For more information, please contact:
Mike Wilmering
Communications Specialist
Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis
mwilmering@saintlouischessclub.org
314.361.2437
Women’s Games Decisive, Men Decide Nothing
By FM Mike Klein
After the first round of semifinal games of the U.S. Championship and the U.S. Women’s Championship, two ladies emerged victorious while all four men agreed to peace. IM Anna Zatonskih outplayed IM Irina Krush in the opening to score the point, while WGM Camilla Baginskaite used a timely pawn sacrifice to produce a dangerous initiative against WFM Tatev Abrahamyan. Baginskaite capped the game with a crushing tactic.
Krush will need to win as White tomorrow to extend her match into Monday’s tiebreak. She has only defeated Zatonskih once in her career, but that victory came earlier in the Championship. For Zatonskih, yesterday’s win was her fifth consecutive in the tournament. She got a decisive advantage early that she used to pick off Krush’s a-pawn.
“It was a surprise to me that my opening was a surprise for Irina,” Zatonskih said of her choice of variation in the Sicilian Alapin. “I’ve played Na3 many times.” The two played similarly in 2006, but Krush chose to deviate from that game by playing 2…d5.
Abrahamyan repeated her Evan’s Gambit against Baginskaite from earlier in the event. “I didn’t expect her to repeat (openings),” Baginskaite said. “In women’s chess, we’re always trying to surprise everybody.” She explained that late in the game she sacrificed her b-pawn on purpose, believing that Black’s initiative warranted the offer. She was not sure what to do, she said, after 32. Ne3, but found 32…f6. The move forced a bind in White’s pieces which led to Baginskaite’s mating patterns and subsequent finishing tactic.
For much of the day, the audience could reasonably have expected all four games to produce winners, but the men did not oblige. GM-elect Sam Shankland found himself with big problems early against defending champion GM Gata Kamsky. After eschewing the chance to win a pawn, Kamsky went into a deep think, spending more than 30 minutes analyzing a speculative sacrifice that would open up his opponent’s king.
Eventually he went for the continuation, but overlooked Shankland’s only saving resource, a queen sortie whereby she descended a staircase from e4 to f3 to f4 to h2.
“I went for the sacrifice and he out calculated me,” Kamsky said. “After I saw Qe4, I realized I was in big trouble.” Kamsky thought that had he not attempted the variation he could enjoy a small plus, but because Shankland allowed such a tempting move, it was hard not to try to win the game outright. “It was a great psychological trick.”
Shankland played through the complications more quickly than Kamsky, finding the series of queen moves that produced an ending where only he had any winning chances. However, afterward Shankland only focused on his poor opening play. “With all due respect, I think we both deserved to lose this game,” Shankland said. Kamsky will get White tomorrow.
GM Yury Shulman matched with GM Robert Hess, the overall top point scorer in the U.S. Championship. After Shulman’s undeveloping move 13. Nb1, Hess had to go through contortions to give all of his minor pieces enough room to maneuver.
Paradoxically, the retreat netted Shulman a space gain. Later, he once again threatened to ensnare one of Hess’ bishops with the blocking 37. b5. But with his time slipping away, Shulman accepted Hess’ draw offer with only five seconds left on his clock and two moves short of the time control.
Both players admitted to the fears that they had at the end of the game. Hess had grown scared of his third piece needing a flight from the queenside, while Shulman said he needed several minutes to be able to find a good move in the final position. “At some point we both had enough,” Shulman said. “We agreed to a draw, which was a good indication of what we both thought of the position.” Hess said he overlooked 37. b5.“I really had no idea what was going on,” Hess said.
Tomorrow the second game of the semifinals will begin at 2 p.m. local, 3 p.m. Eastern. Kamsky has White versus Shankland, Hess takes White against Shulman. Krush has White against Zatonskih and Baginskaite only needs to draw versus Abrahamyan. If any of the matches end tied 1-1, the two will advance to a rapid-game playoff on Monday.
It’s a nice format to knockout the defending champ while some 2300 will make the final. Bravo. Let’s make Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman world champions instead of the serious players. Oh wait, FIDE did and now the USCF is trying to follow FIDE. Nice going.
If Krush can’t beat Zatonskih with an extra day of rest, she shouldn’t be the champion. They were likely to face each other anyway. Whether she faced her in the semis or finals is minor. No one cares who finished 2nd or 3rd, they only care about who wins the title.
Even if Krush has to settle for 3rd place money, it’s not so bad because she has already received bonus money for finishing first in the round robin.
Even in the precious round robin format you can destroy your rival, then lose and draw to a couple of chumps and not win. How is that magically more fair?
None of these women are going to win the title without beating one of the top two rated players in the country in a match. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Seems like the first poster doesn’t want there to be any chance for the defending champ to lose. Why don’t we just give the title to the highest rated and remove the chance of an upset. LOL.
If Irina loses to Anna and then some 2300 beats Anna in the finals, she deserves it more the Krush. Why? Because she did what Irina couldn’t do, beat Zatonski.
Has the first poster ever watched a sport in their lives? The best players and teams often meet before the finals.
I think it’s a very good system!
Then FIDE should go back to this ridiculous knockouts which use rapid and armageddon to decide the title. I guess Ilyumzhinov is way ahead of his time and the USCF is just now catching on.
To the above poster, the world championships have almost always been a knockout system. The only difference is the length of the matches.
Besides, this isn’t a world championship. It’s an event that needs to be completed in around two weeks. You don’t have time for long matches, and round robins or swisses almost never end with the top players facing each other.
With this system you had to prove yourself in a round robin and match play. That’s the definition of a true chess champion to me. And unlike swiss or round robin systems I can tune in this week and be guaranteed to watch two players determine the championship head to head. You know, like pretty much every other championship in the world.
I agree with the above poster.