Cover Story Though 34. Kc2 may hold, the young-
ster probably did not like his king exposed in variations like 34. ... bxc3 35. Kb3 Rdd4 36. g3 Rb4+ 37. Kxc3 Rbc4+ 38. Kb2 Rd2+ 39. Kb1 Rb4+ 40. Ka1 and there are more appealing things in life than guessing how long Kamsky will tor- ture White here.
34. ... Re4+ 35. Kf1 Rc8
Now the pawn cannot be saved, and neither can the game.
36. g3 Rec4 37. Ke2 bxc3 38. Rc2 f6 39. Re3 Kf7 40. Kf3 R8c5 41. exf6 gxf6 42. Rd3 Ke7 43. Re3 e5 44. fxe5 fxe5 45. g4 Kf6 46. Kg3 Kg5 47. Kh3 Kf4 48. Re1 e4 49. Rf2+ Ke5 50. Rf5+ Kd4 51. Rf4 Kd3 52. Rd1+ Kc2 53. Rff1 e3 54. Rc1+ Kd3 55. Rfd1+ Ke4 56. Kg3 c2 57. Rd8 Rd4, White resigned.
“I’m sort of like taking a small vacation,
because the conditions are so nice,” Kam- sky said, later clarifying that that the competition itself was still rigorous. “It’s like having work and vacation at the same time.” The balance between vacation and work
swung toward the latter the next day. No one in Kamsky’s group had punched his semifinals ticket. Kamsky was on 41
⁄2 /6
and led his octet by a half-point over Shulman, who had played through the round-robin without a loss. Kamsky and Shulman paired in round seven but with Ivanov at 31
⁄2 , Kamsky needed at least a
draw to guarantee advancement. With the round barely underway, Kam-
sky played his 17th move and offered Shulman a draw in an equal position. Shulman said he reminded Kamsky that draws by agreement were not allowed prior to move 30. IA Carol Jarecki, the chief arbiter, was summoned. “In this situation Gata came to me and said, ‘I have chest pain. I’m not feeling well. I know it’s not 30 moves but I’m having chest pains,’” Jarecki said. She decided to allow the draw. Kamsky left the club quickly and was able to complete the tournament without an additional issue. Shulman also said he felt unusual pain
in his upper back during the game. He said the format intrinsically produced a lot of stress since the race to qualify was so short and devoid of any breaks. “Even if there is a qualifier it should be nine rounds and not seven,” Shulman said, adding that the format change and play- off procedures distract from players’ ability to focus on the game. Few competi- tors in St. Louis could clearly explain all of the possible qualification scenarios. “You have to read too many rules instead of playing chess. It’s not really chess, it’s like arithmetic ... I don’t think it’s a sur- prise that Gata felt bad today—it’s a very nervous system.” Ivanov lost his game against Robson so
22 Chess Life — July 2011
Shulman joined Kamsky in advancing from their group. All attention then turned to Onischuk-Shankland in the other group. They both began the day tied on a plus-one score. Hess had already clinched the top spot but his game still mattered since he faced a somewhat resurgent Seirawan, who only trailed Onischuk and Shankland by a half-point. Onischuk-Shankland started out as in Shankland’s button win against Kaidanov, but Shankland deviated first and the game ended drawn in 30 moves. “I hope [Hess] will hold,” Shankland said. “I don’t want to deal with Yasser.” Hess eventu- ally equalized against Seirawan, making the next day’s rapid semifinal playoff the simpler two-man variety, with Onischuk and Shankland matched again. Shankland, a college student who is
barely half Onischuk’s age, said he may not have quite as large of an experience deficit when it relates to rapid chess. He had been through this procedure before just to qualify for the U.S. championship, when he bested Robson at the 2010 U.S. Junior Championship. “I’m a decent, if not amazing rapid player,” Shankland said. “The best way to measure yourself is your score against Nakamura. I think I’m around ten percent.” Shankland also brought in a not-so-
secret weapon. GM Jon Ludvig Hammer flew in from Dubai the day before the playoff. Hammer came to the club fre- quently, and after initially saying his visit was just social, Shankland later admitted that Hammer was helping prepare him. After drawing the first rapid game,
Shankland took white for the second. He offered a piece for a collection of pawns and after Onischuk refused to repeat the position, the pawns got moving. Shank- land thought the decision was reasonable since Onischuk was not getting any advantage against him as white and a draw would require the game to go to an Armageddon match (in which he the younger would likely have better chances). Both players had as little as two seconds near the game’s end.
Nimzo-Indian Defense, Samisch Variation (E25) IM Sam Shankland (2582) GM Alexander Onischuk (2751) U.S. Championship Playoff, 04.29.2011 Notes by Shankland
This was the second of a two-game
rapid match used as a tiebreaker to see who would get a coveted spot in the semi- finals. After holding an easy draw with black in game one, I was feeling particu- larly ambitious.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3
Hopefully a surprise, I only played this
move once before. 3. ... Bb4 4. f3
And I’ve never played this move before! However, my opponent did not flinch as he had clearly done his homework on this highly topical line.
4. ... d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e4 Nf6
Deviating from his previous games where
he played 9. ... Ne7, perhaps because of the Nd4 novelty in the Anand-Wang Hao game.
10. Be3 0-0 11. Qb3 Nfd7 12. a4 Qc7 13. Qa3 b6 14. a5 Bb7! 15. Ne2
The first independent move of the game. 15. ... Nxc5?! In my notes I gave … bxc5 as best.
16. Nd4 White has an edge due to his bishop
pair, slightly more central control, and the annoying pressure on the black queen- side, although the long-term structural weaknesses on the c4 and c5 squares cannot be overlooked.
16. ... Nbd7 17. Be2 Ba6
r+-+-trk+ zp-wqn+pzpp lzp-+p+-+ zP-sn-+-+- -+-sNP+-+ wQ-zP-vLP+- -+-+L+PzP tR-+-mK-+R
After 17. ... Ba6 18. Bxa6 Trading the bishops felt to be more in
the spirit of the position than the ugly 18. c4, but the latter was not bad either. 18. c4!? Ne5 (18. ... f5!? 19. exf5 exf5 20. 0-0) 19. 0-0 Rac8 (19. ... Bxc4 20. axb6 Qxb6 21. Rfb1 Qc7 22. Rc1 and White is better) 20. axb6 axb6 21. Nxe6 fxe6 22. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 23. Qxc5 Rxc5 24. Rxa6 Nxc4 25. Bxc4 Rxc4 26. Rxb6. Black should hold a draw in this endgame, but it will be anything but pleasant, particu- larly in a rapid game.
18. ... Nxa6 19. 0-0 Qc8?! Intending ... Ne5-c4, but it seems
awfully passive. Even worse is 19. ... Ne5? 20. Bf4; 19. ... Rfc8 May be the best 20. Nb5 Qc6 21. Rfb1.
20. Nb5!
Looking to penetrate into d6 and put- ting pressure on the a7-pawn. 20. Rfd1
uschess.org
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