Cover Story
31. ... g4?? I was very low on time and decided to
keep the g-pawn but I should have played 31. ... b2 32. Bxb2 Rxb2 33. h4 is the best try to play for a win (33. Qxg5? Rb1+ 34. Kf2 Nc3 35. Qh4+ Kg7 36. Qf6+ Kh7 and White is forced to give a perpetual; 33. h3 g4 34. hxg4 fxg4 35. Qh4+ Kg7 36. Qf6+ Kh7 37. Nxg6 g3! Threatening Rb1 mate and White has to give a perpetual with Qh4+-f6+-d8+) 33. ... Rb7! 34. Nc6 (34. Qxg5 Nc3 35. Nc6 Rc7 36. Nd8 Ne4 37. Qe3 Rc3 38. Qe1 Kh6 with good chances to hold) 34. ... g4 35. Qa3 f4! 36. Qxa4 Rb1+ 37. Kf2 g3+ 38. Kf3 Rf1+ 39. Ke2 Rf2+ 40. Kd3 Rxg2 41. Ne7 Kh6 42. Qe8 Kh5 and Black might even have chances to win in this position.
32. Qh4+ Kg7 33. Qf6+ Kh7 34. Bc1, Black resigned.
Since 34. ... Rh8 35. Bh6 Kxh6 36. Qxh8+ Kg5 37. g3 b2 38. Qh4 is mate.
“I just wanted to storm,” Kamsky said.
“Throw pieces at him and play like (Mikhail) Tal.” Kamsky said his preparation for the
game came from his match loss against GM Wesley So in the last World Cup. “I thought I was not ready (against So), so I played 8. a3 and I lost. That taught me to play the most principled variations.” Kamsky spent about an hour deciding between 17. Ne4 or 17. Nxd5, finally choosing the former. “17. Ne4 was, how do you say this? Beautiful.” Meanwhile, in the other group, the younger players were taking command. GM-elect Sam Shankland demolished GM Gregory Kaidanov in the shortest decisive game of the event. “I got extremely lucky of course,” Shankland said. “I don’t know if Kaidanov has lost in 18 moves as White in the last 20 years.” One round later, Shankland won again,
this time over Christiansen. “Today I thought I played extremely well. Last year it took me nine rounds to get to 21
⁄2 points.” Also in round three, GM Robert Hess
began his inexorable march to the knock- out stage. He won his game against the top seed in his group, GM Alex Onis- chuk, who lost for only the third time in U.S. championship history. Onischuk, who was Nakamura’s pick to win the title, gradually got ground down by Hess’ hybrid opening, which resembled both the Nimzo-Indian and Benko Gambit. After declining Hess’ draw offer on move 30 (the earliest games could be drawn by agreement), a seemingly innocuous pawn move allowed the black king to invade and sealed Onischuk’s fate. Hess showed that his style was com-
pletely contradictory to Shankland’s. Hess likes to vault past the opening and have the game begin at move 20, while
20 Chess Life — July 2011 Alexander Onischuk
Shankland’s nonpareil preparation and memory serve him well before the first move is made. “Hess hates opening theory,” said grand-
master commentator Maurice Ashley. “He doesn’t want an advantage. He doesn’t prepare for it. He just wants to get a posi- tion and play.” Hess claims his opening knowledge is underestimated but he said he generally enjoys chess positions more if they are foreign to both players. After Shankland played a prepared draw in their matchup later in the tournament
Yasser Seirawan
(and Shankland finished with no time off of his clock), Hess said, “It’s like playing against a robot. He knows like 40 moves of theory. I just want to play a chess game, not a computer. It’s infuriating.” Round four saw Kamsky take out GM
Jaan Ehlvest. In the post-game analysis Kamsky showcased his knowledge for a multitude of pawn structures. Seeing that in the other group the younger players were faring well, Kamsky said, “These guys are good, and they’re going to be even bet- ter. But the old guard is still fighting.”
uschess.org Alexander Stripunsky Daniel Naroditsky
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84