What do we get out of studying old games? How are new games not more relevant and more beneficial in becoming a better player?
I'm sure that every high level go player today has at one time gone over the games of Go Seigen, Honinbo Shusaku, Shuei, etc. But what is it that makes these games special? How do you not get more out of studying a game by a modern superstar such as Gu Li, Lee Sedol, Kong Jie, Lee Chang-Ho, etc.?
Unless you are interested in the history of outdated playing styles what sets those games apart that make them so critical that they must be studied to become a high level player?
Posts: 589 Liked others: 0 Was liked: 114
Rank: 2 dan
Subotai wrote:
What do we get out of studying old games? How are new games not more relevant and more beneficial in becoming a better player?
I'm sure that every high level go player today has at one time gone over the games of Go Seigen, Honinbo Shusaku, Shuei, etc. But what is it that makes these games special? How do you not get more out of studying a game by a modern superstar such as Gu Li, Lee Sedol, Kong Jie, Lee Chang-Ho, etc.?
Unless you are interested in the history of outdated playing styles what sets those games apart that make them so critical that they must be studied to become a high level player?
Even if we accept the premise that there are a significant number of more recent players whose games are consistently measurably superior to those of older ones, I can't believe that measurable superiority means anything on the scale of amateur strength. Even the lowliest professional is very significantly better than me, as a decentish amateur, and their games have plenty to learn from. I simply can't believe that I'm losing out in any way if I play through a new 1d pro game game rather than a Gu Li one, never mind an older master like Go Seigen.
As for playing styles being 'outdated', I think that's best not very relevant, all these playing styles have been at some point considered reasonable by the top professionals of their day...and I don't think it's controversial to suggest those professionals were more or less just as strong as modern day ones in general go strength. Even if they lacked knowledge of modern go theory, they probably weren't that far wrong (again, negligibly on the amateur scale), and even then their individual moves have insight and judgement worth learning from.
Edit: And to go back to my first sentence, I don't think I accept that premise. I'm not sure what you think is in new games but not in old ones, except for stylistic differences that (as above) I don't think are very important on the scale of amateur study.
I'd tend to think that the most important variable is finding a player whose games you enjoy, for whatever reason. Having a personal reason to enjoy looking at the games encourages study and thought, and I don't think that effect has to be very strong to outweight the disadvantage of looking at a professional 'only' ranked 1d, or 'only a 1940s 9d'.
Traditions build up around historical artifacts. This is true of literature, of philosophy, of art... even if you think Harry Potter is better than the Iliad, the fact is that the Iliad has influenced two thousand years of great books and Harry Potter has influenced a sub-genre of 21st century children's literature.
So if you look at the Ear-Reddening Game, it's easy to argue that it's a "bad" game by modern standards. But even the mistakes are instructive - it's useful to see specious blunders in the taisha. In fact, it was through experimentation in games like this that we arrived at the modern consensus on which lines of the taisha "work". But furthermore, it has existed long enough to have many commentaries written on it, many other go players have studied, people can talk about it with you... a slightly lower level of play (if it is lower!) is a small price to pay for all that valuable tradition.
Also, very few people study all Tokugawa-era or Shinfuseki games. We study the most interesting, surprising, or fascinating ones. Who can really say which games from 2013 will still seem cool in 2113? It's hard to say. But it's pretty safe to say that if, of all the games of the 18th century, five or ten get mentioned consistently as good games, the Go community has had time to sift for the jewels of that period.
Besides, if you only study the latest games, you may end up convincing yourself that the fashions of the past three years are eternal and immutable. Certain opening ideas catch the eye of the Go world, are subject to constant experimentation for a time, and then vanish without a trace. But a some amateurs see a sequence a few times in pro games and then get very strange ideas about why pros play that way.
Posts: 1628 Liked others: 546 Was liked: 450
Rank: senior player
GD Posts: 1000
Historic players are still masters and one can learn a lot from studying their games, even if some joseki are obsolete and some modern opening theory was not understood. In other respects some of the old masters have not been surpassed, even by the likes of Yi Sedol and Gu Li. For example, Dosaku for tesuji and middle game tactics; Huang Longshi, much admired by Go Seigen; Shuei, late 19th - early 20th century master whose go was considered by Fujisawa Hideyuki as deeper and stronger than his own. You have to ask yourself why great players from the 20th century admire the go of 19th century players. There must be something there. Find out for yourself by studying, not just replaying, the games of the old masters.
Posts: 773 Location: Michigan, USA Liked others: 143 Was liked: 218
Rank: KGS 1 kyu
Universal go server handle: moyoaji
Subotai wrote:
What do we get out of studying old games? How are new games not more relevant and more beneficial in becoming a better player?
I'm sure that every high level go player today has at one time gone over the games of Go Seigen, Honinbo Shusaku, Shuei, etc. But what is it that makes these games special? How do you not get more out of studying a game by a modern superstar such as Gu Li, Lee Sedol, Kong Jie, Lee Chang-Ho, etc.?
Unless you are interested in the history of outdated playing styles what sets those games apart that make them so critical that they must be studied to become a high level player?
Go Seigan once said that Huang Longshi, a Chinese go player from the 1600s, would have been a 13 dan player if ranked today. Now, that's obviously impossible, but his point was this: Huang Longshi was so good at reading and fighting that his abilities are unrivaled even today. He was compared to Honinbo Dosaku (also from the 1600s), considered by many to be the best Japanese player who ever lived (even greater than Shusaku by some standards). Huang Longshi practically invented the idea of using thickness (or at least refined it to be at or close to the current professional level).
Huang Longshi's go was very different from today's go. Not only did white play first, but all Chinese games at the time started out like this (as in this was how the board was set up before the first move):
However, when you look at Huang Longshi's games you get the sense that he is playing on a completely different level from his opponent. Not many records still exist, but those that do make Huang Longshi's opponents look like amateurs when he was facing some of the other greatest players to ever live.
It is true that the opening of go has changed a lot since the start of the 1900s. The Shin Fuseki Era has forever altered the way the 4-4 opening is perceived and revolutionized professional go, but by the same token go has not changed at all in the last 1500 years since the standard board size was increased from 17x17 to 19x19. Reading and fighting are still very powerful tools and past a certain point opening theory becomes useless.
Once you enter the mid game attacking and fighting will decide everything. Lee Changho, considered by some to be the best modern player, does not study the opening as much as most pros. Instead, he works on the mid and end game. This leaves many of his opponents baffled as they have a fantastic early game where they get everything they want but then, somehow, they lose the game as Lee Changho makes up for his 20+ point defect through skillful mid-game plays 2-3 points at a time.
The greatest players are rarely noted for their strong opening (a notable exception being Go Seigan) but they are always noted for their reading and fighting. In fact, Kobayashi Koichi's famous fuseki is often criticized as improper, but his fighting is so good that he still won many games using it. Fujisawa Hosai, a rival of Go Seigan, also used an "improper" fuseki while still winning because of his reading abilities.
Even beyond all that, there is nothing technically wrong with the moves Shusaku and other great players made in their opening. The Shusaku fuseki is still playable today, even if you argue black is being too lax with the diagonal, because it is at least as good, if not better in some respects, than Kobaysahi's opening, which still sees professional play today (ironically Kobayashi doesn't use it much anymore - most of his recent games use the Low Chinese, Mini Chinese, Orthodox, or a Cross-Fuseki).
Here are Kobayashi's, Fujisawa Hosai's, and Shusaku's openings if you haven't seen them and a bit of background on each:
The problem here is that both 3 and 5 are low stones, making the bottom immediately uninteresting, but then 7 is a play to build the bottom which is confusing from the perspective of most opening theories (the right side is considered the biggest). On top of that, 7 is more or less gote, allowing white to grab sente early on. Kobayashi played this opening consistently in the 1980s winning many games, but most feel his wins were due to his fighting abilities and more likely in spite of this opening than because of it. Even so, this opening is played today by high level amateurs and, occasionally, by professionals (Chang Hao has used it somewhat recently). The most common follow-ups are a-d.
While Fujisawa is probably best known for playing mirror go as white he often played a 3-3 opening as black followed by a parallel enclosure. Especially later in his career this enclosure was often facing his 3-3 stone, but this opening was used by him as well. It goes against conventional wisdom as his enclosure wants to build the bottom, but his opponent has a stone there and will immediately be able to work against any potential while also building for himself. On top of that, both 5 and 1 are low making the right hard to build. The most common responses were an enclosure on the bottom or challenging black's enclosure. (a and b are common for a komoku stone and c is common if 4 is a hoshi stone) Even so, Fujisawa saw success with it (again, likely in spite of his opening rather than because of it). He was seen as a rival to Go Seigan for his skillful reading and fighting. They split jubangos one each in 1942-44 and 51-52. However, in 1953 then Fujisawa Kuranosuke lost their much anticipated third jubango so badly that he actually resigned from the Nihon Ki-in and changed his given name to Hosai. Later in his life he would return to professional play and win both the Oza and Judan titles in the 1960s. He is still remembered as one of the greatest players of the 1900s. This opening is almost never seen today.
(Interestingly I actually used to play this way when I first learned go. I had no idea that I was copying Fujisawa Hosai as I'd never heard of him and had never studied any fuseki, but I used to play an incredibly territorial game and I liked how this looked.)
Arguably the most famous fuseki in all of 1800s go. White no longer needs to play this way because of komi and can allow black to get an enclosure for an Orthodox opening without falling behind. White can still play this way of course and, if black responds like this, 7 is seen as too slow. However, there is nothing technically wrong with 7 as the move cannot be punished. In a strange way, the move forces white to play elsewhere because it does not demand a response and anything white does locally also looks a bit slow (the top side is uninteresting as both of white's stones are low). Giving white sente this early is seen as bad by today's standard, but 7 is actually a very nice multipurpose gote move as it protects 1 from being pressed down while also giving some light encouragement to 3, which becomes very important if white plays out a taisha variation as was semi-common in Shusaku's day. I would argue that, compared to Kobayashi and Fujisawa's openings, this one actually seems better for black because there is no obviously good direction for white. Because a-d are all seen in Shusaku's games it seems like white struggled to come up with a solid response to this simple move and making your opponent think hard is often a minor victory in and of itself. Because white 4 is considered non-standard in the komi era this opening is not seen today, but maybe some professionals will one day decide to break it out in a game again and that will make for a very interesting game record of modern pros playing out a very old opening.
_________________ "You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move. I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1." -Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves
Go Seigan once said that Huang Longshi, a Chinese go player from the 1600s, would have been a 13 dan player if ranked today.
Assuming we are talking about Go Seigen and not a manga character, he didn't say that. He said Huang was at least at the level of Dosaku. Since Go was criticised by some Japanese pros for not subscribing to the Dosaku is superman theory, this is a slightly backhanded compliment.
Quote:
his point was this: Huang Longshi was so good at reading and fighting that his abilities are unrivaled even today.
Go didn't say that.
Quote:
Huang Longshi practically invented the idea of using thickness (or at least refined it to be at or close to the current professional level).
No - Go referred only to amarigatachi, not thickness.
Quote:
all Chinese games at the time started out like this (as in this was how the board was set up before the first move):
No - the whole point of the Games of Blood & Tears was that they were handicap games.
Quote:
when you look at Huang Longshi's games you get the sense that he is playing on a completely different level from his opponent. Not many records still exist, but those that do make Huang Longshi's opponents look like amateurs when he was facing some of the other greatest players to ever live.
No, they don't. He lost quite a few games and in many games we don't actually know the result. And of course some of the opponents were amateurs.
Quote:
Reading and fighting are still very powerful tools and past a certain point opening theory becomes useless.
Not fighting is also a major tool in go. But in any case when top pros are so close in fighting (or non fighting) ability, getting an edge in the opening or elsewhere is crucial, which is why pros spend so much time on openings.
Quote:
Once you enter the mid game attacking and fighting will decide everything. Lee Changho, considered by some to be the best modern player, does not study the opening as much as most pros. Instead, he works on the mid and end game. This leaves many of his opponents baffled as they have a fantastic early game where they get everything they want but then, somehow, they lose the game as Lee Changho makes up for his 20+ point defect through skillful mid-game plays 2-3 points at a time.
Too many noes in there and too little time...
But yes, Huang and Yi Ch'ang-ho are worth studying.
Posts: 773 Location: Michigan, USA Liked others: 143 Was liked: 218
Rank: KGS 1 kyu
Universal go server handle: moyoaji
John Fairbairn wrote:
Assuming we are talking about Go Seigen and not a manga character, he didn't say that.
Then Sensei's Library's page on Longshi needs a correction and the creator of GoCommentary.com needs a history lesson. Senseis' page on Huang Longshi Go Commentary on "The 13 Dan Player" - Directly states that Go Seigen said this and says that classical Chinese go started out with a cross-fuseki.
John Fairbairn wrote:
No - Go referred only to amarigatachi, not thickness.
I'm not saying that Go Seigen referred to his use of thickness, I was again referencing the Sensei's page and Go Commentary video. I suppose the video talks mostly about influence, which is not strictly the same as thickness, but they concepts are similar in how they are applied to the game. I had never heard of any comments on his use of
John Fairbairn wrote:
No, they don't. He lost quite a few games and in many games we don't actually know the result. And of course some of the opponents were amateurs.
I have only studied a few of Longshi's games - including one where the result was unknown. However, this comment can be made about any go player from before the 1900s. Shusaku lost several games to amateur players and has a number of games that just ended with no result, but that does not mean that he wasn't one of the best go players to ever live. Even 9p players can lose to high dan amateurs but that doesn't mean they aren't great players. I've seen a game record where a 9 dan played a move that put him in self-atari and lost the game. Any 20k could have seen that it was a mistake, but he still played it. No go player is truly invincible, we just say they are because they were very good.
John Fairbairn wrote:
Not fighting is also a major tool in go. But in any case when top pros are so close in fighting (or non fighting) ability, getting an edge in the opening or elsewhere is crucial, which is why pros spend so much time on openings.
I agree that knowing when not to fight is important, but you also need to be prepared to fight in go. I have lost games because I refused to fight and as much as I love studying opening theory, and I have won games strictly based on my opening play, I also know that you can get everything you want in the opening but still lose. I personally don't like fighting styles in go. I only fight when I feel I have to because I prefer to keep things simple. However, sometimes you do have to fight. If you win a game without a single fight then your opponent made a mistake by not making big enough moves.
And if you feel the opening is of the utmost importance, then what do you say about Lee Changho's style? Unless you are saying that I also am mistaken about his not emphasizing the opening, in which case tell Nick Sibicky that he made a mistake in saying that in this video: Nick Sibicky video starting at the point of the comment.
I know I'm not an expert, but these are all things that I have heard of or studied in my time playing go. If you want to say I am wrong then you are saying that Nick Sibicky and the creator of GoCommentary are providing misinformation to amateur players or that I am somehow misunderstanding what they are saying.
_________________ "You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move. I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1." -Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves
Last edited by moyoaji on Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 928 Location: UK Liked others: 72 Was liked: 480
Rank: 5 dan
KGS: macelee
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
Go Seigan once said that Huang Longshi, a Chinese go player from the 1600s, would have been a 13 dan player if ranked today.
Assuming we are talking about Go Seigen and not a manga character, he didn't say that. He said Huang was at least at the level of Dosaku. Since Go was criticised by some Japanese pros for not subscribing to the Dosaku is superman theory, this is a slightly backhanded compliment.
I understand Go did say something like the highest level of ancient Chinese Go is about 13-dan without specifically mentioning Huang Longshi. But if you are asked to name a few players who represented the highest level, Huang is surely one of them. This information is from a lengthy interview to Chinese professional Chen Zedu, who in his later years spent significant amount of time studying Chinese go history. He wrote numerous detailed commentaries on ancient games, many of which appeared in the Weiqi Tiandi magazine and a selection of them were published. The interview I mentioned was also published on Weiqi Tiandi magazine. So if Chen quoted something Go Seigen said it was quite likely to be trustworthy.
That 13 dan comment is, as far as I'm aware, a myth without support. It keeps popping up in Chinese forums (where the strength of ancient players is somewhat of an old and controversial and way too frequent topic). However, I don't recall any of the pro-ancient commenters being able to provide a source. I have read an interview where Go Seigen answered "undoubtably meijin strength", but certaining nothing about 13 dan.
Apologies about double post - I feel that it's less confusing to split this comment over Lee Changho's opening. I'm not sure what Nick's source is (I certainly hope it's not his own interpretation), but I have read before that a pro player (I think? I dont't fully recall) remarked that Lee is so strong at the endgame because he considers yose during the opening.
Assuming you can read it, you can see for yourself the measured sort of language Go uses about Huang, and go of the Qianlong era. Here he is in conversation with Kawabata Yasunari, in a famous book called "Conversations on go with Go Seigen". No reference to 13-dan or other hyperbole. He does of course say that Huang towered above others of his era, and that Xu Xingyou did not reach his level, though that is not really in question anyway. He does add a reference to Shi and Fan which seems to put them in the same bracket - again not really in dispute. On the next page, not shown here, in a section headed "Comparison" Kawabata feels obliged to defend Dosaku's honour a little. It might be worth adding that when this conversation took place, Go was probably aware of only about 60 of Huang's games. Later discoveries have brought us up to 105, but I don't think the new games alter the picture very much, although Huang did not get the better of Zhou Xihou on the basis of known results.
This is not the main text I would use to illustrate Go's opinion, but that's tucked away in an early 1950s magazine and I'm not willing to turn the house upside down.
BTW Fujisawa Hosai did not change his name because he lost to Go. He was dejected and the timing was coincidental, but he changed it for religious reasons as part of praying for a sick daughter.
(EDIT: Actually, jts did say something to this effect, but I want to pull it out and give it its own post)
we study old games because they have been analyzed for ages. There is concrete analysis to go with each one of those games, whereas the modern novelties are still being researched.
Posts: 2414 Location: Tokyo, Japan Liked others: 2350 Was liked: 1332
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
shapenaji wrote:
I don't think the obvious has been stated yet, ...
I think there is still one bit missing. I don't know of anything showing that amateurs do study old games (versus modern ones). Certainly we are advised to time and again. But what do people really do? In my case, I think the main source of games for review, year in and year out, was Go World and the games studied were overwhelmingly modern. Who among the contributors to this thread has actually made some sort of systematic study of old games or specific historical players?
_________________ Dave Sigaty "Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..." - Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
Posts: 773 Location: Michigan, USA Liked others: 143 Was liked: 218
Rank: KGS 1 kyu
Universal go server handle: moyoaji
ez4u wrote:
I think there is still one bit missing. I don't know of anything showing that amateurs do study old games (versus modern ones). Certainly we are advised to time and again. But what do people really do? In my case, I think the main source of games for review, year in and year out, was Go World and the games studied were overwhelmingly modern. Who among the contributors to this thread have actually made some sort of systematic study of old games or specific historical players?
I haven't studied a ton of old games, but I have looked at 3 kifus from Longshi (one was the game from GoCommentary and I watched that video). I have watched a number of Shusaku game reviews from this YouTuber tokinonagare27 and have looked at several of his kifus on GoKifu (I think some were taken down recently, I haven't been able to find many of the games from before he became Honinbo Shusaku and I wanted to review some - if you know what happened let me know). I have reviewed a few games by Go Seigen including the game where Fujisawa resigned afterwards (on GoCommentary) and another game the two played later that is on Go4Go.net.
I used to try to get in a mix of old and new games. I would review current games from Go4Go.net to try to get a feel for how the game is played today and where it is moving, but also looked at some older title matches. (The 1985 Meijin series between Kobayashi Koichi and Cho Chikun, for example.)
However, I fear I'm not quite strong enough to fully appreciate these games. I used to get exhausted trying to review a game like that because it would get so complicated. I haven't done many high level game reviews recently because I felt like I wasn't coming away with enough concrete knowledge. Perhaps I should review them regularly again, however, because I'm starting to appreciate how "concrete" knowledge isn't truly important in go. Sometimes feeling and instinct can be just as valuable as memorizing the "correct" answer to a situation.
_________________ "You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move. I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1." -Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves
Posts: 1582 Location: Hong Kong Liked others: 54 Was liked: 544
GD Posts: 1292
ez4u wrote:
shapenaji wrote:
I don't think the obvious has been stated yet, ...
I think there is still one bit missing. I don't know of anything showing that amateurs do study old games (versus modern ones). Certainly we are advised to time and again. But what do people really do? In my case, I think the main source of games for review, year in and year out, was Go World and the games studied were overwhelmingly modern. Who among the contributors to this thread has actually made some sort of systematic study of old games or specific historical players?
Surely JF would be such a person and anyone who has studied Invincible or the games of Shuei would be as well.
_________________ http://tchan001.wordpress.com A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits Go is such a beautiful game.
Posts: 57 Liked others: 34 Was liked: 21
Rank: EGF 4d
DGS: XiaoTuzi
Universal go server handle: Kanin
Subotai wrote:
What do we get out of studying old games? How are new games not more relevant and more beneficial in becoming a better player?
I'm sure that every high level go player today has at one time gone over the games of Go Seigen, Honinbo Shusaku, Shuei, etc. But what is it that makes these games special? How do you not get more out of studying a game by a modern superstar such as Gu Li, Lee Sedol, Kong Jie, Lee Chang-Ho, etc.?
Unless you are interested in the history of outdated playing styles what sets those games apart that make them so critical that they must be studied to become a high level player?
Someone already mentioned that older classic games and 'masterpieces' have had more work and analysis done on them, which I think is a good point. Another interesting point is that today, some might argue, there are in fact no masterpieces being made. In comparison with a lot of older games, the games of modern pros are most of the time practically blitz games. It is unclear exactly how big a difference the shorter time limits make, but it is at least not uncommon for big mistakes in high level games to be attributed to time pressure.
Anyway, go is so vast and complex that you have several paths to reach higher grounds. To me it seems a healthy mix of old and new games is reasonable for amateur players. And perhaps more importantly, review the kind of games you enjoy reviewing!
Posts: 928 Location: UK Liked others: 72 Was liked: 480
Rank: 5 dan
KGS: macelee
John Fairbairn wrote:
Assuming you can read it, you can see for yourself the measured sort of language Go uses about Huang, and go of the Qianlong era. Here he is in conversation with Kawabata Yasunari, in a famous book called "Conversations on go with Go Seigen". No reference to 13-dan or other hyperbole. He does of course say that Huang towered above others of his era, and that Xu Xingyou did not reach his level, though that is not really in question anyway. He does add a reference to Shi and Fan which seems to put them in the same bracket - again not really in dispute. On the next page, not shown here, in a section headed "Comparison" Kawabata feels obliged to defend Dosaku's honour a little. It might be worth adding that when this conversation took place, Go was probably aware of only about 60 of Huang's games. Later discoveries have brought us up to 105, but I don't think the new games alter the picture very much, although Huang did not get the better of Zhou Xihou on the basis of known results.
This is not the main text I would use to illustrate Go's opinion, but that's tucked away in an early 1950s magazine and I'm not willing to turn the house upside down.
Just to make this clearer, Chen Zude 9-dan was apparently aware of those arguments among Go fans on the strength of Huang Longshi. He corrected the interviewer that Go did not say directly that Huang's strength is 13-dan, but did say that the strength is comparable to Japanese Meijins. He also apparently read Kawabata's book as he made a reference to it. The 13-dan myth is more like 'implied'.
Chen used his words very carefully in this article, making its content very trustworthy. Unless somebody can go to ask Go Seigen himself, we cannot say for sure what he did/did not say. But Chen was the leading Chinese player for a period of time and he must have many chances to meet Go Seigen in person. So maybe the two had some private conversation?
Posts: 477 Liked others: 192 Was liked: 357
Rank: 5d
Another factor for a lot of people here is the availability of English language books and commentaries.
I played through all the games in Invincible quite a few times at one stage, partly because I wasn't aware of any other source of good commentaries in English. So, in other words, some players replay old games because that's what's available to them, or is what they know about at the time. Now that I think about it, even in the last 5-10 years the number of books and other resources that provide commentaries has improved considerably for Go players in the West.
Can you become a strong amateur player just by studying Shusaku's games? Definitely. Can you learn other things by looking at modern games? Of course.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Subotai
