In this issue I continue with the games submitted by former Pitt student Eric Johnson, begun in the January issue. Johnson's rating, though "only" 2115 at the time of his letter, had peaked earlier in the 2190's. "For that," he says, "I thank all my chess-playing friends in Pittsburgh for those early (and painful) lessons." Johnson writes, "By 1992 I was back over 2100 again, and had my best tournament result to date: a tie for first with NM Roll in the 1992 World Open Warm-up. Particularly satisfying was the fact that I played sharply (if not necessarily correctly!) in the final round and earned an honorable draw with the co-winner." The opening, an important gambit in the Exchange Gruenfeld, leads to fast action with no letup in the middlegame. Time pressure takes its toll toward move 40 as the players trade serious errors. White: Eric Johnson Black: Craig Roll World Open Warm-up, Philadelphia, 1992 Gruenfeld Defense, Exchange variation 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bc3 Bg7 7 Nf3 This move was rediscovered in the 70's. Before then, it was thought that Black's eventual ... Bg4 would at least equalize. But it's not so simple. 7 ... c5 8 Rb1 O-O 9 Be2 cxd4 10 cxd4 Qa5+ 11 Bd2 A theoretically important gambit. Both sides have played logically since move 7. If White now allows the exchange of queens, Black soon catches up in development and equalizes: 11 Qd2 Qxd2+ 12 Bxd2 b6 13 O-O Bb7 14 d5 Ba6 (Gaprindashvili-Levitina, Smederevska Palanka 1987), or 13 Rc1 Bb7 14 Bd3 Na6 (de Boer-Mikhalchihin, Cascais 1986). 11 ... Qxa2 12 O-O Qe6 13 Qc2 Qc6!? Possibly an improvement on Conquest-Korchnoi, Lugano 1986, which continued 13 ... Qd7 14 d5. 14 Bc4 The alternative was 14 Qd3. 14 ... Nd7 14 ... Bg4 15 d5 and 16 Ng6 is no better. 15 d5 White can consider 15 Qa2, since 15 ... Qxe4 16 Rfe1 and 15 ... Nb6 16 Bb3 (16 Bd3 Qa4) Qxe4 17 Rfe1 both leave Black with problems to solve. 15 ... Qc7 16 Qa2 Nb6 17 Bb3 Bg4 18 Ng5 Be2!? 19 Rbc1 Qd7 20 Rfe1 Bb5 21 Be3 21 e5!? seems like the logical sequel to White's 15th move. Black can't trade his way to safety with 21 ... Ba4: 22 Bxa4 Qxa4 23 Qxa4 Nxa4 24 Rc7, or 22 Bxa4 Nxa4 23 e6 fxe6 24 Nxe6 Rf7 (24 ... Rfc8 25 d6) 25 Rc7. 21 ... Ba4 22 f4 Rac8 23 Bxb6 Bxb3 24 Qxb3 axb6 25 e5 White must have thought this was more accurate than 25 Qxb6, but that move doesn't look bad. After 25 ... Qa4 26 Qxb7 Rxc1 27 Rxc1 h6 28 Nf3 Qxe4 29 Re1 Qxf4 30 Qxe7, White is OK, while less forcing lines can still lead to trouble for Black. 25 ... Rxc1 26 Rxc1 Rc8 27 Rxc8+ 27 Rd1 looks interesting (White will play 28 d6). Perhaps the clock was playing a role at this point. 27 ... Qxc8 28 Qd1 28 Qxb6!? looks strange but may hold the draw: 28 ... Qc1+ 29 Kf2 Qxf4+ 30 Nf3 Bxe5 31 Qd8+ Kg7 32 Qxe7. At this point, one variation that shows some of the intricate tactical complexity is 32 ... Bd4+ 33 Ke2 b5 34 Nxd4 Qxd4 35 d6 Qf6 36 Kd3 b4 37 Kc4 Qc3+ 38 Kd5, etc. 28 ... Qc4 29 g3 b5 30 Nf3 Not 30 d6? exd6 31 exd6 Qd4+. 30 ... b4 31 d6 exd6 32 exd6 b3? 32 ... Bf6 immediately, so as to answer 33 d7 Bd8 34 Qe1 Qe6, would have given White headaches. 33 d7 Bf6 34 d8Q+ Bxd8 35 Qxd8+ Kg7 36 Qe7? 36 Qd2 Qc2 37 Kf2, etc., should win. 36 ... Qc1+ 37 Kg2 b2 38 Qe5+ Kg8 39 Qe8+ Kg7 40 Qe5+ Kg8 41 Qe8+ Drawn Whelan-Johnson, Philadelphia 1992, Sicilian Defense, Taimanov variation: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6 5 Nb5 d6 6 c4 Nf6 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be7 9 Be2 O-O 10 O-O b6 11 Bf4 Bb7 12 Qd2 Ne5 13 Qd4 Qc7 14 Be3 Bc6 15 f4 Ned7 16 Kh1 e5 17 Qd3 ef4 18 Rxf4 Nc5 19 Bxc5 bxc5 20 Nd5 Bxd5 21 exd5 Nd7 22 Raf1 Bf6 23 Qf3 Ne5 24 Qe4 Ng6 25 Rg4 Rfe8 26 Qc2 Qe7 27 Bd3 Qd7 28 Bf5 Qb7 29 b3 Re5 30 Re4 Rae8 31 Rfe1 Qb4 32 Rxe5 Qxe1+, Resigns. Johnson entered the 1993 U.S. Open and, on the way to a plus score, played an interesting draw against IM Walter Shipman. My own files include four games against Shipman, who has been active in New York City chess for decades. White: Walter Shipman Black: Eric Johnson U.S. Open, Philadelphia, 1993 Catalan Opening 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 e6 3 g3 Nf6 4 Bg2 Be7 5 O-O O-O 6 c4 dxc4 7 Qc2 The more natural 7 Nbd2 could be answered by 7 ... b5 holding onto the pawn. But after 7 Qc2 b5? 8 a4 c6 9 axb5 cxb5 10 Ng5! wins. 7 ... a6 8 a4 Nbd7 This old-fashioned move allows White to regain his pawn the "preferred" way, with 9 Nbd2. That's also why the natural 8 ... c5 is unpopular: 9 dxc5 Nc6 10 Na3! leaves White with easy and natural development, while Black will have a tough time solving the problem of the queen bishop. Nowadays moves such as 8 ... Bd7 or 8 ... Nc6, strange-looking but sharper, are seen more often here. But now White, instead of capitalizing on this inaccuracy, returns the favor, playing routinely and missing some typical Catalan subtleties. 9 Qxc4 b5! 10 Qc6 Of course, 10 axb5 axb5 costs White a rook. 10 ... Rb8 One of my own games, played against Kevin Plesset in 1977, reached this position by transposition. Plesset played 11 axb5 and after 11 ... axb5 12 Ra7, he had good pressure on the queenside, which I was never able to shake off. Black could answer 11 axb5 with the interesting 11 ... Rxb5!?. Shipman may have decided that this was worth avoiding. 11 Qc2 Bb7 11 ... c5 might have been more accurate. 12 axb5 axb5 13 Bg5 This discourages 13 ... c5. Black makes a courageous decision to push the game in another direction altogether. 13 ... h6!? 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Nbd2 e5 16 dxe5 Nxe5 17 Nxe5 Bxg2!? Another courageous decision. I think that 17 ... Bxe5 would have been adequate to hold the position: 18 Qe4 Rb8 19 Qxe5 Qxd2 20 Rfd1 Qb4, or 18 Nb3 Rb8, don't seem to leave White with anything tangible. Instead, Johnson elects to try to take the initiative, at the cost of a pawn. 18 Nxf7 Rxf7 19 Kxg2 Qd4 20 Rab1 Re7 21 e3 Qb4 22 Qb3+ This doesn't succeed in breaking the bind on the queenside. 22 b3 may have been an improvement. 22 ... Qxb3 23 Nxb3 Rd8! 23 ... Ra2 is too greedy: 24 Nc5 Rxb2 25 Rxb2 Bxb2 26 Rb1 Ba3 27 Rxb5 Re5 28 Rb8+, or 24 ... Bxb2 25 Nd3, enables White to regain his extra pawn. 24 Nc5 Rd2 25 Rfd1 Rc2 26 Rdc1 Rd2 27 Rd1 Rc2 28 Rdc1 Rd2 Drawn Johnson-Carroll, Philadelphia 1994: 1 Nc3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nxe4 e5 4 Bc4 Nf6? 5 Ng5 Nd5 6 d4 Bb4+ 7 c3 Nxc3 8 Bxf7+ Ke7 9 bxc3 Bxc3+ 10 Kf1 Bxa1 11 Ba3+ Kd7 12 dxe5+ Kc6 13 Qf3+ Kb6 14 Qb3+ Kc6 15 Qc4+, Resigns. Cox-Johnson, Bethlehem 1994, Caro-Kann Defense: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 Nxf6+ gxf6 6 Be3 Bf5 7 g4? Be4 8 f3 Bg6 9 Ne2 Na6 10 Nf4 Nb4 11 Ng6 hxg6 12 c3 Nd5 13 Bd2 Qd6 14 Qe2 Bh6 15 O-O-O Bxd2+ 16 Rd2 g5 17 Kb1 O-O-O 18 Qf2 Rh4 19 Bc4 Rdh8 20 Qe1 e6 21 Bxd5 Qxd5 22 Rf2 Qd6 23 Qg1 Kb8 24 a3 Qf4 25 Qc1? Rxg4 26 fxg4 Qxf2 27 Rf1 Qg2 28 Rxf6 Rxh2 29 Ka2 Qd5+ 30 c4 Qd4 31 Rxf7 a5 32 Re7 e5 33 Rg7 e4 34 Rxg5 e3 35 Rf5 Rd2, Resigns.