Caro-Kann Defense, Exchange Variation

In the past two years*, I have played many games as White using the exchange variation versus the Caro-Kann Defense. After the opening moves 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3, there are three subvariations for Black: (a) 4...Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qc8 (or 7...Qd7); (b) 4...Nc6 5.c3 Qc7; (c) lines featuring ...g6.

(a) At the Somerset NJ quads in May 1996, candidate master Steve Anderson played 7...Qc8 against me. That game continued 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Be7 10.O-O Bh5 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 O-O 13.Rae1 Nd7 14.Bg3 Nb6?! 15.f4 Bg6


16.f5! Bh5 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qc2 Rxf1+ 19.Rxf1 h6 20.Bg6 Bxg6 21.Qxg6 Na4 22.Be5 Bf8 23.Rf7, 1-0.

National master Dylan McClain played more solidly at the Manhattan Chess Club in August 1996 as follows: 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Be7 10.O-O O-O 11.Ne5 Bh5 12.Qc2 Bg6 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Nf3 Qd7 15.Rae1 Rac8 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 Ng4 18.Bg3 Bd6 19.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.f4 f5 21.Qe2 Kf7 22.h3 Nf6 23.Qe5 Rfd8 24.g4 a6 25.Re2 Qxe5 26.fxe5 Ng8 27.h4 Nh6


28.h5!? Nxg4 29.hxg6+ Ke7 (29...Kxg6!?) 30.Rf4 Rh8 31.Rg2 Ne3 32.Rg3 Nc4 33.Bxc4 Rxc4 34.Rf2 Rcc8 35.Rh2 Rxh2 36.Kxh2 Rh8+ 37.Rh3 Rxh3+ 38.Kxh3 Kd7 39.a4 Kc7 40.Kg3 Kc6 41.b4 b5 42.a5, draw.

Several of my opponents tried 7...Qd7 instead. At the Somerset NJ quads in May 1995, candidate master Matt Boxer lost after 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Bd6 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.O-O O-O 12.h3 Bh5 13.Rae1 (13.g4!?) Bxe5 14.Bxe5 Nxe5 15.Rxe5 Bg6 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Rfe1 b5 18.Nf3 Rab8 19.a3 a5 20.Ng5 Qc4 21.Qc2 b4 22.axb4 axb4 23.R5e3 Rfc8


24.Nxe6!? fxe6 25.Qxg6 Qc7 26.Rxe6 Qf7 27.Qxf7+ Kxf7 28.Re7+ Kg6 29.R1e3 b3 30.Rg3+ Kh7 31.Rgxg7+ Kh8 32.Rb7 Ne4 33.Rh7+ Kg8 34.Rhg7+ Kh8 35.Rh7+ Kg8 36.Rbg7+ Kf8 37.Rf7+ Kg8 38.Rfg7+ Kf8 39.Rc7 Rxc7 40.Rh8+ Ke7 41.Rxb8 Nd2 42.h4 Kf6 43.g4 Re7 44.Rb6+ Kg7 45.h5 Re4 46.f3 Re2 47.g5 Nxf3+ 48.Kf1 Rxb2 49.Rb7+ Kg8 50.Rb8+ Kg7 51.Rb7+ Kg8 52.Rb8+ Kg7 53.h6+ Kf7 54.Rb7+ Kf8 55.g6 Rh2 56.g7+ Kg8 57.Rb8+, 1-0. It is not clear that my piece sacrifice was sound. Certainly Black missed drawing chances.

At the Marshall Chess Club in November 1995, candidate master Noah Siegel fell victim to a strong kingside attack as follows: 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Bd6 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.O-O O-O 13.Rae1 Rfc8 14.Qd1 a6 15.Ne5 b5 16.a3 Na5 17.g4 Nc4 18.Qc2 g6 19.f4 Qb6 20.g5 Nh5 21.Qf2 Ra7 22.Be2 Ng7 23.Bg4 Nxe5 24.fxe5 Nf5

25.Bxf5! gxf5 26.Re3 Qd8 27.Rh3 Qf8 28.Rh6 Qg7 29.Qh4 Kh8 30.Rf3 Rg8 31.Rg3 b4 32.axb4 a5 33.Kf2 axb4 34.Rh3 f6 35.exf6 Qf7 36.cxb4 Rg6 37.Qf4 Rxh6 38.Rxh6 Qb7 39.Qe5 Kg8 40.Qxe6+ Qf7 41.Qc8+ Qf8 42.Qc5 Qxc5 43.bxc5 Rb7 44.Ke3 Rxb2 45.Kf4 Rd2 46.Ke5 f4 47.Kxf4 Rxd4+ 48.Ke5 Rd2 49.Ke6 d4 50.f7+ Kg7 51.Rxh7+ Kxh7 52.f8=Q Re2+ 53.Kd5, 1-0 (forfeit).

Two months later at the Hamilton NJ quads,candidate master Jason Cohen was defeated after 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Bd6 10.Ne5 Bxe5


11.dxe5 (11.Bxe5!?) Nh5 12.Be3 a6 13.h3 Bf5 14.Bxf5 exf5 15.Nf3 O-O 16.O-O-O Rfd8 17.Bb6 Re8 18.Rxd5 Qe6 19.g3 a5 20.Rhd1 a4 21.Qb5 Ne7 22.Rd8 Raxd8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Bxd8 Nc6 25.Bc7 Qc8 26.Bd6 g6 27.Qxa4 Ng7 28.Kb1 Ne6 29.Qh4 h5 30.Ng5 Nxg5 31.Qxg5 Qe6 32.Qe3 Qd5 33.b3 Qh1+ 34.Kb2 Nd8 35.h4 Ne6 36.Be7 Kh7 37.a4 f4 38.gxf4 Qh2 39.Qg3 Qh1 40.b4 Qe4 41.Qe3 Qc4 42.Bg5 Nxg5 43.fxg5 Qxh4 44.Qf3 Kg8 45.Qxb7 Qxf2+ 46.Kb3 h4 47.a5 h3? 48.Qc8+ Kg7 49.Qxh3 Qf4 50.e6 Qxg5 51.exf7 Qd5+ 52.Kb2 Qd2+ 53.Kb3 Qd5+ 54.Ka3 Kxf7 55.c4 Qd1 56.Qh7+ Kf6 57.Qh8+ Kf5 58.Qc3 Qd6 59.Qf3+ Ke6 60.Qd5+ Qxd5 61.cxd5+ Kxd5 62.a6 Kc6 63.b5+ Kb6 64.Kb3 g5 65.Kc3 g4 66.Kd3 g3 67.Ke2 Kc7 68.Kf3 Kb6 69.Kxg3 Kc7 70.Kf4 Kb6 71.Ke5 Kc7 72.Kd5 Kb6 73.Kd6 Ka7 74.Kc6 Kb8 75.b6 Ka8 76.b7+ Kb8 77.Kd7 Ka7 78.Kc7, 1-0.

(b) In the 5...Qc7 line, candidate master Louis Leiggi played well at the Hamilton NJ quads in March 1995 before blundering toward the end of the first time control. That game proceeded 6.Ne2 Bg4 7.f3 Bh5 8.Na3 a6 9.Nc2 e6 10.Bf4 Bd6 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.O-O Nge7 13.Qd2 Bg6 14.Rae1 O-O 15.Ng3 b5 16.a3 (16.f4!?) Na5 17.f4 Nc4 18.Bxc4 bxc4 19.Ne3 Bd3 20.Rf2 Qd7 21.b4 a5 22.Ng4 Qa4 23.bxa5 Qxa3 24.Ne5 Bg6 25.h4 Rfb8 26.h5 Bd3 27.Nxd3 cxd3 28.f5 Nxf5 29.Nxf5 exf5 30.Qxd3 g6 31.h6 Rxa5


32.Rxf5! Qf8 33.Qg3 Rba8 34.Qg5 Ra1 35.Rff1 R1a3? 36.Qxd5 Rxc3?? 37.Rxf7!, 1-0.

In August 1995, again at the Hamilton NJ quads, candidate master Jason Cohen had the misfortune of losing the same endgame as in the 7...Qd7 variation. This game went as follows: 6.Ne2 Nf6?!


7.Bf4 e5 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Nfxd7 11.Qxd5 Bd6 12.O-O O-O 13.Rd1 Bc5 14.Nd2 Qc6 15.Ne4 Bb6 16.Qxc6 bxc6 17.Rd6 f5 18.N4g3 Bc5 19.Rd2 h6 20.h4 Rae8 21.Rad1 Nf6 22.Bxe5 Rxe5 23.Nf4 Rfe8 24.Nd3 f4 25.Nxe5 Rxe5 26.Re2 Bxf2+ 27.Rxf2 fxg3 28.Rf3 Re2 29.Rxg3 Rxb2 30.Rd8+ Kf7 31.Rc8 Rxa2 32.Rxc6 Nd5 33.c4 Nf4 34.Rc7+ Kf6 35.Rgxg7 Ne6 36.Rxa7 Rc2 37.Rgf7+ Ke5 38.Rfe7 Kf6 39.Rxe6+ Kxe6 40.Kh2 Rxc4 41.Ra6+ Kf5 42.Kh3 Rc3+ 43.g3 h5 44.Rh6 Ra3 45.Rxh5+ Kg6 46.Rb5 Rc3 47.h5+ Kh6 48.Kh4 Rc4+ 49.g4 Ra4 50.Rb6+ Kg7 51.h3+ Kh7 52.Kh5 Ra5+ 53.g5 Rc5 54.Rb7+ Kg8 55.Re7 Ra5 56.Kg6 Ra6+ 57.Kf5 Ra1 58.Kf6 Rf1+ 59.Kg6 Rf8 60.Rd7 Ra8 61.Rd6 Rf8 62.Kh5 Rf5 63.Kg4 Rf8 64.g6 Ra8 65.Kf5 Rf8+ 66.Ke6 Re8+ 67.Kf6 Ra8 68.Ke7 Ra7+ 69.Rd7 Ra8 70.Rd8+ Rxd8 71.Kxd8 Kf8 72.Kd7 Kg8 73.Ke7 Kh8 74.g7+ Kg8 75.Kf6 Kh7 76.Kf7, 1-0.

At the Manhattan Chess Club in January 1996, my opponent national master Vladimir Polyakin blundered on move 24 allowing a forced mate which I missed. Instead I sacrificed the exchange and then offered my queen! Here are the moves to that game: 6.Ne2 Bg4 7.f3 Bh5 8.Na3 e6 9.Bf4 Qd7 10.Nc2 Nf6 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Qd2 Bg6 14.Rae1 O-O 15.Ng3 Rac8 16.f4 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 b5 18.f5 b4 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Nxb4 Nxb4 21.cxb4 Qxb4 22.Rxe6 Qxb2 23.Nf5 Rc1 24.Re7 Ne4?


25.Rxe4!? (25.Rxg7+ Kh8 26.Rxh7+! Kxh7 27.Qh3+ wins) dxe4? (25...g6!) 26.Qc4+! Kh8 27.Qxc1 Qxa2 28.Qc5 Re8 29.Nd6 Rb8 30.Nc8 h6 31.Rf8+, 1-0.

(c) Following 4.Bd3, my game against national master Dylan McClain at the Bayonne NJ quads in June 1995 continued 4...Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Nbd2 O-O 9.O-O Nh5 10.Be3 f5 11.Nb3 b6 12.Re1 Kh8 13.Bb5 Bd7 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Bg5 Nf6 16.Ne5 Be8 17.f3 h6 18.Bh4 Rc8 19.Nc1 Kh7 20.Ncd3 g5 21.Bf2 Qd6 22.Qc2 Kg8 23.Re2 Rc7 24.Rae1 e6 25.h4 Re7 26.Qd2 f4 27.g3 Nh5 28.g4 Nf6 29.Kg2 Nd7 30.Rh1 Nxe5 31.Nxe5 Bxe5 32.Rxe5 Rg7 33.hxg5 hxg5 34.Rh6 Bd7 35.Qd3 Qe7 36.Qf1 Rf6 37.Qh1 Rxh6 38.Qxh6 Kf7


39.c4!? dxc4 40.d5 Qf6 41.dxe6+ Bxe6 42.Qh5+ Qg6 43.Rxg5 Qxh5 44.Rxh5 Kg6 45.Re5 Bc8 46.Re4 Kg5 47.Rxc4 Be6 48.Ra4 Rd7 49.b3 Rd2 50.Rxa7 Bd5 51.Rh7 Rd3 52.Rh3 b5 53.Be1 Bb7 54.Rh5+ Kg6 55.Rh3 Bd5 56.Kf2 Bb7 57.Ba5 Bd5 58.Bc7 Rd2+ 59.Ke1 Rxa2 60.Bxf4 Bxb3 61.Rh6+ Kf7 62.Bd2 Bd5 63.g5 Rc2 64.Rb6 Bc6 65.f4 Kg6 66.Rb8 Rc4 67.Rf8 Kg7 68.Rb8 Kg6 69.Ke2 Re4+ 70.Kd3 Rc4 71.Rf8 Be4+ 72.Ke3 Bc2 73.Rf6+ Kg7 74.Rb6 Rc5 75.Bb4 Rd5 76.Bc3+ Kh7 77.Bd4 Bf5 78.Rh6+ Kg8 79.g6 Bxg6 80.Rxg6+ Kf7 81.Rg5 Ke6 82.Rxd5 Kxd5 83.f5 b4 84.f6 Ke6 85.Kf4 Kf7 86.Kf5, 1-0.

Finally, at the Manhattan Chess Club in August 1996, I bested candidate master Paul Song by countering his queenside minority attack with a kingside mating attack as follows: 4...g6 5.Nf3 Nh6 6.c3 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Re1 Nf5 9.Bf4 Nc6 10.h3 Nd6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 12.Bxf5 Nxf5 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.Rxe5 e6 16.Qb3 Nd6 17.Rae1 b5 18.R5e2 Rb8 19.Nf3 Nc4 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.Rxe5 Qc7 22.a3 a5 23.h4 b4 24.cxb4 axb4 25.h5 bxa3 26.Qxa3 Qc4 27.Qe3 Rxb2 28.Qf4 Qc2 29.Qf6 Qd2


30.R5e3! Rfb8 31.h6 Kf8 32.Qg7+ Ke8 33.Rxe6+ fxe6 34.Rxe6+ Kd8 35.Qe7+ Kc8 36.Rc6#.

*{This article originally appeared in the November-December 1996 issue of Atlantic Chess News}

Philidor Counter Gambit 1997

At the U. S. Amateur Team Championship East in February 1997, I won two Philidor Counter Gambits against candidate masters. Two weeks later, at the Somerset NJ quads in March, I defeated a master with this defense. The first two PCG's featured the 4.Nc3 variation. In the third game, my opponent chose to play 4.exf5.

Richard Panken (USCF 2048) - Jim West (USCF 2255), USATE 2/15/1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4


This is how Morphy played against 4.Nc3, but 4...exd4 is also possible. My game against candidate master David Grasso at the Somerset NJ quads earlier that month continued, after 4...exd4, with 5.Qxd4 fxe4 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Nxe4 Be7 8.O-O-O O-O 9.Bc4+ Kh8 10.h4 Nc6 11.Qe3 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Bf5 13.Qe3 Bg4 14.Rde1 Bf6 15.Kb1 Qd7 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qf4 Ne5 18.Bb3 a5 19.a4 Rae8 20.h5 Qf5 21.Qxf5 Bxf5 22.Nd4, draw.

5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3

It is interesting that both my opponents at the USATE avoided the ultra-sharp 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 when either 8...Nf6 or 8...hxg6 leads to unclear complications.

6...e4 7.Ne5 Nf6 8.Bg5 Bb4

When I began playing this defense seriously in 1990, I used to play 8...Be7 with a solid position. But the bishop is not very active at e7. At b4, the bishop is ready to trade itself for the white knight on c3, since White's plan is to castle kingside and follow with f3.

9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O c6


11.a3?!

In the PCG, there is rarely time for such finesses. White should proceed immediately with 11.f3.

11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nbd7 13.c4 Qe8 14.Nxd7

This move only aids Black's development. White should consider playing 14.f4.

14...Bxd7 15.Qd2

I was expecting White to play 15.Rb1, an idea which he delays for another ten moves.

15...Qg6 16.Bh4?! Rae8 17.Qg5

White is drifting aimlessly here while Black has completed his development.

17...Qf7 18.c5 h6 19.Qe3 Qg6 20.Kh1 Bg4


21.Bxf6?!

Why give up the bishop pair needlessly? The dark-squared bishop should aim for the d6 square by way of g3.

21...Rxf6 22.Bxg4 Qxg4 23.h3

I think my opponent had originally planned 23.f3 but suddenly saw 23...Ref8!.

23...Qd7 24.Kh2 Ref8 25.Rab1 g5

Afterwards my teammates suggested 25...Rf3!? 26.gxf3 Rxf3 27.Qxf3 exf3 as a better winning attempt.

26.Qg3 Rf4 27.Rb3 Qg7 28.c3 R8f7 29.Rb2 h5 30.Rfb1 h4 31.Qe3 g4


Black is now threatening 32...Rxf2!.

32.hxg4 Qxg4 33.Qh3 Qxh3+ 34.Kxh3 Rxf2 35.Rxb7 Rxb7 36.Rxb7 Rc2 37.Kxh4 Rxc3 38.Rxa7 Rd3


This is the position I had been aiming for when I played 25...g5, thinking that my protected passed pawn on e4 would guarantee a win despite my pawn deficit. But an intense post-mortem analysis revealed that White can still draw with correct play.

39.Rc7?

But not like this! And 39.Ra4?!, allowing Black's king into the struggle, does not seem inviting. The right move is 39.Kg5!, and White can hold after 39...Rg3+ 40.Kf6 Rxg2 41.Re7.

39...Rxd4 40.Rxc6?? e3+ 41.Kg3 Re4!

This is the winning move that White overlooked.

42.Rc8+ Kf7 43.Rc7+ Ke6 44.Rc8 Kd7 45.Rh8 e2 46.Rh1 e1=Q+ 47.Rxe1 Rxe1, White resigns.

The above game was played in round one. The following game occurred in round three.

Carl Adamec (USCF 2111) - Jim West (USCF 2255), USATE 2/16/1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Neg5 h6 7.dxe5!?

In my book The Dynamic Philidor Counter-Gambit, I considered only 7.Nf7 Kxf7 8.Nxe5+ Ke7 9.Ng6+ Kf6 10.Qf3+ Bf5 11.Nxh8 Qe7+ 12.Be2 Qe4 and 7.Nh3 Bxh3 8.gxh3 exd4. Black has a playable game, in both cases.

7...hxg5 8.Bd3 Rh6!?


I could see by the look on my opponent's face that he had something cooked up. So I decided to give back material to free my position.

9.Bxg5 Be7 10.Bxh6 Nxh6 11.Bg6+ Kf8

Although my teammates questioned my judgment after the game, I think Black is already slightly better. Sure, White has rook and two pawns for two minor pieces, which in an endgame would give him good winning chances. But that endgame is a long way off. In the short run, Black's bishop and knight are stronger.

12.Qe2 Nc6 13.O-O-O

This may be too optimistic. Kingside castling is safer.

13...Be6 14.h3 Kg8


15.Nh2?!

Understandably, White is anxious to play f4 to protect his passed pawn on e5. But Black's response shows this idea to be faulty.

15...d4! 16.f4 Qd5 17.c4

White decides to jettison a pawn and eliminate queens rather than allow the mechanical mating attack after 17.b3 Ba3+ 18.Kb1 a5, etc.

17...Qxc4+ 18.Qxc4 Bxc4 19.Ng4?

This move simply loses a second pawn for nothing.

19...Rf8 20.Nxh6+ gxh6 21.g3 Bxa2

With two minor pieces for White's rook, Black has a won game. But White's e-pawn still requires observation.

22.Be4 Bc5 23.Kd2 Na5 24.Ke2 Be6 25.Rc1 Nb3 26.f5!? Rxf5! 27.Bxf5 Bxf5


An unusual ending has arisen, featuring White's two rooks versus Black's extra pawn and three minor pieces. But the d-pawn is a powerful one.

28.Rcd1?

White had to try 28.Rcf1 Be4 29.Rh2, although Black will soon win back an exchange.

28...Bc2 29.Kf3 Bxd1+ 30.Rxd1 a5 31.Ke4 Kf7 32.Rf1+ Ke8 33.Rf6 Bf8 34.e6 Nc5+!


Now 35.Kxd4 loses at once to 35...Bg7.

35.Kf3 d3 36.h4?!

Why this move? More sensible is 36.g4.

36...d2 37.Ke2 Ne4 38.Rf4?!

I had expected 38.Rf3 which holds out longer.

38...Nxg3+ 39.Kxd2 Bd6 40.Rf7 a4 41.Kd3 b5 42.Rh7 h5 43.Rh8+ Ke7 44.Rb8 b4 45.Kc4 Kxe6 46.Rb5 a3 47.bxa3 bxa3 48.Kb3 Nf5 49.Ra5 Kf6 50.Kc4?! Kg6 51.Kd3 Nxh4 52.Ke4 Ng2 53.Ra8 Nf4 54.Rg8+ Kf7 55.Rh8 Ke6 56.Rh6+ Kd7 57.Rh8 Kc6 58.Kf5 Kb7 59.Re8 a2 60.Re1 Be5!, White resigns.


Obviously 61.Kxe5 fails to 61...Nd3+ followed by 62...Nxe1.

Mike Shapiro (USCF 2265) - Jim West (USCF 2255), Somerset NJ 3/2/1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.exf5

I have been told that, when Anatoly Karpov visited GM Ron Henley in New Jersey, he was shown my analysis of the PCG in Atlantic Chess News. The story goes that Karpov touts 4.exf5 as highly favorable for White. Needless to say, I respectfully disagree, having won all six games where my opponents have played this variation.

4...e4 5.Qe2

It has not happened yet, but one of these days an opponent of mine will continue with 5.Ng5. I certainly hope so. Otherwise much home analysis will never be tested over the board.

5...Nf6


6.Ng5

After the game, my opponent asked me what the book continuation is here. When I told him that Steinitz recommended 6.g4 Nxg4 7.Qxe4+ Qe7, he was aghast. I agree. Although White has an extra pawn, his position is not enviable.

6...d5 7.f3 Nc6 8.fxe4

I had expected 8.c3, although Black stands well after 8...Bxf5.

8...Nxd4 9.Qd1 dxe4 10.c3

On 10.Bc4 Qd6 11.Nf7? Qb4+ 12.Nd2, Black wins after 12...e3!. Not much better is 11.O-O Nxf5 12.Qe2 Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Nd6, leaving White a pawn down with little to show for it.

10...Nc6 11.Qb3 Qe7 12.Bf4 Nh5!?


Usually a knight on the edge of the board is misplaced, but here the f4 bishop must be chased to allow ...Ne5 which should not be played immediately because of 13.Qb5+.

13.Be3 Ne5 14.Qa4+ Bd7 15.Qxe4 O-O-O

White has won a pawn but at great cost in development. Even Black's knight on h5 will come into play.

16.Ne6 Bxe6 17.Qxe5 Bd5 18.Qxe7 Bxe7

In order to reach this pawn-up queenless middlegame, White has traded his queen which moved seven times for Black's queen which moved only once. Black's big lead in development more than compensates him for the pawn.

19.Be2

After the game, my opponent suggested 19.Rg1. But after 19...Bd6, the threat of 20...Rhe8 gives Black the upper hand.

19...Bh4+!


20.Bf2 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 Nf4 22.Bf3

Retreating his only developed piece with 22.Bf1 would leave White with a bad position after 22...Rhf8.

22...Nd3+ 23.Kg3 Bxf3 24.Kxf3 Nxb2

An inventory of the position shows that material is even. But White has no pieces out while Black is fully developed. Worse still, White can scarcely move without losing material.

25.g4 Nc4! 26.Re1 Rhe8 27.Rf1 Re3+ 28.Kg2 Re4 29.Kf3 Rde8 30.Rf2 Re1


Now the threat of 31...Na3 forces White to shed some pawns.

31.a4 Ne5+! 32.Kg3 Rg1+ 33.Rg2 Rxg2+ 34.Kxg2 Nxg4 35.Kg3 Ne3 36.Nd2

Perhaps 36.f6 gxf6 is a better way of losing the f-pawn.

36...Nxf5+ 37.Kf4 g6 38.Ne4 Nd6 39.Nf6 Re2 40.Nxh7 Rxh2 41.Nf6 a5 42.Ke5 Re2+ 43.Kd4 Re6 44.Nd5 Nf5+ 45.Kd3 b6 46.Rg1 Kd7 47.Kc2 Ne7 48.Nf4 Re4! 49.Nxg6 Nxg6 50.Rxg6 Rxa4


And Black won a hard-fought ending (102 moves!).

{This article originally appeared in the March-April 1997 issue of Atlantic Chess News}

Sicilian Taimanov

After the opening moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Ng5 d6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Be3, a position from the Taimanov variation of the Sicilian defense has been arrived at that could also have been reached from the Kalashnikov variation after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Ng5 d6 6.Be3.

In fact, this is currently my favorite way of meeting both the Taimanov and Kalashnikov variations.

Following 7.Be3, Black is not obligated to play 7...Nf6 but can try an immediate 7...a6, first played in Anderssen-Szen, London 1851. But not to be recommended is 7...f5 8.N1c3 f4 9.Nd5 fxe3 10.Nbc7+ Kf7 11.Qf3+ Nf6 12.Bc4 Nd4 13.Nxf6+ d5 14.Bxd5+ Kg6 15.Qh5+ Kxf6 16.fxe3 Nxc2+ 17.Ke2, and Black resigned in Morphy-Anderssen, Paris 1858.


After 7...a6, my game as White against candidate master Bob Rose at the Somerset NJ quads in April 1997 proceeded 8.N5c3 Nf6 (8...Be6 9.a4 Nge7 10.Nd5 Bxd5 11.exd5 Qa5+ 12.Nc3 Nb8 13.Bd3 Nd7 14.O-O Nb6 15.b4 Qxb4 16.Rb1 Qxc3 17.Rxb6 Nxd5 18.Bb5+ axb5 19.Qxd5 Qc4 20.Qxb7 Qc8 21.Qd5 bxa4 22.Rb7 Be7 23.f4 f6 24.fxe5 dxe5 25.Rfb1 Rf8 26.Rxe7+, 1-0, Fischer-Blackstone, San Francisco simul. 1964) 9.Bc4 Be6 (9...Be7 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Bxd5 O-O 12.Nc3 Kh8 13.O-O Be6 14.Bb3 Na5 15.Nd5 Nxb3 16.axb3 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Qc7 18.c3 g5 19.Ra4 Rad8 20.Rb4 Rd7 21.Rb6 Kg7 22.Ra1 f5 23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Ra4 Rf8 25.Rc4 Qb8 26.Rcb4 Qa8 27.c4 a5 28.R4b5 a4 29.Rxb7 axb3 30.h4 Rxb7 31.Rxb7 Rf7 32.Bxg5 Qa1+ 33.Kh2 Qxb2 34.Qe6 Qxf2 35.Rxe7, 1-0, Fischer-Badilles, Philippines 1967) 10.Bb3 Be7 11.Bg5 O-O 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.O-O Nd4 14.Nd5 Nxb3 15.axb3 Bxd5 16.Qxd5 with absolute control of the d5 square.


Eventually White converted this positional advantage into material gain and won.

Following 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Bg5 Be6, most attention has focused on 9.Nd2. Probably this is because the continuation 9.N1c3 a6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Na3 d5, as in Fischer-Petrosian, Buenos Aires 1971 is supposedly in Black's favor, even though Fischer won that game. The critical position occurs after 12.exd5 Bxa3 13.bxa3 Qa5 14.Qd2 O-O-O 15.Bc4 Rhg8 (15...Bf5 16.O-O Nd4 17.Bd3 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Kb8 19.Kh1 Rhg8, Jim West (USCF 2239) - Jim Gwyn (USCF 2159), Hamilton NJ 1991. Now I played 20.f4, and the game was eventually drawn in 52 moves. Instead, 20.Rad1 would have transposed into the Fischer-Petrosian game.) 16.Rd1.


Here Petrosian played 16...Bf5. As Jan Timman asks in his book The Art of Chess Analysis, "But why didn't Petrosian play 16...Rxg2?" In my opinion, the correct move for White after 16...Rxg2 is 17.Qe3.


After 17...Nd4 18.Kf1, Timman gives three possible continuations for Black: (a) 18...Nf5, (b) 18...Nxc2, and (c) 18...Bg4.

(a) 18...Nf5 could lead to a forced draw by repetition, as given by O'Kelly, following 19.Qa7 Qxc3 20.Bxa6 bxa6 21.Qa8+ Kc7 22.Qa7+, etc.


(b) 18...Nxc2 is more complicated. Timman now gives 19.Qd3 Rg4 20.dxe6 Rxd3 21.Rxd3 Qxa3 22.exf7 Nd4 23.Rg1 as risky for Black.


But White has no more than a draw after 23...Rxg1+ 24.Kxg1 Qc5 25.Ne4 Qb4 26.Rg3 Qe1+ 27.Kg2 Qxe4+ 28.f3 Qc2+ 29.Kh3 Qf5+ 30.Kg2 Qc2+, etc., or 24...Qb4 25.Nd5 Qe1+ 26.Kg2 Qe4+ 27.Kg1 Qe1+, etc.

(c) 18...Bg4 leads to a winning attack for Black, as shown by Timman, after 19.Kxg2 Bf3+ 20.Kh3 Qc7 21.Rxd4 Qd7+ 22.Kg3 (22.Kh4 Qf5 23.Qh6 exd4 24.Rg1 dxc3) Bxh1 23.Rg4.


Here Timman gives a long variation beginning with 23...f5 24.Qc5+ Kb8 25.Rg7 Rc8, but winning at once is 23...h5 24.Qc5+ Kb8 since now 25.Rg7 leads to mate after 25...h4+ 26.Kxh4 Rh8+. If instead of 19.Kxg2 White plays 19.Be2, Timman gives 19...Nf5 as "strong, perhaps too strong." Here I must disagree with Timman because 19.Be2 Nf5 20.Qd3 Bxe2+ 21.Nxe2 Rg5 22.h4 Rh5 23.Qf3 Ng7 24.Qg4+ wins the black knight.


After 19.Be2, Black should play 19...Bxe2+ 20.Nxe2, but after Black tends to his attacked rook on g2 by a move like 20...Rgg8, White simply plays 21.c4. After the likely continuation 21...Qa4 22.Qd3 Nxe2 23.Kxe2, the position looks approximately even, with White's doubled a-pawns offset by his protected passed d-pawn.


A transposition into the Sveshnikov variation can occur if instead of Petrosian's 11...d5 Black plays 11...b5 12.Nd5 f5 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.c3 Bg7 15.Nc2 O-O 16.Nce3 Be6.


Another possibility is 11...Nd4, after which the game Fischer-Taimanov, Vancouver 1971 continued 12.Nc4 (12.Bc4 b5 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Ne2 Nc6 15.Ng3 Qd7 16.c4 Nd4 17.O-O b4 18.Nc2 Nxc2 19.Qxc2 h5 20.Rfd1 h4 21.Nf1 Rg8 22.a3 h3 23.g3 bxa3 24.Rxa3 Qc6 25.Qe2 f5 26.c5 Qxe4 27.Qxe4 fxe4 28.cxd6 Bh6 29.Ra5 Kd7 30.Rxe5 Bg7 31.Rxe4 Bxb2 32.Ne3 a5 33.Nc4 Rgb8 34.Rh4 Kc6 35.Rh7 Bd4 36.Rc7+ Kd5 37.d7 a4 38.Nb6+ Rxb6 39.Rc8 Rd6 40.Rxa8 Rxd7 41.Rxa4 e5 42.Kf1 Rb7 43.f4 Ke6 44.fxe5 Rf7+ 45.Ke2 Rf2+ 46.Kd3 Bxe5 47.Re1, 1-0, Fischer-Najdorf, Santa Monica 1966) f5 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Bd3 Rc8


15.Bxf5 Rxc4 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qe2 Rd4 18.O-O Qg5 19.Rad1 Qf5 20.Rxd4 exd4 21.Ne4 Be7 22.Rd1 Qe5 23.Qd3 Rf8 24.Qxd4 Qxd4 25.Rxd4 d5 26.Nc3 Bc5 27.Rd2 Rf4 28.g3 Rc4 29.Ne2 Ra4 30.a3 Kd7 31.Kg2 b5 32.c3 a5 33.Nd4 b4 34.Nb3 Bb6 35.axb4 axb4 36.c4 Kc6 37.c5 Bc7 38.Nd4+ Kd7 39.f4 e5 40.c6+ Kc8 41.Nb5 Ra2 42.f5 Bd8 43.Rxd5 Rxb2+, and here Black resigned.

Besides Petrosian's 16...Bf5, Black can also play 16...Bg4, a suggestion by Korchnoi and Furman.


Their analysis continues 17.f3 Bf5 18.Ne4 Rxg2 19.Qxa5 Nxa5 20.Bd3 Rxd5 21.Nxf6 Rxd3 22.cxd3 Rxa2 which Timman calls strong for Black. But better than 21.Nxf6 is 21.Bf1 Rxd1+ 22.Kxd1 when the threat of 23.Nd6+followed by 24.Nxf5 forces Black to play 22...Bxe4 23.Bxg2 Bd5. After Black captures with ...Bxa2, White will stand slightly better due to Black's doubled f-pawns.

Even after 16...Bf5 17.Bd3, Timman says that Black could have gained an advantage by 17...e4 instead of Petrosian's 17...Bxd3. After 17...e4, Timman gives 18.Be2 Rxg2 19.Qe3 Ne5 20.Kf1 Ng4 21.Bxg4 Rxg4 22.h3 Rh4 "with a difficult position for White." But why not 18.Bf1 instead?


Now White will play 19.g3 followed by 20.Bg2. If Black tries to prevent this plan by 18...Ne5, then 19.Qd4 threatens 20.Qb4. And if Black answers 19.Qd4 with 19...Qxa3, White simply plays 20.Rb1 with 21.Qb4 to follow.

After Petrosian's 17...Bxd3, Fischer concluded the game with 18.Qxd3 Nd4 19.O-O Kb8 20.Kh1 Qxa3 21.f4 Rc8 22.Ne4 Qxd3 23.cxd3 Rc2 24.Rd2 Rxd2 25.Nxd2 f5 26.fxe5 Re8 27.Re1 Nc2 28.Re2 Nd4 29.Re3 Nc2 30.Rh3 Rxe5 31.Nf3 Rxd5 32.Rxh7 Rxd3 33.h4 Ne3 34.Rxf7 Rd1+ 35.Kh2 Ra1 36.h5 f4 37.Rxf4 Rxa2 38.Re4 Nxg2 39.Kg3 Ra5 40.Ne5, and Black resigned.


{This article originally appeared in the May-June 1997 issue of Atlantic Chess News}

Philidor Counter Gambit 4.dxe5 and 6.h4

At this year's U.S. Amateur Team Championship East tournament which ended yesterday, I played board two alongside fellow teammates Mike Shapiro, Paul Song, and Steve Ferrero. My team Insufficient Losing Chances finished with a record of 4 wins and 2 losses. My personal score was 3-1-2.

In round four, I defended a Philidor Counter Gambit against Parker Zhao of Khodarkovsky's Tycoons.

Parker Zhao (USCF 2185) - Jim West (USCF 2224), USATE 2/18/2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.h4

My opponent spent more than 30 minutes on this move. Usually White plays 6.e6 with the idea of 7.Nf7.

6...Bc5

Black should strive to play this move as soon as possible.

7.c4

In January 1999 at the Manhattan Chess Club, candidate master Fabrice Fiol played 7.Nc3 Ne7 8.Ncxe4 dxe4 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8 Be6 12.h5 after which I should have played 12...Kf8 13.h6 Kg8 14.hxg7 Nf5 with the possible continuation 15.Rh6!? Nxh6 16.Bxh6 Nc6 17.Rd1 Nxe5 18.Be2 Ng4 19.Bxg4 Bxg4 20.Rd5 Bd6 21.c4 b6 when the white knight is in grave danger. For example, 22.Kf1 Be6 23.Rd4 Be5 24.Rxe4 Re8 25.f4 Bxg7 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.f5 Bd7 28.Rxe8 Bxe8 29.g4 Kxh8.

7...c6 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nc3

In October 1994 at the Manhattan Chess Club, candidate master Tommy Smith varied with 9.Bb5+ Nc6 10.Nc3 Nge7 11.Qb3 Qb6 12.O-O Rf8 13.Nd1 h6 14.Nh3 Bxh3 15.gxh3 Rf3 16.Qa4 O-O-O 17.Be2 Nxe5! 18.Bxf3 Nxf3+ 19.Kh1 Qe6 20.Kg2 Nxh4+ 21.Kh2 Bd6+ 22.Kg1 Qg6+, White resigns.

9...Ne7 10.Ncxe4 dxe4 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Nf7+ Kc7 13.Nxh8 Be6

Safer would have been 13...Bb4+ 14.Bd2 Bxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Be6 16.Rc1+ Nbc6 17.Bc4 Bxc4 18.Rxc4 Rxh8 19.Rxe4 Rd8+.

14.Bd2 Nbc6 15.Rc1 Kb6 16.Bc4

Instead White could have pressed Black to the limit with 16.b4 Bd4 17.b5 Nxe5 18.a4 a5 19.bxa6 Nd3+ 20.Bxd3 exd3 21.O-O Bd5 22.axb7 Rxh8 23.Rb1+ Ka7 24.Rfe1 Nc6 25.a5 Rf8 26.Be3 d2 27.Red1 Bxe3 28.fxe3 Be4 29.Rb5 Ka6 30.Rc5 Kxb7 31.Rxd2, but 31...Rf7 32.Rb2+ Ka7 probably holds for Black.

16...Bxc4 17.Rxc4 Rxh8 18.Rh3 Bd4 19.Rb3+ Kc7 20.Bb4 Nc8 21.Bc3 Rd8 22.Bxd4 Rxd4 23.Rxd4 Nxd4 24.Rg3

On 24.Rc3+ Nc6 25.Rc4 Kd7 26.Rxe4 Ke6 27.f3, Black must avoid 27...Nxe5?? 28.f4. But 27...N8e7 looks drawish.

24...g6 25.Rg4 Kc6 26.Rxe4 Kd5 27.f3 Ne7

Now the threat of 28...Nec6 virtually forces White to take a draw by repetition of position.

28.Rf4 Nef5

Black sidesteps the trap 28...Kxe5?? 29.Re4+!.

29.Re4 Ne7 30.Rf4 Nef5, draw.

Sicilian Sozin 6.Bc4

Throughout the years, I have played many exciting games as White in the Sozin Attack against both 5...a6 and 5...Nc6 in the Sicilian Defense, after the opening moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3.

At the New Jersey Masters Invitational in 1986, international master Mike Valvo who was playing the White side of the Sozin Attack defeated me after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Bb7 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Qxd5 15.Nf5! Nc6 16.Qxd5 exd5 17.Rad1 Rad8 18.Nxe7+ Nxe7 19.Bc5 Rfe8 20.Bd6 with clear advantage for White.

In 1987, at the New Jersey International, Valvo beat Orest Popovych who varied from 10...Bb7 with 10...b4 11.Na4 Bb7 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Bxe6+ Kh8 15.Qxd8! Although White has only two pawns for the sacrificed piece, the passed e-pawn after an eventual fxe5 is difficult to handle.

Ever since these two games, I have adopted Valvo's variation with much success as the following examples will show.

Game #1
Jim West (USCF 2262) - Yair Marcus (USCF 2213), Somerset NJ 6/4/1989

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Bb7 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nfd7 13.Qh5 Nc5


14.Rxf7! Nxb3 15.Nxe6 Rxf7 16.Nxd8 Bxd8 17.axb3 b4 18.e6 Re7 19.Nd5 Rxe6 20.Rf1 Rg6 21.Nf4 Rf6 22.Qe8+ Rf8 23.Qe6+ Rf7 24.Nh5 Bf6 25.Nxf6+ gxf6 26.Rxf6, 1-0.

Game #2
Jim West (USCF 2210) - Ionut Buzbuchi (USCF 2400), New York Open 4/14/90

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Bb7 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Ne4 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Qg4 Bg6 15.Rad1 Qc7


16.Nxe6! Qxe5 17.Bd4 Qh5 18.Qxh5 Bxh5 19.Nxf8 Nc6 20.Bd5 Rc8 21.g4 Bxg4 22.Bxf7+ Kh8 23.Be6 Nxd4 24.Bxg4, 1-0.

Game #3
Jim West (USCF 2283) - Leroy Dubeck (USCF 2373), Runnemede NJ 6/8/1997

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 e6 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 b4 11.Na4 Bb7 12.e5 Nd5 13.Bxd5 Bxd5 14.Nf5 Nd7 15.exd6 Bf6 16.Nd4 Qb8 17.c3 bxc3 18.Nxc3 Qxd6


19.Nf5! exf5 20.Nxd5 Rfd8 21.Nxf6+ Nxf6 22.Qxd6 Rxd6 23.Rfd1 Rad8 24.Rxd6 Rxd6 25.Kf1 Ng4 26.Bg1 Rd2 27.b4 h5 28.a4 Rb2 29.b5 axb5 30.a5! Rc2 31.a6 Rc8 32.a7 Ra8 33.Ra5 b4 34.Rb5 Nxh2+ 35.Ke2 Re8+ 36.Kd3, 1-0.

Game #4
Jim West (USCF 2299) - Yair Marcus (USCF 2276), Somerset NJ 12/2/1990

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Qc7 11.a3 Bb7 12.f5 e5 13.Nde2 Nbd7 14.Ng3 Nb6 15.Bxb6 Qxb6+ 16.Kh1 Qe3 17.Nh5 Nxe4 18.Nd5 Qg5 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.f6 Nxf6


21.Rxf6! g6 22.Rxd6 Rad8 23.Rd7! Qh4 24.Bxf7+ Kh8 25.Qe2 Bxg2+ 26.Kg1 Qg5 27.h4! Qxh5 28.Qxh5 gxh5 29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Kxg2 Rd2+ 31.Kf3 Rxc2 32.Rg1 h6 33.Rg8+ Kh7 34.Bg6+ Kxg8 35.Bxc2 Kf7 36.Ke4 Ke6 37.b4 Kd6 38.Bb3 Kd7 39.Kxe5 Ke7 40.Bd5 Kd7 41.Bb7, 1-0.

Game #5
Jim West (USCF 2276) - Orest Popovych (USCF 2316), New York Open 4/5/1997

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Qc7 11.a3 Bb7 12.f5 e5 13.Nde2 Nbd7 14.Ng3 Bc6 15.Bg5 Rac8 16.Nh5 Rfe8 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.Bd5 Bxd5 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Qxd5 Qc5+ 21.Qxc5 Rxc5 22.Rad1 Be7 23.Rf2 Rec8 24.Nd5 Kf8 25.c3 R8c6 26.Re2 a5 27.b4 Rc4 28.a4 axb4 29.axb5 R6c5 30.cxb4 Rxb5 31.Ra1 Rb8 32.Ra7 Bd8 33.Ra6 Be7 34.Kf2 Bg5 35.b5 Rc5


36.b6 (36.Rb2!) Rb5 37.Rea2 Bd8 38.b7 R5xb7 39.Rxd6 Bb6+ 40.Nxb6 Rxb6 41.Rxb6 Rxb6 42.Ra5 f6 43.Ra8+ Kf7 44.Ra7+ Kf8 45.Ra8+, draw.

Besides 8...Be7, Black has tried 8...Bb7 without good results as the following game illustrates.

Game #6
Jim West (USCF 2295) - William Kelleher (USCF 2470), New York Open 4/9/1993

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Bb7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.a4 b4 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 e5


14.a5! Be7 15.Ba4+ Nd7 16.Qg4 g6 17.Qxb4 O-O 18.Bh6 Re8 19.Bc6 Rb8 20.Qa4 Nc5 21.Qa3 Nd7 22.b4 Qc7 23.c4 Red8 24.Be3 Kg7 25.b5 Qc8 26.Ba7, 1-0.

As mentioned above, I also play the Sozin Attack against 5...Nc6. The next two games feature a knight sacrifice by White on e6.

Game #7
Jim West (USCF 2256) - Leslie Braun (USCF 2276), Marshall Chess Club 9/19/1993

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 a6 9.f4 Qc7 10.Qf3 Bd7 11.O-O Rc8 12.f5 e5


13.Ne6! fxe6 14.fxe6 Na5 15.exd7+ Qxd7 16.Nd5 Bd8 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Bd5 Rxc2 19.Qh5+ g6 20.Qd1, 1-0.

Game #8
Jim West (USCF 2228) - Carvas John (USCF 2058), Somerset NJ 5/5/1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Bb3 Bd7 8.O-O Nc6 9.Be3 a6 10.f4 Qc7 11.f5 e5


12.Ne6! fxe6 13.fxe6 Bc8 14.Rxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 Qe7 16.Nxe7 Kxe7 17.Qd2 Bxe6 18.Bxe6 Kxe6 19.Qd5+ Ke7 20.Bb6 Rhe8 21.Bc7 Rad8 22.Rd1 Rd7 23.Bxd6+ Rxd6 24.Qxd6+ Kf7 25.Qc7+ Be7 26.Qxb7 Nd4 27.Rf1+ Kg8 28.Qd5+, 1-0.

In the next pair of games, Black trades knights on d4.

Game #9
Jim West (USCF 2302) - Nenad Vulicevic (USCF 2315), Marshall Chess Club 9/23/1989

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 O-O 9.O-O a6 10.f4 Qc7 11.Qf3 Bd7 12.f5 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Kh8 14.g4 exf5 15.exf5 Bc6 16.Qh3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4


18.f6! gxf6 19.Rxf6 Qc5 20.Rxd6+ Qxd4+ 21.Rxd4 Bc5 22.Qc3, 1-0.

Game #10
Jim West (USCF 2252) - Yuan Xu (USCF 2000), Manhattan Chess Club 8/17/1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Qc7 9.Be3 Nc6 10.f4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bb7 12.f5 e5 13.Bf2 Nxe4 14.Nd5 Qc6 15.Bh4 Nc5 16.c4 Nxb3 17.axb3 bxc4


18.Ra5! Rc8 19.Rf3 Ba8 20.Rc3 Qb7 21.bxc4 Qxb2 22.Rxa6 Bxd5 23.cxd5! Qxc3 24.Qa4+ Rc6 25.Ra8+ Kd7 26.dxc6+, 1-0.

Finally, here are a couple of games where Black swaps his queen knight for the white bishop on b3.

Game #11
Jim West (USCF 2301) - Ed Formanek (USCF 2428), World Open 7/1/1990

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 a6 9.f4 O-O 10.Qf3 Qc7 11.O-O Na5 12.f5 Nxb3 13.axb3 e5 14.Nde2 b5 15.g4 b4 16.g5 bxc3 17.gxf6 Bxf6 18.bxc3 Bb7


19.c4 Bd8 20.Nc3 f6 21.Rfd1 Qb8 22.Qf2 Bc7 23.Bb6 Bc6 24.Bxc7 Qxc7 25.Nd5 Qb7 26.Ra5 Rf7 27.Rd3 Ra7 28.Qd2 Ra8 29.Qf2 Rb8 30.Kf1 Kf8 31.Qh4 h6 32.Qg4 Qc8 33.Qg6 Bb7 34.Qh7, 1-0.

Game #12
Jim West (USCF 2257) - Stanislaw Garber (USCF 2403), Marshall Chess Club Championship 5/26/1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Bb3 Na6 8.f4 Nc5 9.Qf3 O-O 10.f5 Nxb3 11.axb3 Bd7 12.Be3 a6 13.g4 exf5 14.gxf5 b5 15.Rg1 Kh8 16.Nce2 Qc7 17.O-O-O a5 18.Rg2 a4 19.Rdg1 Rg8 20.Nf4 a3 21.bxa3 Rxa3 22.Kd2 Bc6 23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.exd5 Raa8 25.Nc6 Rae8 26.Bd4 Ne4+ 27.Kd1 Bf6


28.Qxe4! Rxe4 29.Bxf6 h5 30.Rxg7 Rxg7 31.Rxg7 Qc8 32.Rg5+, 1-0.

{This article originally appeared in the July-August 1997 issue of Atlantic Chess News}