> writes:
quote:
> My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books were less
> than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be pretty
> good.
I like Schiller's writing. Any mistakes deep down in the chess
analysis are mostly of concern to more advanced players than me.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-27, 9:51 pm |
| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:40:38 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
>I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I know
>much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of Fine's
>participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller, because
>some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of Benjamin and
>Watson.
I think Reinfeld worked much harder on his earlier books and aimed at
a more skilled audience. Later, say 1949 and after, he seemed to
realize he could copy, paste, find catchy titles, and churn 'em out
rapidly and probably make a lot more money.
Speaking of catch but misleading titles, I remember ordering "How to
Think Ahead in Chess", which he and Horowitz wrote, naively believing
it would teach techniques of calculation and planning. It turned out
to be an early repertoire book advocating the Stonewall Attack for
White, the Dragon Sicilian and Lasker's Defense to the Queen's Gambit
as Black.
My first Staunton chess set had red and white men, because that's what
he recommended.
| |
| skoonj 2005-03-27, 9:51 pm |
|
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:XcZ%d.52219$534.36398@twister.nyc.rr.com...
quote:
> Pick ONE collection.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
Does the "winner" face Pandolfini?
-T
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-03-28, 9:53 pm |
| In article <bbo041poe2sh2u0irr8ok9o49pcd0kh74p@4ax.com>, Mike Murray says...
quote:
>
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:11:03 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Some of Reinfeld's books, especially earlier ones he co-authored or
>ghosted, were pretty good, IMO. And Tartakower called him "an
>outstanding theoretician". So, I'd go with him, even though he never
>finished his "How To Castle" with its intended follow-up "How to
>Castle Queen-side" (just kidding).
Eric has at least a few useful titles -- John Watson, for example, speaks highly
of his book on the Chigorin. I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
chess openings and his Tarrasch Defense stuff to be pretty good. Perhaps his
best work was with Watson on the Big Book of Busts --- I used several of its
suggestions successfully for quite a few years.
Maybe I'm not familiar with any of Reinfelds better earlier works, but while I'd
ignore most of Schiller's books, there some I definitely would want to have.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
| David Ames wrote:
quote:
> It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess,
> by Samuel Reshevsky, was written by Reinfeld.
_
Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:
"you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
these annotations?"
(See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> David Ames wrote:
>
>
> _
> Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
> E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
> appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:
>
> "you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
> would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
> these annotations?"
>
> (See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)
The full item, on pages 321-322 of KCK, is very interesting, pointing
out a number of contradictory claims about "Reshevsky on Chess." John
Rather of Chess Review says Reinfeld wrote it, Reshevsky in 1985 writes
indignantly to Hugh Myers, saying "Every word in that book was written
by me!", and Reuben Fine claims he wrote an introduction for it at
Reinfeld's request but there's nothing by Fine in the book. If Reinfeld
did indeed write the book, then his very laudatory review of the book
in CR was both self-congratulatory and deceptive when it praised
"Reshevsky's superb notes," as CHESS noted, saying "In his fury, Fred
Reinfeld has rather let the cat out of the bag."
Such a possibility notwithstanding, I would say that on the whole
Reinfeld's work is very superior to Schiller's. Reinfeld was rarely
great, but I'm not aware that he ever churned out anywhere near as much
consistently awful trash as Schiller does nearly every book.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
| On 24 Mar 2005 09:55:39 -0800, "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu>
wrote:
quote:
>FiFiela wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.
As I remember, there were a fair number of Staunton sets available in
Red and White.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I also do not remember Reinfeld making
>such a suggestion.
Most of my chess books are in storage, but I believe it was in "How to
Get More Out of Chess" or "How to Play Chess Like a Champion". His
claim was that the red color gave one a cheerier outlook when
studying. Sure, I believed it.
quote:
>Perhaps what was
>referred to was a certain sort of cheap
>chess set with plastic pieces that was
>sold with a board with red and black
>squares. At one time (decades ago)
>such a set was almost the only sort of
>cheap set one could find. A club with
>little money might consider such sets.
As I remember, the Windsor Castle set cost something like twelve
dollars in 1958. According to the feds' inflation calculator
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
that's almost eighty bucks in today's debased currency.
The dye evidently weakened the Red (plastic) pieces -- they
continuously chipped and broke, while the White ones are still good as
new.
House of Staunton sells a reproduction in *wood* for about $150 retail
on their site. Kind of a reverse twist on things, going from a
plastic original to a wood knock off.
| |
| Ray Gordon 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
|
quote:
> I also do not remember Reinfeld making
> such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
> referred to was a certain sort of cheap
> chess set with plastic pieces that was
> sold with a board with red and black
> squares. At one time (decades ago)
> such a set was almost the only sort of
> cheap set one could find. A club with
> little money might consider such sets.
Hey! I won the fourth grade lunchroom title on that type of set!
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:38:17 -0800, Mike Murray
<mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
>others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
>"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.
I can see that my reply might be misinterpreted. Reinfeld recommended
only the *color* red and white. The set I bought to implement his
suggestion was the Windsor Castle.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-03-30, 7:01 am |
| FiFiela wrote:
quote:
>
> I had forgotten that. I wonder if
> he got some sort of kickback or deal
> for making that recommendation. How
> many manufacturers of red/white
> Staunton sets could there have been?
_
I also do not remember Reinfeld making
such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
referred to was a certain sort of cheap
chess set with plastic pieces that was
sold with a board with red and black
squares. At one time (decades ago)
such a set was almost the only sort of
cheap set one could find. A club with
little money might consider such sets.
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-03-30, 10:03 pm |
|
"Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111634895.438528.91880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Randy Bauer wrote:
> says...
> never
> speaks highly
>
> John Watson has a critical blindspot - Schiller is a friend and
> co-author.
>
> I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
> Perhaps his
> of its
>
> I have yet to find a Schiller book that isn't a cheapo disasterbase
> dump. My "favorite" is a Cardoza toss-off in which Schiller misses the
> Greek gift sacrifice in his annotations.
>
> but while I'd
> to have.
>
> It's a shame. Some of the early Reinfeld books, such as his book on
> Lasker (cowritten with Fine) are quite good.
>
I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I know
much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of Fine's
participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller, because
some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of Benjamin and
Watson.
My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books were less
than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be pretty
good.
Randy Bauer
| |
| skoonj 2005-03-30, 10:03 pm |
|
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:XcZ%d.52219$534.36398@twister.nyc.rr.com...
quote:
> Pick ONE collection.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
Does the "winner" face Pandolfini?
-T
|
| |
|
|