Bill BuSteed 
Bill BuSteed is well known in the Western MA chess scene, as he goes to almost every tournament that is held. He is known to be a very crafty, resourceful and original player. He took 1st place in the 1997 CT Valley Open. Bill moved to the Washington, DC area in June 2001.
You seem to avoid sharp, well known opening variations, preferring to lure your opponents into somewhat murky middle-game positions...how much home preparation do you do? Do you "play the opponent" [as a psychological strategy] or "play the board" [as the logic of the position calls for]?
Although I do have a good memory and know lines which require a precise move order, it is true that I lean strongly toward flexible positions. In many cases I've developed my own themes, traps, etc. (sometimes I'm a little too experimental and pay a price). If my mid-games seem murky, as you put it, often the positions and opponents' responses to what I'm doing are known to me, foreseen. Frequently, too, I am following "book" sequences--but the ideas may be out of favor currently or little explored. Two examples come to mind, one for Black and one for White.
The first, selecting an obscure Knight block in the opening line 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 3.Bb5+ Nbd7, is barely mentioned in Korn's compendium (usual is 3...Bd7); [Josef] Vatnikov lables the move "normal". But suddenly we're in my "book", the subtlety gives me the advantage of preparation (and I'm usually much better off regarding time). A rational developing scheme enables me, as a rule, to recapture the gambit pawn with an aggressive game. The line 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.dc Nc6 has been called Black's soundest gambit--White gets a difficult position. And one last continuation in this opening [the Center Counter], the Marshall Gambit: if White returns the pawn with 4.Nf3 cd 5.d4, then the Panov-Botvinnik Attack [Caro-Kann] has been reached by transposition.
The second example, which I call an improvement on the Nimzovich Variation of the Queen's Pawn Opening, is a construct for White as follows: [pawns on] a4, b2, c3, d4, e3 f2, g2 and h3; Ra1, Nd2, Qd1, Be2, Nf3, Bf4, Rf1, and Kg1 (barring an early exchange of pawns at d4, seldom are Black's opening moves so sharp as to cause any changes). My early h3 permits the dark-squared Bishop to retire, if need be, to h2, maintaining a good diagonal--and g4 is denied to Black's light pieces. The white-squared Bishop is posted at e2 instead of Nimzovich's d3, and it threatens structural damage should it take off a Knight at h5, a customary square used in swinging Black's Knight into action. The a-pawn can play a powerful role in this system, helping to smother Black's Queen-side expansion, especially as the White Queen can arrive at the threatening spot b3. Both Kamsky and Alexander Ivanov have employed elements of these pawn formations.
I have less time these days to devote to solo chess prep than I once had, but I'm still able to put in a few hours a week in match play, mostly with my sparring partner and close friend of many years, Jim Fried. In tournaments, I come up against certain players repeatedly and, accordingly, attempt to frustrate them by doing things I imagine to be contrary to their desires. But I really do play the board more than the specific opponent: I believe that there is such a thing as chess truth--a "best" move.
Do you see your chess style as still evolving, or do you see yourself as trying to get better at a style you've settled on? How would you describe your style?
I would be greatly surprised to see my style of play undergo much change at this point. I must explain, however, that I am now wrapping up a very conscious program of constructive changes in my game, an overhaul, stretching back nearly five years. It is rare that a player can change in his forties, and I'm happy I haven't become hidebound, incapable of changing.
Now I'm consolidating the gains of this campaign: 1) I switched from descriptive notation to algebraic; 2) I worked on prosecuting wins in positions which were equal or I had minimal advantage; 3) I worked on keeping up my fighting spirit and resisting better in losing situations with the object of getting the draw--or even a big swindle; 4) I bought a larger set--aesthetically more pleasing board and pieces; 5) I was fortunate in becoming the close friend of Dr. Vatnikov and sought his advice and analysis; 6) I've published and annotated more (as they say, one way to learn a subject well is to teach it) and 7) I added a major new e4 opening to my arsenal for White, the Bishop's Opening (just at that time, coincidentally, it was being revived at the Grandmaster level.
My style is characterized by several primary qualities: 1) I am a strategic player--I'm pleased that my tactics have shown recent improvement; 2) I like the psychological element of surprise and my move selections and themes are intentionally flexible, meant to keep an opponent in doubt (I try to enhance this aspect by pressuring my opponents into time trouble); 3) My repertoire is immense; so a player preparing a refutation of a given line may not see that same one again; 4) I am an original thinker: many of my variations are truly mine.
Tell us about your formative chess experiences--at what age did you learn how to play? Who taught you? Any other family members play chess? In what type of chess environment(s) did you develop your skill?
I learned to play at about the age of eight. I didn't play much until my high school years, and then much, much more in college. I did put in a little time in the coffee house scene, for example, and the UMass chess club, but developed mainly through playing informally with a handful of good players. One aspect was unusual: my studies in Slavic languages always put me amongst Eastern European players and I did live briefly in Russia and Yugoslavia.
What does chess mean to you? In other words, how important is the game to you? Why is it important? When you think about how you approach the game, do you find yourself thinking of it as a science, a sport or an art form? Do you have any personal philosophy about chess?
Chess is more or less the only game I like. I found cards, for instance, to be too frustrating because of the uncertainty--where or when a particular card would show up. The Japanese board game "Go" has certain qualities similar to chess--and I purposely did not pursue it since it would require a great investment of time.
I think of chess as a pastime, a fun, endlessly creative (in the sense of mathematical possibilities), competitive war game. It is capable of showing you something new from time to time, so it doesn't get old. You can talk about it with others who, like yourself, are chess addicts. Some of the best chess can be art--the arrangements and patterns can be beautiful (orderly, organized) and an elegant move or combination is indeed grand entertainment, high theatre, especially if something hidden is involved. I certainly could not put a philosophy of chess into words. I can say that it is one of the finest things ever invented-developed and I see myself as part of its ongoing history. I think it influences the individual who plays more than a little to lead a more effective, satisfying life.
What type of positions suit you the best? What type of positions do you think you need to understand better?
As a strategic player I am often comfortable with "quiet", slowly unfolding positions. My natural bent is frequently toward prophylaxis, overprotection (I've noticed in Grandmaster games that often something will "snap" on move 12). I'd like to have a better grasp of how to beat hypermodern systems. I need more work on tactics in the more classical, "stand-up" fights. My middle-game is pretty good, generally, but my endings, though improved, could use more study.
What are your chief strengths and weaknesses? Which players have influenced you and why? You use your a-pawn a lot like Larsen did, yes?
I am confident: countless hours spent in actual play, years of tournament experience, firm background in chess literature, knowledge of the openings, my own systems, ideas--all this causes me to believe in myself. A key weakness: a tendency, inexplicably, to misperceive a situation on the chess board which is not overly complicated--or, worse still, to overlook a simple, direct threat. The problem can be traced partly a tunnel vision, single-mindedness: I'm so taken with one approach that I get locked into it and miss a better move or disregard my opponent's objectives. Another major flaw--I don't take enough time to consider before moving in critical situations (the other side of the coin concerning command of the clock) and make impulsive mistakes, oversights.
Dr. Vatnikov is, not surprisingly, a major influence at present. Nimzovich and Horowitz are probably the best writer-teachers of all time. I met Spassky once and we conversed for a while in Russian. His Closed Sicilian for White, once thought to be undermined by Black's Q-side advances, is still respected in conventional thinking.
In the 1970s I derived some benefit from looking at Fischer's play (resembling Capablanca's). As an admirer of Alekhine--who,if anyone, pushed the a- and h-pawns,--I was delighted when Fischer reinstated Alekhine's Defense (1972). I do play the Nimzowich-Larsen Attack, but Larsen is not the inspirer of my rookpawn play. I'm less reliant on the French Defense than at one time; Lajos Portisch and Tal were consummate at it. Rubinstein fascinates me--but I've come to pay serious attention to his stuff only recently. Spielmann's The Art of Sacrifice is part of my foundation as well, but we mustn't forget Dr. Lasker's maxim: "Sacrifice the other guy's material." For now, I like Kamsky and Kasparov. I could go on, but this list should be sufficiently impressive. Vatnikov, incidentally, was coach of the Moscow State University club and chief chess trainer in the former Soviet Union.
Do you have any advice for beginning players?
My advice for younger, less experienced players: find a copy of Horowitz's Modern Ideas in the Chess Openings and learn one White opening for e4 and one for d4; likewise, learn one defense against e4 and one against d4. The book can still be found--it dates originally to 1953--and the author sorts out the solid, 'main' lines from the less often employed alternatives. This learning approach allows one to memorize a basic starting repertoire without going through so much hit-or-miss experimentation.
What is your favorite chess-related memory? Your least favorite?
The story I love to tell goes back to the late 1970s--watching one of the games in the Manila Championship on public TV. That day, Korchnoi, with Black, was very much on the defensive, and Karpov was pressing the issue. I believe it was [Edmar] Mednis--and other expert commentators concurred--who stated that Korchnoi would almost certainly crumble soon. I glanced at the position for a moment--there was a lot of material still on the board--and said to Jim Fried, "No, it's a draw." Within a few moves Korchnoi played an interesting Knight sacrifice and Karpov, sensing trouble, found a draw to be desirable.
One disappointing experience was my failure to take advantage of a winning opportunity arising from an uncharacteristic blunder by Dr. Vatnikov (he and I are often paired in tournaments). Suffice to say that, despite his having gone wrong, still I did not think through my reply properly and I initiated a combination with the wrong piece. He was able slowly to recover and he went on to win.
Since Bill didn't submit any games, I thought I would take the liberty of sharing his victory over me from the 4th Western New England Open in 7-93.
Rd.1 White: BuSteed (1859) Black: Sillars (2203)
1.e4 g6 2.c3 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Be3 Nf6 5.f3 0-0 6.Bd3 e5 7.Ne2 c6 [Nc6 with the immediate threat of ...d5 may be better.] 8.Nd2 Nbd7 9.Qb3 Re8 10.a4 d5 11.h3 [stopping 11...de 12.fe Ng4] a5 12.0-0
12...de Anyway! 13.fe Nc5 14.Qc2 Nd3 15.Qd3 b6 16.Rf2! Ba6 17.Qc2 ed 18.Nd4! [If cd, then 18...Nd5 was intended, with good pressure.] 18...c5 19.Nb5 Bb5 20.ab Qd7 21.Bg5 Qe6 [or Re6 22.e5 Nd5 23.Nc4 Be5 24.Rd1!] 22.Raf1 Nd7?? [Underestimating the strength of Rf7 certainly, but also simply missing Ne4!=.]
23.Rf7! Qf7? [Ne5 offered better chances.] 24.Rf7 Kf7 25.Nc4! White finishes Black off crisply. Re6 26.Qd2 Nf8 27.Nb6! Rae8 28.Nc4 h6 29.Bh4 g5 30.Bg3 Kg8 31.Qd5 Kh8 32.e5 Ng6 33.b6 Ne5 34.Nd6 1-0.