The 1997 Interplay U.S. Women's Championships

When the USCF Webmaster asked me to write this mid-event report, I was struck by the number of ways I could describe the 1997 Interplay U.S. Women's Championship.

I could focus on the sporting aspects...who's ahead, who still has a chance to win...that kind of stuff.

Or I could give appropriate praise to the local organizing team for their fine efforts in bringing this year's tournament to life.

But frankly, there's been plenty of excellent coverage on both of those points.

Instead, I've decided to concentrate on what most viewers are interested in...the GAMES!

Now, mind you, when I look at the games from a particular tournament, I tend to look for different things than the average chessplayer. Flashy sacrifices don't necessarily catch my eye. Instead, I tend to scan the game scores for new ideas in openings that I play,unusual moves...that kind of thing.

And I look to see how the leaders are doing...and HOW they are winning.

Are they on auto-pilot, winning their games with solid technique? Or is every game a struggle, with new ideas and unusual moves leading to lots of unclear positions?

A serious Round Robin is a scarce animal in the United States. Most of the big chess tournaments are large Swisses. The two types of events are very different, and players who are able to adapt to this change in circumstances will do better than those who cannot.

In a Swiss, where one or two games will determine who wins big money and who goes home empty-handed, it pays to play lots of risky openings. Defenses like the Dutch and the Benoni are popular in Swisses, because they lead to winning chances (even if they lead to even higher losing chances). Plus, if you get a bad position, it's unlikely that you'll need to revisit that opening again...at least not until the next event.

In Round Robins, the emphasis is on solid play. A player needs a good, solid opening repertoire, with a few reliable defenses that will stand up to the batterings of two, three...even four games during the same event. The players at the top of the leader boards will be the ones with the most solid repertoires.

So...I tend to look at the games from a major event with these ideas in mind.

And...just before round 6 [when this report was prepared]...who's on top of the leader board? Let's see:

WGM Anna Gulko                  4 1/2

WIM Esther Epstein              4 1/2





WGM Angelina Belakovskaia       4





NM Jennifer Shahade             3 1/2





NM Irina Krush                  2 1/2





WIM Anna Khan                   2 





NM Jennie Frenklakh             1

WIM Sharon Burtman              1

WFM Ivona Jezierska             1

NM Tatyana Zitserman            1

WGM Gulko hasn't been very active on the tournament scene for several years. But she has a deep understanding of chess, including plenty of middlegame positions. Clearly her plan must be to avoid opening surprises, play solidly, and let her natural understanding help her score points.

Anna made a draw against Krush's Queen's Gambit Accepted in Round 1...scored a point against Jezierska's King's Indian Attack in Round 2...scored a full point again against Burtman's Lenningrad Dutch in Round 3...against Frenklakh in Round 4, Anna avoided theory with 1. d4 c5 2. c3!?...and in Round 5 played an Exchange Variation of the Queen's Gambit against Khan. She avoided risk in some cases, and when her opponents played risky openings against her (e.g., Burtman's Dutch), she scored big.

WIM Epstein took a slightly different (but still solid) path to the top. In Rounds 1 and 5, she played the aggressive 4. Be3 against her opponents' Pirc Defenses. True, her Round 2 game vs. Burtman was a Benoni, but Round 3 was a main-line Caro-Kann with 3. e5 and Round 4 was a Nimzo-Indian Defense versus Khan. Slightly more aggressive...but still solid , main-line stuff.

Defending U.S. Women's Champion WGM Angelina Belakovskaia must be thanking her lucky stars...she had a pretty shaky start in the first two rounds, with a surprise win in Round 1 against Shahade as White in a rare 5. Bd2!? Grunfeld Defense. Angelina was clearly worse, but found a way to win. She then lost in Round 2 to Krush, despite using her favorite King's Indian Defense. But, she bounced back with consecutive wins with the Samisch Variation of the King's Indian (as White and Black). And she pounced on poor Frenklakh's Benko Gambit in Round 5.

Can you start to see what I mean? The top performers are showing that solid openings and good middlegame understanding can score plenty of points. Angelina's KID might not exactly fall into the "solid" category, but did you notice she played both the White and the Black side? Main-line stuff pays off!

And what about the other side of the table? Well...let's just look at a few test cases.

WIM Sharon Burtman has been having a tough time. Her favorite Leningrad Dutch failed her in Round 3 versus Gulko, but she did score a draw with it against Krush in Round 5. The Leningrad is a fighting defense, and we can appreciate Sharon's aggressive intentions. But a risky defense is an all-or-nothing affair...either you blast your opponents or they blast you. Repairing your favorite defense can be very difficult once the tournament begins.

NM Jennie Frenklakh has played the Benko Gambit twice already in the tournament, and she has two hard-fought losses. Both games (versus Khan in Round 1, and against Belakovskaia in Round 5) have featured the Zaitzev line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3 Qa5!? and now instead of the often-played 6. e4 axb5 7. Bd2 b4 8. e5 bxc3 9. Bxc3 Qa4 10. Qxa4 Rxa4 11. exf6 gxf6 with an OK game for Black, both of Jennie's opponents chose 6. b6!?

Playing the same line again after a game in a Round Robin shows great confidence, because your opponents will be ready for it. Doing so after a loss is doubly courageous. Unfortunately for Jennie, her risky strategy didn't pay off.

The player who might be said to be exhibiting the best mix of solid-but-aggressive play is newcomer NM Jennifer Shahade. With 3 1/2 points, Shahade is well-placed to make a final run for the title. But her disappointing loss from a better position against Belakovskaia in Round 1 must hurt. The Grunfeld Defense has just the right mix of solidness and aggression, and Jennifer surely deserved at least a half-point from that game. In her other games, Shahade has played the White side of the Rauzer and Najdorf Sicilians (Round 2 against Khan, and Round 4 against Zitserman), the Black side of a Modern Benoni Defense (Round 3 versus Krush), and the Black side of an Alapin (2. c3) Sicilian (Round 5 with Jezierska). Except for the first round miscue, Jennifer's solid repertoire has paid off.

You might notice that I'm not commenting on the details of each game. The reason is that I'm interested in what the players *planned* to play...what they brought with them to the event. After the clock starts ticking, anything can happen. But 95 percent of chess occurs away from the board, in your home preparation. Whether you are playing in the 1997Interplay U.S. Women's Championship, or just your local club event, the lesson is the same: main-line openings, with an emphasis on reaching solid middlegame positions, will give you the better chances.

Just ask Anna, Esther, Angelina, and Jennifer.

[Editor's Note: the standings just before the last round are roughly similar to those given in this article, with the same leaders: 6.5 Gulko, Epstein; 6.0 Belakovskaia; 4.5 Shahade; 4.0 (out of 7) Krush; 3.5 (out of 7) Khan; 3.5 Burtman; 2.0 Jezierska; 1.0 Zitserman. The three leaders are still solidly in the lead with 3 more rounds completed since the report was written. The three at the bottom are still at the bottom. The middle could show some movement. The game Krush-Khan was postponed due to Khan's illness--Krush or Khan (but not both) could come equal to (or in Krush's case, move past) Shahade.] And that's....the mid-event report...

Now here! Online Shopping