Aleksandra Goryachkina is Russian Women's Champion
... after a dramatic finish that took us to tiebreaks, and ultimately, an Armageddon game.
Over the last few weeks, Daniil Dubov has captured the full attention of the chess world for a period that can only be described as the creative peak of his career, to date. His beautiful queen sacrifice against Karjakin was featured in this column, and has been tapped as a game of the year candidate. A few days ago, he defeated Magnus Carlsen in the quarterfinal of the Champions Tour “Airthings” Masters tournament. And while your humble author is just as inspired by his results as the rest of you, I would be remiss if I failed to cover any games from the dramatic conclusion of the Russian Women’s Superfinal, which occurred concurrently with the open superfinal.
(Like updog, nobody seems to know what an Airthing is.)
By rating, the heavy favorite in the Russian Women’s superfinal was two-time Russian Women’s champion Aleksandra Goryachkina, rated 2593, nearly a full hundred Elo ahead of her nearest rival, Alina Kashlinskaya, rated 2494. Goryachkina had won the event in 2015 and 2017, and finished only a half point behind Natalija Pogonina and Olga Girya in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, the tiebreaks favored Pogonina, and in 2019, Girya. But the 2020 event also featured an up-and-coming competitor, Polina Shuvalova, who had finished ignominiously in the 2017 (7th), ‘18 (8th), and ‘19 (10th) Russian Championships. Polina is only 19 years old, and only this year has been awarded the International Master title by FIDE, after winning the 2019 World U18 Girls’ Championship, the 2019 World Girls’ Junior Championship, and captaining the Moscow Chess Federation women’s team to a team championship, while receiving some individual recognition for her performance on board one.
In the Russian Championship, Polina made her intentions known early. In the first round, on the white side of a 6. h3 Najdorf, Shuvalova accepted a couple of pawn weaknesses on the queenside, but was able to seize control of the open c-file, and inject some aggressive motifs into the position through use of a Queen-bishop battery on the b1-h7 diagonal, when her opponent, Marina Guseva, made a miscalculation. Shuvalova responded ruthlessly, and took home the full point. In the second round she faced the tournament’s second seed (by Elo rating), Alina Kashlinskaya, and reached the following position, playing with the black pieces:
In this position, Shuvalova’s opponent had sacrificed a bishop in order to open lines on the kingside, and it looks like her attack is actually quite dangerous for black. If ever the f6 pawn moves, or is simply removed, the threat of Qg5+ and Rh4-h8 is devastating. For example: 1. … Nxe5 2. Nxe5 fxe5 3. Qg5+ Kf8 4. Rh4 and black must give up the queen in order to stop mate - either 4. … Qd4+ 5. Rxd4 or 4. … Qc5+ 5. Kh1 Ke8 6. Rh8+ Qf8 7. Rxf8+. If black simply tries to leave the pawn on f6, white will simply take it, and nothing has changed - 1. … Nxe5 2. Nxe5 Rdc7? for example, and 3. Qxf6 decides matters. Black can take the f1 rook, instead, in an attempt to show the white king is not so safe, either - but here Kashlinskaya could at least fall back on a perpetual check: 1. … Nxe5 2. Nxe5 Bxf1 3. Rg4+ Kf8 4. Nxd7+ Qxd7 5. Rd4 Qc6 6. Qxf6, when the white queen cannot be stopped from repeatedly giving check on h8 and h4, and the game is drawn. But Shuvalova was simply more resourceful than that. She found a stunning counter-sacrifice that proves to be the one and only precise way for black to defend this position.
… Rxc4! 2. bxc4 Qc5+ 3. Kh1 f5! and here, Kashlinskaya must have realized that her attack had fizzled out. 4. Qg5+ Kf8 5. Rh4 Qxe5 and the g7 and h8 squares are covered by the powerful, centralized queen.
The c4 pawn would fall, and with two pieces for a rook, Shuvalova went on to win an excellent game, and take an early lead in the event with 2.0/2. Goryachkina and Pogonina, who had also won in the first round, drew against eachother in the second, and Shuvalova found herself at the top of the cross table.
Shuvalova actually went on to win in each of the first six(!) rounds, and looked like she had turned the Russian Championship into an absolute boat race, but she drew in round 7, and then lost in round 8, which enabled Goryachkina to come within a half point of the leader. In the penultimate round (10), Shuvalova played Goryachkina with the white pieces. Goryachkina played the Berlin defense, and Shuvalova played into a line that’s known to result in a repetition of moves quite quickly, drawing the game. In the final round, she would need only to draw her game, while Goryachkina simply had to win in order to even ensure a playoff with her young rival. And in the final round, Shuvalova defended a very dry position for sixty one moves with very accurate play, and achieved the draw she sought. If Goryachkina was unable to win her game, she’d find herself a half point shy of her third Russian Championship, for the third year in a row. Which brings us, in roundabout fashion, to our game of the week:
Game of the Week #17:
Goryachkina - Getman (Russian Women’s Superfinal, Final Round, 11) 1-0
The title of the whole email already spoiled the result anyway. But Goryachkina would win her must win game - and we’re going to look at how she did it, playing with the white pieces:
c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4!? (diagram)
On move 3, this seemingly aggressive bishop move is considered inaccurate, though it’s been played as a surprise weapon by a number of top players, including Magnus Carlsen himself. The issue is that, unlike in the Nimzo-Indian defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4), white can always exchange the c4 pawn for the d5 pawn. So the variation 4. a3 Bxc3 5. bxc3 simply nets white the bishop pair, for free. The doubled pawn that normally gives black some compensation for conceding the bishop pair is simply exchanged off. Moreover, white has the option of playing 4. Qa4+ Nc6, which forces the black queen’s knight to block the c-pawn, and is generally considered to be something of a concession. But these lines are highly likely to transpose into a Ragozin variation after Nf3 and Nf6, where the modern consensus is that black is doing fine, and who knows what preparation Tatyana Getman had in store for her opponent there. Goryachkina went with another principled continuation, which I actually believe might be the most logical attempt to refute black’s provocative play:
cxd5 exd5 5. Bf4
Goryachkina simply plays for rapid development and seeks to get her dark squared bishop to an active post outside of the pawn chain, before playing e3. Her point is that black will either give up the bishop pair on her own (why waste a tempo on the move a3, in that case?) or she will have to move the b4 bishop again. Since white has a clear plan of development within the so-called “Carlsbad” pawn structure after e3, Bd3, Qc2, Nf3 (or Ne2), the fact that the c3 knight is pinned is mostly rendered irrelevant.
… c6 6. e3 Ne7 7. Qb3 Bd6 8. Bxd6 Qxd6
Straightforward play from Goryachkina. A pair of minor pieces has been exchanged, true. But, she’s ridded herself of the “bad” dark squared bishop, and exchanged it for black’s “good bishop.” Goryachkina’s queen is happy on b3, where it exerts some pressure on the black b7 pawn. Indeed, it seems likely that, should Getman ever intend to develop the light squared bishop, she’ll have to spend a tempo guarding the b7 pawn. The exchange is a bit of a transformation, but it favors Goryachkina in terms of minor piece quality (her light squared bishop is un-impeded by her central pawns), and she retains the extra tempo she had hoped to gain on the black bishop, in the form of pressure on the loose b7 pawn.
Bd3 0-0 10. Nf3 Nd7 11. 0-0 Nf6 12. Rac1 Ng6 13. h3 Re8 14. a3 Qe7 (diagram)
Nothing fancy from Goryachkina, but again, I always find that good opening play has a certain aesthetic appeal. Goryachkina has rather simply placed every piece she has on its “ideal” square. Bd3, Nf3, Rac1, while Getman has made every useful developing move she can in order to delay moving the c8 bishop, which is needed to guard the b7 pawn. Of course, white would like to move the queen out of the way of the b4 pawn, but she’d like to induce Getman to waste a tempo guarding b7 before she does, and she has enough useful waiting moves to do it. 13. h3 deprives the “bad” black bishop of the square g4, where it can aspire to activity, or even be simply exchanged for the f3 knight. 14. a3 is a multi-purpose move - gaining permanent control over the b4 square, and supporting a later b2-b4 push. And Getman simply decides that it’s time to free the c8 bishop, so she spends a move to retreat her own queen to e7, where it guards the pawn laterally along the 7th rank. Here Goryachkina makes an instructive strategic decision, especially given the context - she needs to win.
She could possibly play 15. Qc2, with the intent of launching a minority attack with her queenside pawns in order to create a weakness in Getman’s queenside. After normal moves like, 15. Qc2 Ne4 16. b4 Bf5 17. b5 Nxc3 18. Qxc3 Be4 white must be careful not to allow black chances to draw via perpetual check with Bxf3 and Qg5+. After something like 19. Nd2 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 cxb5 21. Qxb5, black is indeed suffering - but two more pairs of minor pieces have been exchanged off, and if the the queens came off, the game would be mostly dead.
Instead, Goryachkina offers an exchange of queens, but aims to keep all the minor pieces on, and retain some strategic trumps. The general thrust of her play for the entirety of the game after 8. Bxd6 seems to be to prove that the black light square bishop is a poor piece. With 15. Qb4!? Aleksandra allows the queens to be exchanged, but procures two open files (a, and c), along with an iron grip on the dark squares that black no longer controls. She will bring her rooks to a1 and c1, given time, and put a knight on c5.
Qb4!? Qxb4?!
This move is not really a mistake, but it strikes me as a lack of competitive willpower. Tatyana Getman was surely just hoping the event would be over, by this point. She’d had an abysmal run and found herself in last place with a mere 2.0/10 by the time this game was played. As far as the chess is concerned: of course the queens will be exchanged, but why spend your own move doing it? Maintain the tension, improve elsewhere, and keep the a-file closed with a move like 15. … Ne4, when white has to show something better than 16. Qxe7, or else they’ve used two moves to exchange the queens instead of only one, and there’s more work to do for white to create open files on the queenside.
axb4 a6 17. Nd2 (headed for c5 straight away) Ne7 18. Nb3 Bf5 19. Be2!?
Not really brilliant, but strategically consistent. Goryachkina is playing to prove that the light squared bishop is bad, being restricted by black’s own central pawns. Exchanging the poor piece off would leave white with no claim to advantage. The white light squared bishop will one day be exchanged for a knight, if Aleksandra can engineer a “good knight vs. bad bishop” situation that she can hope to squeeze an advantage out of.
… Nc8 20. g4 Be6 21. f3 Nd6 22. Kf2 Rad8 23. Nc5 Bc8 24. Bd3 Nd7 25. Rfe1 (diagram)
In this position, we see another benefit of the doubled b-pawns. While doubled pawns are weak when they can be attacked, with no pawns on their flanks to defend them, they can actually be quite an asset when they are secure. Here, the b2 pawn has a useful function - discouraging the black player from attempting to get a knight to c4. 25. … Nb6 with the intent of 26. … Nbc4 is possible, but after 27. b3 Na3 28. Na4 Nab5, the knight has been pushed back a bit, and no longer coordinates with the e8-rook to add pressure along the half open e-file. Instead, Tatyana tried:
… f5?! which allows white a choice of options.
Ne2 comes into consideration, with the idea of Ng3, forcing fxg4 hxg4, after which Goryachkina would look to make trouble for black along the open h-file. But Aleksandra appeared to have in mind this endgame with a good knight vs. a bad bishop from the very first moves, and she liquidated the position into a pure form of the ending in the hopes that the small imbalance would be enough to grind out a win:
gxf5 Nxc5 27. bxc5 Nxf5 28. Bxf5 Bxf5 (diagram)
And here we have it, in striking visual fashion. All of the white pawns and pieces are on dark squares, where they need not be too bothered by the bishop. From the dark squares, the knight exerts pressure on the black pawns, which are locked on the same color complex as the black bishop. White will attempt to tie the black bishop down to the defense of the b7 pawn, and then exert enough influence with the rooks along the open g-file to force black to make a difficult decision.
h4 Rf8 30. Rg1 Rf6?!
Already here, I think we see Getman beginning to go wrong. Black is suffering in this position, but it is critical that she evaluates this position correctly. There are no white weaknesses that can be probed by the coordinated attack of the black forces, and there’s no activity that she can create. Of course, passive defense is uncomfortable, but an artificial demonstration of activity is worse. The c6 pawn is not weak, the b7 and g7 pawns are. Getman’s rooks belong, therefore, on the b8 and f7 squares, where they keep everything under control and black can just “sit.” Rf6 seems to pretend to demonstrate that the rook has some active intent, shuffling between e6, f6, and h6, but none of the white pawns are ever in danger of falling…
Rg3 Rd7?!
Another error, depriving the bishop of the c8 square and abandoning the defense of the back rank. The rook looks after b7 and g7 from here, it’s true, but black’s back rank is now vulnerable, and it’s now crucial that she prevent white from infiltrating, there. Getman sought to improve her bishop by getting it outside of her pawn chain, but it doesn’t actually do anything active on b5 or c4, since there are no white pieces or pawns on the light squares for it to attack.
Ke2 Bg6 33. Rg5 h6 34. Re5 Kh7?
Another error - but it’s all part of the same concept. Getman felt she could hold everything along the 7th rank, but this is simply not correct. The f6 rook is misplaced, here, and white is able to infiltrate along the back rank in a way that quickly becomes very uncomfortable for black.
Rg1 Bc2 36. Kd2 Bb3 37. f4 Bc4 38. Na4 Bb5 39. Nb6 Rc7 40. Re8 (diagram)
Here, should black attempt to relieve the pressure along the g-file with 40. … Rg6, white would play 41. Rh8+! Kxh8 42. Rxg6, keeping the pressure on, and intending Rd6-d7, forcing the exchange of rooks, after which the white knight will gobble up the b7 pawn. Getman could try 42. … Bf1 43. Rd6 Bh3, but now the bishop is tied to the h3-c8 diagonal, and is soon tied down completely: 44. e4! dxe4 45. Ke3 Kg8 46. b4 Bf5 47. d5 cxd5 48. Nxd5 Rd7 49. Rxd7 Bxd7 50. Kxe4, after which it should be clear that white is winning, due to the activity of her king.
Instead, Getman tried to make something of her f6 rook, but this is losing immediately:
… Rf5?? 41. Nc8 Rh5 42. Ne7 (diagram)
Mate is threatened, and there’s nothing really desirable for Getman to do about it. The conclusion of the game was:
… g5 43. fxg5 hxg5 44. hxg5 Kg7 45. g6 Rh2+ 46. Kc3 Re2 47. Nf5+ and Getman resigned.
An interesting game, from a technical perspective. Around move 30, I believe Getman erred in attempting to find an active plan, where there was none. However uncomfortable, passive defense was called for in the position, and to that end, she should have coordinated all of her pieces on that effort, rather than sending a rook to f6, and then f5, h5, and h2, on an artificial solo mission. If the other rook is required on d7 to hold everything, what can the one hope to accomplish on its own? Of course, after she started down that path, it became psychologically difficult to reverse course in order to protect the back rank, but this was simply imperative.
In the end, Goryachkina demonstrated a far superior technical ability in a position that should be drawn, by all rights. I find the psychology of this game interesting, however. In a must win game, Aleksandra did not throw all her pawns at the black king, she simply ensured an imbalance would exist in the position, took very little risk, and then punished slight technical mistakes. Tatyana Getman will be looking to put this event in the rear view mirror, with the rest of 2020.
After this win, Goryachkina and Shuvalova were tied, and the two entered a rapid playoff, which was drawn after two games. In the final, armageddon game, Shuvalova took the black pieces and the time disadvantage in order to obtain draw odds, but she simply blundered in the following position:
Shuvalova played 1. … Qxf6?? which loses immediately: 2. Nxd7 Qxf3 3. gxf3 Rfd8 4. Nxc5 Rxc5 5. bxc3. 3. … Na4 4. Nxf8 Bxf8 would have, obviously, been more tenacious, but these types of blunders are an enormous psychological blow when so much is at stake, and black’s position is lost in any case. And of course, white can do no more than draw after 1. … gxf6 2. Qg3+ Kh8 3. Qh4 Ne4. Shuvalova is an immense talent, but the only players immune from such blunders are your author’s online opponents. We expect to see much more of Polina Shuvalova in the years to come.
Congratulations are in order for Aleksandra Goryachkina! An excellent tournament, and a deserved result. But there’s one more thing - a bit more chess to enjoy from the Russian Women’s Superfinal:
In round 7, Alisa Galliamova was playing with the white pieces against the tournament’s second seed, Alina Kashlinskaya. Kashlinskaya got everything she ever wanted out of a King’s Indian Defence, and then sacrificed a knight to break down the white king’s defenses. Truly a great game, that can be found in full at this link. But in the following position, Kashlinskaya to play with the black pieces, she was able to uncork a spectacular (and precise) combination to finish the game:
Black to play and win.
Turns out, there’s mate, in six:
… Qh1+!! 2. Nxf1 Nh3+ 3. Kh2 Bxe3! 4. Qxe3 Ng5+ 5. Kg1 Rxh1+ 6. Kf2 Rxf1#
Alina Kashlinskaya finished tied with a gaggle of other players at 6.5/11, while Galliamova scored 6.0/11.
Puzzle of the Week #19:
But first, a solution to last week’s puzzle:
Nh6+!! Kh8 2. Qxe5 and white wins, since 2. … Qxe5 runs into 3. Nxf7+ Rxf7 4. Rd8+ with mate to follow. After 3. … Kg8 4. Nxe5, Capablanca was up a knight and a couple of pawns, which was more than enough to induce a resignation.
This week’s puzzle is taken from the conclusion of Tarrasch - Kurschner, played in 1893. White has sacrificed a pawn for a crushing attack, but winning a won game can be difficult. Can you see how Tarrasch brought the game to an abrupt conclusion?
As usual, feel free to email solutions, questions, comments, or concerns to JensenUVA@gmail.com or DM on twitter @JensenUVA
If you like these, please do subscribe, like, comment, share, forward, or whatever - it’s nice to hear from the community, when I do! And until next time, ARGH! SHAKHMATY!!