Nine years ago I wrote an article about the 2015 U.S. Junior Girls Championship. In that article I analyzed only one game and you might expect that it was played by the winner of the tournament, but instead I chose the player who finished eighth out of ten. I predicted that the participants “will dominate the U.S. and probably world chess in five to 10 years” and today, IM Carissa Yip is the #1 US female player and her opponent in that game, IM Annie Wang, is #3.
In that old article I explained the reason for my prediction: Out of nine games each of them played in the tournament, Annie had just one draw and Carissa had none! When a draw is not an option, you learn to play sharp, fighting chess. As a matter of fact, I even wrote, “For some reason, Carissa’s bold sacrifice reminds me of the following crazy game by GM Mikhail Tal.” It is a big honor to be compared to “The Magician”, but Carissa fully deserved it by her aggressive play. If you want to be a winner, you should think like a winner and act like a winner.
I couldn’t help but remember this old story when I watched the final round of this year’s National Elementary Championship. It was a very tense situation where eight players were all tied for the first place and they all played each other! The winner of each game on the first four tables would at least become National co-Champion! Now let’s see what happened in these four games.
Board 1
Why did a player USCF rated 1905 prefer to make a draw by 30…Bc5 instead of a relatively simple win by 30…Rb8? Time trouble, perhaps? Nope, before he played 30…Bc5, he had 52 minutes on his clock! Moreover, his way to achieve a draw involves a temporary sacrifice, and is therefore also more complicated than the simple winning move 30…Rb8. My only explanation is that after Black lost a pawn earlier in the game, he was dreaming to escape without a loss, and when he suddenly saw a combination that would force a draw, he took it without a second thought!
Board 2
Initially, when I saw the result posted on the live transmission, I was sure that it was a wrong input. It was clear to me that Black must have resigned there. However, the final cross-table confirmed that the opponents agreed to a draw. So, I had the same question from the first board: why did White offer a draw in a completely winning position? Timewise he was ahead: 20 minutes versus seven minutes for the opponent. The winning pattern Qf7-h5-h7-h8-g7 is well familiar to any experienced player, since it happens in the classic Greek Gift sacrifice. Here is a basic example:
My only guess is that, even before the game started, the kid who played White thought that a draw against an opponent almost 200 rating points higher would be a good result and once he got an opportunity, he forced it… even though he was completely winning!
Board 3
An engine during the live transmission gave White an advantage of +5.34 in the final position. Yes, an engine thinks that Black can just resign. But you don’t need to have a chip implanted into your brain to see that Black’s king is stuck in the center, all his pieces are uncoordinated and that Black’s days are numbered when the position opens up. I am pretty sure that a player rated 1749 USCF knew that he had at least some advantage. So, why did he agree to a draw? Just like in all the previous examples, time was not an issue: he had over 20 minutes vs. 16 minutes for his opponent. My only guess is, again, that the rating difference of 100+ points did the trick, and White subconsciously didn’t mind a draw even before the game had started.
In all three of these examples, you can see clear proof that if you want to be a winner, you have to think and act like a winner! But what about game on board four? Let’s take a look!
Board 4
As you can see, White was completely lost right out of the opening. At some point an engine evaluated the position -7.26 in Black’s favor! But the fight continued and the player with white pieces won the game and, as the only winner in any of these four games, the outright national title!
A short summary of this story of eight players would be a well-known expression: Fortune favors the bold.
To be completely honest, despite the amusing situation that I just described, mostly my attention was focused on the games of my students. Let me share the following game with you:
I don’t know how to annotate the move 24…Re7. Objectively speaking, it is a bad move, but it is also incredibly difficult to defend White’s position in a practical game. I asked Ted if he saw that he had a perfectly fine position after the alternative, 24…Rd7. He said that of course he saw that move, but thought that his attack would be stronger after the exchange sacrifice. As a reward for his incredibly brave decision, he got an opportunity to execute a beautiful combination and win the game.
Some people might say that this sacrifice was a fine example of so-called “hope chess.” But again, I would compare Ted’s play in this game to numerous sacrifices from Mikhail Tal that weren’t completely sound and yet made him a world champion. It is this kind of courageous and energetic play allowed Ted to win his section with a perfect score of 7 out of 7. Despite being just 10 years old, it is Ted’s third national title, so maybe this kind of fearless play is not hope chess after all!
In conclusion, let me repeat one more time: if you want to be a winner, you should think like a winner and act like a winner!