Washington Open 2018

The Washington Open has historically treated me very well.  Two years ago I managed to draw LM Viktors Pupols and make a good try at FM Curt Collyer, as well as winning some sparkling attacking games against lower-rated players.  One year ago I had my best result ever, beating two NMs in quick succession.  Would things go as well this year? 

In a controversial move, this year's WA Open returned to an older format with 7 rounds in 3 days.  This required the first round to be G/40 (forty minutes sudden death) with only 10 second increment.  I almost took a bye, as I don't thrive on fast time controls anymore; but I really wanted to get to play.  There was a realistic chance I might play a GM or IM, which would at least be an interesting experience!  (We had three GMs and an IM in the 3-day version of the tournament, and another IM in the horrifying 2-day, which required participants to play 3 G/40 and two regular games on Sunday.)

As it turns out, I was paired up, but not quite that far up:  I was playing FM Andrey Terekhov, of whom USCF apparently knows nothing.  He seemed uncomfortable with the time control, though not quite as uncomfortable as I was:

All I can say about this is, I was right to consider taking a bye.  (Also it is some comfort that Andrey, having escaped the G/40 unscathed, went on to tie for second in the event.  Clearly a formidable player, even if he didn't have to demonstrate it against me.)

There is a funny epilog to this game. Andrey wrote up the event for Northwest Chess.  I really enjoyed his article, which has interesting things to say about the cultural differences between US and European tournaments.  But I burst out laughing when I got to his discussion of this game.  Andrey was amused to be paired in round 1 with the only player in the event he'd heard of, because he'd prepared by googling "WA Open" and found my blog.  So, yes, that's a prepared Anti-Dutch just for me.  Blogging can be hazardous!

I had almost no time before the next round, a pattern which would continue.  Luckily I had packed a lot of food.  I found myself paired with Zoey Tang, the 5th best 10-year-old girl (and 55th best 10-year-old overall) in the US.  She has featured in a huge number of reports from the Oregon Chess Federation lately, things like "Zoey Tang holds NM to draw."  So I was at least forewarned.

By the time this one was over, I felt more grateful to escape defeat than disappointed to draw a 1700 player.  One wonders if Zoey is really a 1700 player anyway, given her rate of improvement.  I also noted that while I have been trying to learn the ins and outs of the IQP, I have a long way to go. It's just not a position that comes naturally to my style.  I like the center to be a lot more clogged.

The seven-round schedule meant a third game that day, and another female opponent.  It felt like there were a lot of girls in the event, but this was partly because they were concentrated in the 1700-1900 range and tended to sit next to each other as a result.  When I walked the tournament hall I spotted only 17 female players, and only two adult women, in around 198 total players.  But the women had a definite impact due to some excellent performances, particularly by the dangerous WCM Minda Chen.  (I had a fun talk with Minda, who waved at the mass of female players in the second row of boards and said, "People ask me if it's hard to play in an all-male hobby, but I just laugh and say no, not really.")

I was playing WCM Sophie Velea, who looked a bit sour to see me--we have played several times before and I've beaten her, though with enormous difficulty, every time.  Our last encounter cost her a hefty women's prize, too. She is the #1 nine-year-old girl and =17th nine-year-old in the US.  I expected an Exchange French or, worse, an Exchange Winawer, but was pleasantly surprised.

Here is Sophie (right) playing Zoey:

My husband came to pick me up around 10.  I looked up, waved at him, and went back to my game.  When it was over I looked up again, found him waiting, and discovered he'd been there for two hours.  It sure didn't feel like two hours!  While there's a lot to criticize in my play, I really enjoyed this as a game of plans and ideas.  The late hour was probably hard on my young opponent, though, who struggled in her subsequent rounds.

Sunday morning I was paired with local tournament director Jacob Mayer.  Both of us recalled our first meeting in 2014, when I was still (transiently) rated 2100 and went down in flames against him.  I also remembered an astonishing two-rook sack he'd played in a FIDE Round Robin, and decided I might prefer to get him out of book quickly.  Thus, Bird's Opening.  I was happy with how this worked out.  I'm playing Bird's often enough to keep people guessing, but not often enough that they necessarily prepare for it.

This was very satisfying, even if I didn't manage to win by the attack (as I certainly thought I would after the rook sack).  Jacob was able to beat off the first wave of the attack, but I hadn't spent too much on it and could make the transition to a second wave, and then to an endgame.  I'm proud that I worked out the K+P endgame in advance and knew how to win it.  (I've been made nervous by Silman's chapter "All K+P Endgames Are Confusing" in his endgames book....)

Sunday evening I was paired up with an unfamiliar adult Expert.  We had a brief chat about genetics while waiting through the interminable round-starting process.  This is one thing I tend to forget in my fondness for the Washington Open:  the rounds do not start on time, and are further delayed by an excessive amount of speechifying.

This game is notable in that I thought my opponent was playing an anti-Dutch, but he had no such idea, and let me veer right back to my Stonewall.

After the game I analyzed it with my opponent, who responded to a kid's question about the outcome with "Mary gave me a present."  I thought so too, and was so annoyed that he had to remind me to be kind to myself.  I think his whole plan to win material via the attack on c6, while clever and unsuspected by me, was probably ill-conceived.  After the game I thought I had blown everything at the point where I spent just 4 minutes on a very commital bishop sack.  (In fact I was already mentally writing the blog entry about beating a strong Expert.  Pride goeth before a fall.)  But in further analysis, I still could have saved myself and even won if I'd dug in and evaluated the position correctly.  I have a HUGE blind spot about trading queens when I am attacking.  I regard it as the kiss of death and I just don't do it.  I need to work on this.

Monday morning I played Expert Brendan Zhang.  He told another kid that he didn't think he'd be master this year, if ever; but he is the most pessimistic player I know, and I think he is edging up on the title.  I'd played him five times before, with one memorable Dutch win in a State Championship, two draws which demonstrated that endgames are not his strength, and two conclusive losses.  The most recent loss was a last-round game in which I tried to avoid the Alapin IQP by playing d3 instead of d4, and found out the hard way why you don't do that.  We repeated the opening from that game:  Brendan said afterwards that he had expected me to diverge, and I pointed out that I had!

Here's Brendan roaming the tournament hall, a habit that might contribute to time trouble:

A tough, interesting fight and a well-deserved win for Brendan.

After the round I went to dinner at the hotel restaurant--there was just barely time--and got to chat with Brendan and Ignacio, who were also eating there.  Ignacio teased me about trying to break up a putative pairing between him and Brendan.  I don't know if he knew or guessed, but that was exactly the pairing they got!  (It was a draw.  A nice accomplishment for Brendan, as Ignacio had drawn GM Sadorra a few rounds before.)

I also got to see the first few moves of Uncle Vik's demolition of the visiting IM, who apparently thought trying to bamboozle the old man with a tricky countergambit would be a good idea.  Uncle Vik, of course, has been playing tricky countergambits since before the IM was born, and the game was apparently less than 20 moves long!  If I recall correctly, after move 2 White had pawns on e4 and d4, Black had pawns on c5 and f5, and I have never seen this position in my life.  But Uncle Vik had....

For the very last round I was paired with Nicholas Whale, who caused something of a ruckus locally by coming back after a break MUCH stronger than before.  His rating seems finally to have reached its new equilibrium.  I've sat next to him several times but never played him before.  We ended up repeating a line Travis Olsen likes to play against me--all of my games with Travis have been draws, but this one finally delivered on the violence inherent in the position.

After the game I got to analyze it with Nicholas, Minda, and my very patient husband, which was fun.   What a fine way to end a tournament!  That made a total of 3 rooks and 2 bishops sacked.

I left the tournament before it was decided.  (One of the interesting details in Andrey Terekhov's article is that he stayed to the end, only to find that Americans don't have closing ceremonies--they just ask for your address and promise to mail you a check!)  I was pretty sure that I'd be splitting the second place women's prize, as Minda clearly had the first sewn up.  In fact I did split it, with Zoey, and also a share of U1900, with Zoey and two other players.  I really don't think Zoey will be 1700 for long, and as for Minda, she's got to be looking at Expert.

The event was won by GM Gorovets with 6/7, giving up draws to GM Sevillano and FM Bill Schill.  In second place were GM Sevillano, who gave up draws to Gorovets, Sadorra, and local IM Georgi Orlov; FM Tanraj Sokal, who had to come back from a draw with Anne-Marie Velea (speaking of young women who are looking at Expert) in an early round; and FM Terekhov, who managed to beat our State Champion, FM Roland Feng.  I had the impression that Roland and Georgi might have done better if they hadn't had to play in the frightful 2-day schedule.

My result in this tournament (3.5/7) was nothing very special; in fact I think I've had an even score in EVERY Washington Open.  It wasn't the dizzying success of last year, certainly.  But the games were a blast--very rich in ideas and excitement, from the epic fortress of Velea-Kuhner to the bizarre knife fights of Abramson-Kuhner and Whale-Kuhner.  I got to sack material right and left, and generally successfully.  Overall I was happy with my play.  I definitely could use more work on the IQP positions, which came up twice and gave me grief both times.  And next time, no G/40!

My husband offered an experiment for this event:  instead of having me take the bus from my home in Seattle to and from Lynnwood (about 17 miles, 2 buses) every day, we rented a car-share and he came to pick me up each evening, and took me back out each morning except Saturday.  I think this helped significantly;  I was still very tired, especially on Saturday with three rounds to play, but the fatigue didn't snowball as badly as in previous long events.  Getting a hotel room would also be a possibility, though the tournament hotel itself is very expensive.

I was left eager for another event, which would be the Emerald City Open in mid-June.