MEMBERS' GAMES

As indicated in the last issue of CHECK! I now have my own web site. I hope that you've taken some time to pay a visit. I will continue to make changes to my site as I learn more about this HTML code system and web design in general. Please continue to visit because I intend to offer other things of interest. For those with email access, feel free to email me your comments and suggestions.

Before getting to this issue's games there is some news to pass along. Per Lea of Norway has taken over from his countryman, Henrik Sjoel, as Tournament Director of the NATT IV event. This has been welcome news to all concerned because Mr. Sjoel seriously negelected his duties as Tournament Director. Hopefully things will now get straigthenned out. The 12th CC Olympiad Final and 13th CC Oylmpiad Prelims are now well under way. I am Team Captain of our teams and will keep you informed of the teams' progress. Of course this column will bring you games by our players from these important International events. Those with access to the Internet can keep track of our teams progress in both the NATT IV and CC Olympiads by directly going to my web pages set up for these events:

http://correspondencechess.com/marconi/natt4.ind.results.htm
and
http://correspondencechess.com/marconi/ccolympiad.htm .

We begin this issue's column a little differently this time with a few games from J. John Mackie of Australia, the former editor of International Chess Forum. The first game was played between F. Herzog and M. Vidmar from 1936-1937 in a IFSB tournament. According to John the IFSB was a forerunner of the ICCF.

(Please note, the notes between ( ) are mine.)

White: F. Herzog
Black: M. Vidmar
Queen's Gambit Declined/ Slav Defense D61
Annotations by J. John Mackie

In this defense Black neutralizes White's opening strategy in the center. It requires accurate play well into the middle game to maintain equality

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 Nbd7

Black refrains from the well studied and analysed continuations: a) 5...dxc4 6.e4. b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 with equality. b) 5...h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.e5 Nd5 11.h4 Qa5 12.Rc1 g4 13.Nd2 Nxc3 = (Kasparov.)

6.e3 Be7 7.Qc2 0-0 8.Rd1 a6 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 Re8 11.0-0 b5 12.cxb5 cxb5 13.Bg3 Bb7 14.Rc1 Rc8 15.Qb1 Qb6

All this is well known to chess theory and the moves from 6 to 15 can, in a CC game, be played as conditionals, saving time and postage.

16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 Ng4 18.Bg3 Bd6 19.Ne2 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Rxc1 21.Nxc1

This is the reason why White did not play 20.Nxg3. Now the Knight on c1 will hop to c5 via b3 or d3.

21...Qd8

Now Black is devising an attacking plan on the kingside.

22.Nb3 g6 23.Nc5

If 23.Bxg6? Qg5! would lead to mate after ....Qh5.

23...Bc8 24.a4 e5 25.axb5 Qg5 26.Be2!

Necessary because of the threat of ...Qh5.

26...exd4 27.bxa6 dxe3 28.f4 Qe7! 29.b4 Nf6

Vidmar has calculated that the Knight is better than the Bishop in this position, so he avoids the exchange.

30.Qa2 Bg4! 31.Ra1

Not. a) 31.Bxg4 Nxg4 32.a7 e2 33.Re1 Qe3+ 34.Kh1 Qxg3 #, or

31.a7 Ra8 32.Ra1 Bxe2 33.Qxe2 Rxa7 and wins.

31...h5 32.Kf1 Bxe2+ 33.Qxe2

If 33.Kxe2 Ne4 with a winning advantage.

33...d4 34.a7

34...Ne4! (see diagram)

Note. Neither Genius 5 nor Fritz 4 play the text at tournament level. Both play 34...Ra8. So much for the "thinking" that these programs do according to the claims in the manuals by the peddlers of the wares.

35.Qb5

If now a) 35.a8=Q Nxg3+ 36.Ke1 Nxe2 37.Kxe2 Rxa8 38.Rxa8+ Kg7 wins. b) 35.Qf3 Nd2+ wins. And c) 35.Nxe4 Qxe4 36.Qf3 e2+ 37.Ke1 Qe7 38.Qb3 (38.Ra4 Qe7) dxe3! 39.Qxd3 Qxb4+ 40.Qd2 Qb6!

35...e2+ 36.Ke1 Nxc5 37.a8=Q Nd3+ 38.Qxd3 Qxb4 39.Qd2 Qxd2+ 40.Kxd2 e1=Q+ 41.Rxe1 Rxa8 42.Kd3 Ra3+ 43.Kxd4 Rxg3 44.Re2 Kg7 45.Ke5 h4 46.Ke4 f5+ 47.Ke5 Rd3 0-1

With the idea of 48....Rd8 and 49...Re1+

The ending could be : a) 48.Ke6 Rd8 49.Rf2 Re8+ 50.Kd5 Re4 followed by ...Kh6 and ...g4 winning; b) 48. Re1 Rd2 49.Rh1 Re2+ 50.Kd5 (50.Kd4 Re4+) Rxg2 51.Rxh4 Rg4 52.Rxg4 fxg4 53.Kd4 Kh6 wins; and c) 48.Rf2 Re3+ 49.Kd5 Kh6 wins.

An instructive game.

John notes that his opponent in the following game, Roland Fay, recently made the ICCF World Championship Finals.

White: J. John Mackie (AUS)
Black: Roland Fay (GER)
ICCF M/671 1997
Grunfeld Defense/Exchange Variation D86

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 0-0

(7...c5!? is also quite common here.)

8.Ne2 Qd7!?

(A move not commonly accounted these days, with 8...b6 and 8...Nc6 being the prefered choices.)

9.0-0 b5!?

( A move not mentioned in ECO. ECO only gives 9...b6, with the mains lines after 10.Qd3 and 10.Be3 both leading to a slight advantage for White. The text is not new, however, it was played in Koskinen-Burger, 25th Anniversary Kirjeshakki, 1991)

10.Bd3 c5 11.Be3 c4 12.Bc2 Na6 13.Qd2

(White deviates from Koskinen-Burger, which continued: 13.Rb1 Nc7 14.Qd2 Re8! 15.f4 f5 16.Ng3 Rf8 17.Rbe1 Bb7 18.Kh1 e6 19.Bg1 a5 20.Re2 Rab8 21.Rd1 b4! and Black won in 38.)

13...Rd8

(13...Re8!? or 13...Bb7!? may have been better.)

14.Bh6 Bh8 15.Rab1 Nc7 16.f4 Bb7

(16...f5 stopping White from advancing his own f-pawn as in Koskinen-Burger seems more prudent, but after 17.exf5 gxf5 18.Ng3 e6 19.Bg5 Black may have problems with his weak e-pawn, and therefore has the edge. )

17.f5 Bf6 18.Qf4 Qc6

(Preventing 19.e5 because of the mate on g2.)

19.Bg5!

(With the idea of provoking the exchange of dark squared Bishops by threatenning the doubling of pawns on the f-file, thereby creating a protected passed d-pawn. White has the edge. )

19...Rd6?!

(To be considered was 19...Ne8.)

20.Bxf6! exf6

(20...Rxf6? 20.Rf2!, with the idea of 21. e5; or 20.g4! with the idea of 21.g5 gives White a clear advantage, so the text appears forced.)

21.a4! (see diagram)

(Taking advantage of the fact that Black's Queen is overworked, protecting both Bishop and Rook.)

21...a6 22.Ng3 Rd7? 23.Qg4

(With the idea of fxg6.)

23...g5 24.Qh5 Rab8 25.axb5 axb5 26.h4 Kh8! 27.hxg5 Rg8!? 28.g6! fxg6

( 28...Rg7!?)

29.fxg6 Rxg6 30.Nf5 Qe6 31.Qh4 Rg5 32.Rf2 Qg8 33.Ra1 Qe6 34.Raf1 Ne8 35.Qh2 Qc6 36.d5!

(To provide an anchor for the Knight hopping to e6.)

36...Qb6 37.Nd4 Qa5 38.Ne6 Rg8 39.Rxf6! Nxf6 40.Qe5 Qa7+ 41.Kh1 Rdg7 42.Qxf6 Qa8 43.Nxg7 Rxg7 44.Qf8+ 1-0.

(White's passed protected center pawns give him a winning advantage in the endgame.)

Colin Dale, who lives and works in Japan, returns with a game played in a CCCA email tournament.

White: Colin Dale
Black: Peter Tomashewski
Scandinavian Defense/Portugese Variation B01
E-982

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4?!

I didn't find out until about move 10 that this line is called the Portugese Variation of the Scandinavian, but despite its endorsement by GM Kevin Spraggett in En Passant I don't find it convincing. White's next move forces Black to exchange the Bishop and thus loses a tempo outright, and Black will inevitably lose more time however he captures on d5. In fact, it is precisely this loss of time that eventually costs Black the game.

4.Be2 Bxe2 5.Qxe2 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nc6

Spraggett recommends 6...e6 first, but the text should transpose.

7.c4 Qe4 8.Be3!

Trading Queens would allow Black to develop harmoniously.

8...Nb4?

But now, 8...e6 was essential to maintain the balance. Black is doomed to an eventual tempo loss after Nc3. 8...e6 would have been met by 9.a3! (But, 9...Qg6 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Nc3 is an unclear position, so this is the recommended line.)

9.0-0

Not 9.Nc3 Nc2+ . Now 9...Nc2+ would be met by 10.Nc3 Qf5 (10...Qg6 11.Ne5) 11.Rac1 Nxe3 12.fxe3 with Ne5, Nb5 and d5 coming up. (However 9...Nc2+?? loses to 10.Kd2!. Actually 9.Nc3 is probably best, eg. 9...Qd3 {9...Qg6 10.0-0 e6 11.Nb5 with a clear advantage.} 10.Rc1 e6 11.a3 Qxe3+ 12.Kxe2+ with a White edge.)

9...Qd3 10.Qxd3 Nxd3 11Nc3 e6

11..Nxb2 would be met as in the game by 12.Nb5. In this position White is two tempi up and now cashes them in to advance his Knights, at which point Black suddenly finds himself fighting for his life.

12.Nb5 0-0-0?

This just loses a pawn and does nothing to blunt White's attack. Black's best defense is 12...Bd6 , when I intended 13.c5 a6 (the only move) 14.Nxd6+ (better than 13.cxd6 axb5 14.dxc7 Nd5) 14...cxd6 15.cxd6 Nxb2 (...Nd4 16.Ne5!) 16.Ne5 b5 (else 17.Rab1) 17.Rac1 followed by Rc7.

13.Nxa7+ Kb8 14.Nb5 Nxb2 15.Ne5! (see diagram)

Threatening to win the exchange on f7 and incidentally cutting off the Nb2's escape route.

15...Re8 16.a4!

Completing the encirlement of the Knight and threatening 17.Rfb1

16...c6

The only way to avoid the outright loss of a piece, but opening up the h2 - b8 diagonal to the King.

17.Bf4 Kc8

If 17...cxb5 18.Nxf7+ Kc8 (18...Ka8 19.axb5 #; 18...Ka7 19.axb5+ Kb6 20.c5+ Kxb5 21.Rfb1 + -) 19.cxb5! and threat of 20.Rfc1+ Kd7 21.Rc7 # will result in huge material losses.

18.Na7+ Kd8

Surprisingly, 18...Kb8, stepping back into the double check, offers the best chances; for example 19.Nexc6++ Ka8. After 18...Kb8 I intended 19.Naxc6+ bxc6 20.Rfb1 winning back the Knight with a crushing position. 19.Rfb1 1-0.

White wins the Knight and his attack continues unabated. One amusing line is 19...Nxc4 20.Nxc4 Be7 (or 20...Re7) 21.Nxc6+ bxc6 22.Rb8+ Kd7 23.Nb6 #.

Ross Siemms of Gravenhursts, Ontario shared 2nd place with Joe Deidun Sr. in K-50, scoring an excellent 9/13 behind the unstoppable Mario Adriano who won this event by 2 full points 11/13! The following is his game with the current Open Champion Martial Larochelle, who recently earned his CCCA CM title to go along with his otb master's rating. Martial also played the Nimzowitsch against me in the same event, but I didn't fair as well as Ross.

White: Ross Siemms
Black: Martial Larochelle
Nimzowitsch Defense B00
K-50 1993-96
Notes based on those supplied by Ross Siemms.

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd7 5.Nxd5

Maybe in view of Black's reply 5.e6!? should be played.

5...Ndb8!?

The text isn't obvious, but I should have seen it.

6.Ne3

I believe this is best. After 6...Qxd4 7.Qxd4 Nxd4 8.c3 Ndc6 9.f4 White appears better.

6...Qxd4 7.Qxd4 Nxd4 8.c3 Ne6 9.Bc4 Nc6 10.Bxe6?

(White has the edge after 10.Nf3. Instead White trades off his developed Bishop for a Knight and developes Black's undeveloped Bishop.)

10... Bxe6 11.f4 g5 12.f5

12.g3 is answered by 12...gxf4 13.gxf4 Bh6 14.Ne2 0-0-0 where Black has a lead in development, his pieces are coordinated and he has a nice game. After 12...Bd7 13.Nf3 g4 14.Nxg4 Bxf5 15.Nf2 White has a freer game, although Black still has the two Bishops. But in the text variation White can at least complete his development and his pieces are working together.

12...Bd7 13.Nf3 g4 14.Nxg4 Bxf5 15.Nf2 0-0-0 16.0-0 Bg7 17.Bf4 Rd5 18.Rfe1

Not 18.Rad1 Ra5, winning a pawn. At this time 18.g4 is risky in view of 18...Rg8!

18...h6? This is move is pointless, 18...Rhd8 maintains Black's edge.) 19.Re2

I felt that the text is safer than 19.g4. I can now double Rooks and free up minor pieces; this completes "development" and also protects the 2nd rank.

19...a5 20.Rae1

I wasn't sure of Black's plan at this point. Possible plans for White are "c4", "g4-g5" and "Nh4".

20...b5 21.g4

If the Bishop retreats to d7, then 22.Rd2 may be playable; if to e6 then 22.Re4; if g6 or h7 then 22.e6 may be playable.

21...Be6 22.Kg2 Kb7 23.Kg3 b4 24.Rc1 bxc3 25.Rxc3

25.bxc3 is also playble.

25...Nb4 26.a3 Na6 27.Rb3+ Ka8 28.Rbe3

If Black tries 28...Rb8 I thought I could reply 29.g5! This loses the b-pawn, but gains a passed h-pawn, which is very powerful.

28...Nc5

With this move Black offered a draw. I felt that he hadn't improved his position over the last few moves, whereas, I felt my position to be slightly better, even with his two Bishops and strong Rook; so I decided to play on.

29.Rc3 Rb8 30.g5

This move is "double-edged" and might be too aggressive. There might follow: 30...hxg5 31.Nxg5 Na5 32.Rxc7 Rxb2 33.Rxb2 Nxb2 34.Nxe6 fxe6 with the possibility of 35.Rxe7, 35.Ng4 or 35.Kg4.

30...hxg5 31.Nxg5 Rb5 32.h4 Rd4 33.h5

I was in "trying to win" mode, 33.Nf3 was safer.

33...Bd5 34.Nf3 Bxf3 35.Kxf3 Ne6 36.Bg3

Not much choice. If I move the Bishop the other way, e.g. 36.Be3 then 36...Rh4. Now I expected 36...Rbd5, where I intended to give up the e-pawn and play for the win with the h-pawn, e.g. 37.Kg4 Bxe5 38.Bxe5 Rxe5 39.Rxe5 Rxe5 40.h6 or 40.Nh3.

36...Rdd5 37.Kg4 Bxe5 38.Bxe5 Rxe5 39.Rxe5 Rxe5 40.Rh3

I believe this is the best chance to win, while still maintaining drawing chances.

40...Rg5+ 41.Kh4 Rg2 42.h6 Nd4

If 42...Rg6 43.h7; if 42...Nf4 43.h7; if 42...Ng5 43.Ng4.

43.Ng4! (see diagram)

A very interesting position. If 43.h7 Nf5+ 44.Kh5 Ng7+ draws; if 43.Nd3 Rg6 44.h7 Nf5+ and ...Ng7+ draws; and 43.Rh1! just misses to 43...Nf5+ 44.Kh3! Rg3+ 45.Kg2 and then ...Rg8 and Black has time to get to the kingside.

43...Nf5+ 44.Kh5 Nxh6 45.Nxh6 Rxb2 46.Nxf7 Kb7 47.Ne5 Rb5 48.Re3 Kb6 49.Kg4 Kc5 50.Kf4 Rb1 51.Ke4 Kb5 52.Rc3 c5 53.Kd5 Rd1+ 54.Nd3 e6+ 55.Kxe6 c4 56.a4+! 1-0. (see diagram)

This should win after 56...Kxa4 57.Nb2+ and White captures the Rook and protects his own Rook; if 56...Kb6 57.Nb2 or 57.Ne5 winning the c-pawn. And if 56...Ka6 57.Nc5+ and Rxc4.

Next, Len Myers returns with two annotated games.

White: Dr. Sam Weizman
Black: Len Myers
Grunfeld defense/ Exchange variation D89
A-384 1986

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4

(7.Nf3!? is considered to be perfectly playable nowadays.)

7... 0-0 8.Ne2 c5 9.Be3 Nc6 10.0-0 cxd4

(10...Qc7!?; 10...Bg4!?)

11.cxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.Qa4 a6 15.Rac1?

Probably (White was) looking to relieve the pin on his d-pawn, with the intention of pushing it. but this cost him the a-pawn.

(ECO gives: 15.d5!? (anyway) b5 {15...Bxa1 16.Rxa1 f6 17.Qa3 Bd7 18.Bd2 b6 19.Nd4 Re8 unclear, Popov-Anikaev, USSR 1976; or 15...Bd7 16.Qb4 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 Bb5 18.Bxb5 axb5 19.Qxb5 Qd6 20.Bc5 unclear, Mihalcisin-Dvojris, USSR 1973.}16.Qb4 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 Bd7 18.Qd4 f6 19.e5 fxe5 20.Qxe5 Qb8 21.Qe7 Re8 22.Qc5 Nb7 = .)

15...b5! 16.Qb4

16.Qa3 is no better e.g. 16...Nc5 17.Bxc5 Bxc5 and the d-pawn will fall after Bxe2.

(If 16.Qc2 Rc8 17.Qd2 Nc4 18.Bxc4 Bxc4 -/+.)

16...Bxa2 17.Ra1

(White was obviously hoping that this move would make 16...Bxa2 impossible, but Black has a nice rejoinder.)

17...Bc4! (see diagram)

18.Rfd1 Bxd3 19.Rxd3 Nc4

(And Black has a pawn plus and the initiative.)

20.Bf2 Qd6!?

(Black wants to head for the ending as quickly as possible where his passed connected queenside side pawns gives him a clear edge. White's only hope is a blockade.)

21.Qxd6 exd4!?

This reply took careful thought. Although the d-pawn is islolated it hinders White's central pawns and keeps the long a1-h8 diagonal open for my Bishop. I didn't like the looks of 21...Nxd6 22.e5 as it would give White some chances to hold.

22.Be1 a5 23.Nc3 Rfb8

Bringing my last piece into play, backing up my queenside pawns.

24.Nd5 b4

Not 24...a4 as it gives the b4 sqaure to White's Bishop.

25.Rc1 Na3 26.Bg3 Nb5

This defends the d-pawn while attacking White's d-pawn.

27.e5

This allows me to get rid of my isolated pawn, but the alternative would be for White to defend his d-pawn.

27...dxe5 28.dxe5 Rb7

Avoiding the discovered attack by White's Bishop on my Rook with e6, while defending the second rank against penetration.

29.Nf6+?! Bxf6

While this does gives up the strong Bishop and gives White the intimidating pawn at f6, the advantage is that it removes one more White piece that would have a good post and the pawn at f6 is weak and a target that will need to be defended. White will also be busy with the threat of my passed paawns on the queenside.

30.exf6 Nc3 31.Re1 h6

Giving the King an escape sqaure. 31...h5 would give the White Bishop a chance to penetrate via the dark sqaures.

32.Re7 Rb6

Forcing the Bishop to defend the pawn.

33.Be5 Nb5 34.Rdd7 Rf8 35.Kf2 Rc6

With the idea of ...Na3 , ...Nc4 which would place both the Rook and Knight on the off color squares of the White Bishop and less of a target. Centralizing my pieces should further inhibit the White King from going to the defense of the queenside.

36.Rd5!? Rb6

Forced. 37.Ke3 a4 38.Kd3 b3 39.Kc4 Rc8+ 40.Kd3

Not 40.Kb4?? Nc3+!

40...a3 41.Rdd7 Rf8 42.Rb7 b2!! 43.Bxb2

(If 43.Kc2 Rc7+ )

43...axb2 0-1

Since 44.Kc2 Na3+ and Black Queens next move.

White: Andre De Bellefeuille
Black: Len Myers
Sicilian Defense
0-319 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nf3 h6 8.h3 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nd5 Nxd5

Black would win a pawn with 10...Nxe4, but it would be at the cost of being behind in development, forcing me to defend. While, not critical at this point in the game it would also allow White to play 11.Nxe7+ , gaining the extra Bishop, with open lines.

11.exd5 Nd7 12.c4 f5! This move puts pressure on the center and kingside.

13.Qc2 Qe8

(The Queen is headed over to the kingside to participate in the coming attack.)

14.Bd2 Nf6 15.a4

Looking for counter-play on the queenside.

15...Ne4

Grabbing a central post for the Knight.

16.Be3 Qg6 17.c5!? f4! 18.cxd6 Bxh3!

Threatening mate and connecting Rooks at the same time. It also opens the White King position more, making it vulnerable to attack.

19.Ne1

The only move. If 19.g3? fxg3 20.Ne1 {20.fxg3? Qxg3+ with mate to follow} 20...gxf2+

21.Kh1 {21.Kh2 Qg3+ 22.Kh1 Bxf1 with mate to follow} Bxf1 22.Bxf2 Rxf2 23.dxe7 Qg3 with a winning attack.

19...fxe3 20.f3

White is trying to shut down the lines of attack against his King, while pinning and threatening my Knight. I now have two Bishops being "threatened" by White pawns and two isolated pawns on the e-file.

20...Bh4!

Renewing a mating threat with ...Bxe1, etc.

21.Qxe4

On 21.Bd3 Bf7+ and Black gets out of difficulty and has a winning game.

21...Bf2+! (see diagram)

Notice the power of my advanced isolated pawn.

If 22.Kh1 {or 22.Kh2} 22...Bf5 and I win the Queen or mate with Qh5.

22...exf2+ 23.Kxf2

If 23.Kf1 Qxe4 24.fxe4 fxe1=Q+ 25.Kxe1 Bxg2 26.Bd3 Rad8 and Black wins handily.

23...Qxe4 0-1.

We end with a selection of lightly annotated games from the 1989 Open Final.

White: Ken Wright
Black: Bill Bogle
Irregular Opening A00 (?)
O-89 1993-96

1.h3!?/?! d5

(or 2.e5 = , BCO)

2.b4 Nf6 3.Bb2 e6 4.a3 c5 5.b5 Bd6 6.e3 e5 7.c4 d4 8.Qc2 b6 9.e4 Bb7 10.d3 Nbd7 11.Be2 Nf8 12.Nd2 Ne6 13.g3 Qe7 14.Ngf3 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Nh5 16.Nh4 Nhf4 17.Bf1 g6 18.Nhf3 Nh5 19.Be2 f5 20.exf5 gxf5 21.Rhe1 Nf6 22.Nh4 Ng7 23.Bf3 Rhe8 24.Bxb7+ Qxb7 25.Nhf3 h6 26.Ng1 e4 27.Nb3 Ngh5 28.Ne2 e3 29.f4 Rg8 30.Rg1 Rg7 31.Nbxd4 cxd4 32.Nxd4 Rxg3 33.Nxf5 Rxg1 34.Nxd6+ Rxd6 35.Rxg1 Rd8 36.Be5 Qf3 37.c5 Qf2 38.cxb6+ Qxc2 39.Kxc2 axb6 40.d4 Nd5 41.f5 Rf8 42.Kd3 Nhf4+ 43.Bxf4 Nxf4+ 44.Kxe3 Rxf5 45.Ke4 Rf6 46.Rf1 Nd5 47.Rxf6 Nxf6+ 48.Ke5 Ne8 49.a4 Kd7 50.h4 Ke7 51.Kd5 Kd7 52.Ke5 Ng7 53.d5 Ke7 0-1

White: Bill Bogle
Black: Randy White
Caro-Kann
O-89 1993-95

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.b3 Ndf6 6.Bb2 Bg4 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.Qf4

(8.Qg3 e6 9.Be2 Bf5 10.Bd1 Bg6 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.Qh4 13.0-0 0-0 14.Qc4 Nd7 15.Re1 Bf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.d4 Rfd8 18.Rc1 Qf4 19.Be2 Bh5 20.c3 Qc7 21.Qd3 Rac8 22.Qe3 c5 23.h3 cxd4 ½ - ½ , Csom-Navarovszky, Keccskemet 1969.)

8... e6 9.Bd3 Qd5 10.f3 Bd6 11.Qc4 Qxc4 12.bxc4 Bh5 13.Ne2 Bg6 14.Ng3 0-0-0 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 f5 17.Bd3 e5 18.0-0-0 e4 19.fxe4 fxe4 20.Be2 Rhf8 21.Rhf1 Rxf1 22.Rxf1 Bxh2 23.Bg4+ Kc7 24.Bxg7 Bd6 25.Kb2 Rg8 26.Bh6 Be5+ 27.Kb3 Re8 28.Bf5 Re7 29.Bxg6 hxg6 30.Bg5 Re6 31.Re1 Bh2 32.c5 Kd7 33.Rh1 Re5 34.Be3 Rh5 35.g4 Rh4 36.Kc4 Ke6 37.Bf4 Bg3 38.Rxh4 Bxh4 39.Kd4 Be7 40.Be3 Bd8 41.Kxe4 0-1

White: Bill Bogle
Black: Tim E. Knechtel
Modern Defense B06
O-89 1993-95

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qf3 e6 6.Nge2 Qe7 7.a4 Nd7 8.a5 e5 9.d5 c5 10.g4 h6 11.Ng3 a6 12.Na4 Qh4 13.Qb3 Ne7 14.Bd2 0-0 15.0-0-0 b5 16.axb5e.p. Bb7 17.Rdg1 Nc8 18.f3 Rb8 19.Rg2 Ba8 20.Ba5 Bb7 21.Kb1 Re8 22.Rhg1 Bf8 23.g5 hxg5 24.Be1 Ba8 25.Bxa6 Ncxb6 26.Nxb6 Rxb6 27.Bb5 Reb8 28.c4 Qh3 29.Nh1 Be7 30.Nf2 Qh6 31.Qe3 Nf8 32.h4 R6b7 33.hxg5 Qg7 34.Bc3 f6 35.gxf6 Bxf6 36.Ng4 Rxb5 37.Nh6+ Kh8 38.cxb5 Rxb5 39.Rh1 Nh7 40.Nf5 Qf8 41.Rxg6 Rb7 42.Qh6 1-0

White: Tim Knechtel
Black: Ken Wright
Grob Reversed (?) A10 (?)
O-89 1993-95

1.c4 g5 2.d4 h6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 c5 5.d5 d6 6.Nge2 Nd7 7.Ng3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa5 9.Qc2 Ngf6 10.Be2 Ne5 11.f3 Bd7 12.a4 g4 13.f4 Ng6 14.Bd2 h5 15.0-0 h4 16.Nf5 g3 17.h3 0-0-0 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Ng8 20.Bf4 Nxf4 21.Rxf4 f6 22.e6 Be8 23.Nxh4 Qc7 24.Raf1 Nh6 25.Bd1 Qe5 26.Qd2 Qxe6 27.Re1 Qd6 28.Qe3 Bd7 29.Ng6 Rh7 30.Bc2 Rg7 31.Rf3 Rh7?? 32.Nxe7+ 1-0

White: Nick Zimninski
Black: Bill Bogle
Pirc Defense B07
O-89 1993-96

1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.c3 Nf6 5.Nd2 0-0 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Nc4 Nh5 10.b4 Nf4 11.Bc2 Qxd1+ 12.Bxd1 Be6 13.Nb2 Rad8 14.Rfe1 Bf6 15.Bc2 h5 16.Kf1 h4 17.h3 Rd7 18.Be3 Rfd8 19.Bb3 Nd3 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Nxd3 Rxd3 22.Rac1 b5 23.Ke2 a5 24.a3 R8d7 25.Red1 Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Rxd1 27.Kxd1 axb4 28.cxb4 Kf7 29.Kc2 Nd8 30.Kb3 Nb7 31.a4 bxa4 32.Kxa4 Ke7 33.Nd2 Kd7 34.f3 Nd6 35.Nb3 Nc4 36.Bc1 c6 37.Na5 Nd6 38.Bb2 Kc7 39.Kb3 Kb6 40.Kc2 c5 41.bxc5 Kxc5 42.Kd3 Kb5 43.Nb3 Nc4 44.Bc3 g5 45.Nc1 Bd8 46.Nb3 Bb6 47.Bd2 Nxd2 48.Nxd2 Bd8 49.Nf1 Kc5 50.g3 Kb5 51.gxh4 gxh4 52.Ne3 Bg5 53.Ng4 Bf4 54.Nf6 Kc5 55.Nd7+ Kd6 56.Nf6 Ke7 ½ - ½

White: Nick Zimninski
Black: Philip Northover
Queen's Pawn Game/Colle System D05
O-89 1993-95

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nd2 d5 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nd7 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Qb6 9.b3 e5 10.e4 cxd4 11.cxd4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 exd4 14.Bb2 Nf6 15.Bxd4 Bc5 16.Bxc5 Qxc5 17.Rc1 Qa5 18.Qd2 Qxd2 19.Nxd2 Rd8 20.Red1 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Bf5 23.Nd6 Rd8 24.Re1! g6 25.Nxb7 Rd2 26.Ra1 Kg7 27.a3 Kf6 28.h3 Ke5 29.Na5 Kd4 30.Nc6+ Kc3 31.Nxa7 Kb2 32. Re1 Kxa3 33.Nc6 Kxb3 34.Re3+ Ka4 35.Ne5 f6 36.Nf3 Rd3 37.Re7 Rd7 38.Re8 Bd3 39.Re6 Rf7 40.g4 Kb4 41.Rd6 Bc4 42.Nd2 Be2 43.f4 f5 44.gxf5 Rxf5 45.Kf2 Bb5 46.Kg3 Rf7 47.Nf3 Kc5 48.Rd8 Rd7 49.Rh8 Kd5 50.Ng5 h5 51.Re8 Bd3 52.Nf3 Rd6 53.Re5+ Kc4 54.Kh4 55.Re3 Kd5 56.Kg5 Be4 57.Ne5 Rb6 58.h4 Rb2 59.Rg3 Rh2 60.Nxg6 Bxg6 61.Kxg6 Rxh4 62.Rg5+ Ke6 63.f5+ Ke7 64.Kg7 Rf4 65.Rxh5 Rg4 + ½ - ½

I hope you have a pleasent Summer. I'll be back with more news and games in the Fall issue. In between swimming and sunbathing, please find some time to send me some well annotated games. Thank you.