CHESS Lubomir Kavalek
Somebody is jinxing the prize distribution at the U.S. championships. Last year the America's Foundation for Chess overpaid the players $20,000. This year, most of the players in San Diego were charged 11 percent of the announced prizes. Since taking over the championship in 2000, the AF4C did a marvelous job in improving the playing conditions and the prize fund that now reaches more than $250,000. Perhaps next year they will get it right.
The AF4C may even consider giving the championship more prestige and slowing it down. The current format is turning the championship match between two group winners into an extravaganza of rapid play that can sometimes end with a blitzing circus. It is like asking athletes after they finish their marathon run to compete in a 100-meter dash to decide the winner.
Storming Magician
Larry Christiansen, at 49 one of the oldest participants at the U.S. championship, played well in his group in San Diego, sharing first place with Yuri Shulman and Gata Kamsky. All three players scored 6 1/2 points in nine games. But the Boston grandmaster was a victim of another strange rule that called for the distribution of prizes according to tiebreaks. The best tiebreak took Shulman to the championship final, where he earned $17,000 after losing to Alexander Onischuk. Kamsky's tiebreak got him $10,300. For basically the same effort Christiansen collected only $6,000.
Christiansen, a marvelous attacker, was able to show his craft against Maryland grandmaster Aleks Wojtkiewicz in the Fischer-Sozin variation of the Najdorf Sicilian. Defending against Christiansen's stream of sacrifices was not easy, and at the end the black king could not escape.
Christiansen-Wojtkiewicz
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.Qf3 (The game Kobese-Gelfand from last year's World Cup is a good example of how the seemingly good sacrifice on e6 backfired. It went 8.Be3 Bb7 9.f4 Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Nxe6 Qc8 13.Nxg7+ Kf7 14.Nf5 Bf8, and now white saw that after 15.Nxd6+ Bxd6 16.Qxd6 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.f5 Qc6! black beats the attack. He tried to open the position with 15.e5?!, but fell on his own sword: 15...Rg8! 16.Ng3 Qc6! 17.Qe2 Re8! 18.Rad1 [after 18.exf6 Rxe3! 19.Qh5+ Rg6 20.Qxh7+ Bg7 21.Rf2 Nxf6 black should win] 18...dxe5 19.fxe5 Rxe5 20.Qf2 Rxe3 21.Rxd7+ Qxd7 22.Qxe3 Qc6 23.Nge4 Rg6 24.Qh3 Kg8 25.Qf5 Be7 and white resigned.) 8...Qc7 9.Bg5 Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Be7 (Black can play this move because the bishop sacrifice 11.Bxe6 is met by 11...Ne5.)
11.e5!? (A nice prelude to the bishop sacrifice, diverting black's light bishop from the square e6. The pawn sacrifice is also opening the e-file for the rooks.) 11...Bb7 12.Qg3 Nxe5 (It is possible that 12...dxe5!? is a better alternative. The only grandmaster game, Stocek-Dydyshko, Pilsen 2002, finished with an exciting draw after 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe6 Qc6 15.Nxg7+ Kf7 16.Nf5 Rag8 17.Nxe7 Kxe7 18.f4 h6 19.fxe5 Rxg5 20.exf6+ Kf7 21.Qf4 Re8 22.Rd6 Qc8 23.Rhd1 Nf8 24.g3 Bc6 25.Qh4 Rg6 26.Qd4 Qb7 27.Rxc6 Qxc6 28.Qa7+ Ke6 29.Re1+ Kd6 30.Rd1+ Ke6 31.Re1+ Kd6 32.Rd1+ with a repetition of moves.) 13.Bxe6 fxe6 (White's next move was suggested before but never played.)
14.f4!? (Christiansen analyzed this "zwischenzug" at home. Mikhail Golubev, an expert on the Fischer-Sozin variation, gives credit for it to Alexander Bangiev, but does not think much of it. It was also suggested shortly after the game Lahno-Novikov, Montreal 2004, which continued 14.Nxe6 Qc8 [Christiansen believes that 14...Qd7!? 15.Nxg7+ Kf7 is even better.] 15.Nxg7+ Kf7 and here instead of 16.Bxf6?!, white should have tried 16.f4!? to meet either 16...Nc4 or 16...Ng6 with 17.Rhe1!, threatening to continue the attack with a rook sacrifice 18.Rxe7+!) 14...Ng6 (Protecting the king seems logical. Black does not have time to create his own attacking chances. For example, after 14...Nc4 15.Nxe6 Qa5 [Staying closer to home with 15...Qd7!? seems better.] 16.Nxg7+ Kf7 17.Rhe1! and now 17...Qb4? is met by 18.Rxe7+! Kxe7 19.Bxf6+ Kxf6 20.Nh5+ Ke6 21.Qg4+ Ke7 22.Qg7+ wins; and after 17...Bd8 18.Ne6 Qb4 white has 19.Na4!, e.g. 19...bxa4 20.Nxd8+ Rhxd8 21.Bxf6+ and white wins. ) 15.Nxe6 Qd7 16.Rhe1 (White directs most of his pieces against the black king.) 16...Kf7? (Black should have tried 16...b4!?, for example 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Rxd5 Rc8 and it is not clear how white can continue his attack. But now it flows smoothly.) 17.f5 Nf8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Rxd6 Qc8 20.Ng5+! Kg8 (After 20...Bxg5+ 21.Qxg5 Qc7 Christiansen prepared a nice finish: 22.f6! Ng6 23.Re7+! and white wins.) 21.Rxf6 gxf6 22.Nge4+ (White has more winning choices, for example 22.Re7!? Qxf5 23.Ne6+ Qg5+ 24.Qxg5+ fxg5 25.Rg7 mate; or 22...Ng6 when both 23.fxg6 and 23.Ne6 win.) 22...Ng6 23.fxg6 (After 23...Bxe4 24.Nxe4 Qc6 25.g7 wins easily.) Black resigned.
Alexander Hildebrand's intended solution to his study (White: Ka8,Ng6,P:b6,e5; Black: Kc6,Rg4,P:c7,e6) was: 1.b7 Ra4+ 2.Kb8 Rb4 3.Ka8! Rxb7 4.Ne7+ Kb6 5.Nc6!! Ka6 6.Nb4+ Kb6? 7.Nc6 Kxc6 stalemate. Unfortunately, black can play 6...Kb5! 7.Kxb7 Kxb4 8.Kxc7 Kc5! and win.
