data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc3cf/dc3cf509dd58ef23c94d9da5bc0bea8de7c97c6d" alt=""
Click on image to enlarge the article.
Welcome! This site is where I provide young female chess players with updates on important chess news as well as upcoming girl's tournaments. It is also a site where young players and their parents / coaches can productively discuss or ask questions about various chess issues! Your comments are welcome and appreciated! *** WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY! TM 2012 Susan Polgar © ***
Thursday’s discussion centered on the book “Bounce” by British author Matthew Syed, who also was on the program. The book argues that too much importance is placed on natural ability when it comes to determining who will end up being successful. Polgar’s story is mentioned in the book to back up this claim.
“My father had written a book even before I was born exactly on the same topic,” Polgar said. “He was a firm believer that success is ninety-nine percent sweat and one percent talent.”
Polgar’s father’s work came to fruition in the form of Susan and her sisters. Her father trained the girls in chess from a very young age, and Susan became the first female Grandmaster to earn the title in regular play. One of her sisters became the second female to accomplish the feat. She has another sister who is an International Master.
Ros Atkins, the presenter of the show, said this made Polgar the ideal guest to discuss the topic at hand.
“Well, she’s the real deal, isn’t she?” Atkins said when reached at the show’s London studio via phone. “She’s the living proof of the theory which Matthew Syed espouses. So if you believe in what he says, Susan Polgar and her sisters, there is no better example.”
Atkins went on to say that Polgar’s presence brought the discussion from theory to real life.
“You can talk about things hypothetically, but if you want to bring a discussion alive, clearly people who have lived something rather than just believing it brings something special to any conversation.
“There’s an authority which comes from someone who has reached the top, which the rest of us who haven’t reached the top just can’t have,” he said.
In addition to Syed and Polgar, former NBA player John Amaechi joined the discussion, as well as callers from around the world.Polgar said the experience of listening to and debating with such well-accomplished people was fascinating. She said the worldwide exposure her experience provided for Tech and SPICE will help increase awareness about Tech’s academic profile.
“It’s bringing visibility and credibility to this fine university that is well known for its athletic department and I think should be more known for its academic field that we’re so good at,” she said. “I’m hoping that through my celebrity status, at least in the world of chess, I can contribute something to the university that others can’t.”
Atkins said “World Have Your Say” contacted Polgar after he found out Syed would be coming on the program. Since Polgar’s story stuck out to Atkins after reading “Bounce” he did some research and e-mailed Polgar.
Polgar joined the program from the studios of KOHM-FM in Lubbock, and Atkins had high praise for the station employees, as he set up Polgar’s appearance at the last minute.
“The guys at KOHM were unbelievably helpful on very short notice,” he said. “One of the most accommodating sound engineers we’ve ever dealt with in the States. They really were a pleasure.”
The program is available in a podcast form on the show’s website and www.worldhaveyoursay.com. It airs every weekday at noon on KTXT-FM 88.1.
Source: http://www.dailytoreador.com1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 After a Queen’s Gambit start the game has settled into a Meran defense.
6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bd6 This move became mainstream in the past decade along with the old 8...a6 and 8...Bb7 lines. Black’s main idea is to respond to e3-e4 (now or later) with e6-e5.
9.Ng5!? This unusual looking move became quite popular in the last couple of years. The main idea is to allow a quick Qf3 connected to various tactical ideas. For example, if 9...0–0 10.Qf3 Bb7? White wins at least a Pawn by 11.Qh3! h6 12.Nxe6! fxe6 13.Qxe6+
9...Bb7 After 9...h6 White would regroup with 10.Nge4. This maneuver is useful in the positional sense. Black has a weakness in the backward Pawn on c6 and it is crucial to try to control the c5 square to prevent c6-c5.
10.Qf3 Now White threatens to use the pin by capturing the b5 Pawn. The more solid 10.0–0 and 10.Bd2 has also been tried in a number of games.
10...a6 10...0–0? would be a mistake again as after 11.Qh3 White comes out ahead as we have seen above. On the other hand, Black had a good game after 10...h6 in several games. 11.Nge4 (11.Qh3 Qe7 12.Bd2 0–0 13.Nge4 b4 was fine for Black) 11...Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.0–0 0–0 14.Qg3 Qb6 15.Rd1 c5.
11.a4 In another game White tried successfully 11.0–0 Qc7 12.Qh3 and now after 12...e5? White achieved significant advantage after the brilliant 13.Bg6! However, better was 12...h6.
11...h6 Black still could not castle due to Qh3 (11...0–0 12.Qh3).
12.Qh3 At this point it was better to transpose to more positional roads with 12.Nge4 Be7 13.0–0 0–0 14.Bd2.
12...b4?! A good alternative was instead 12...c5!, and if 13.axb5 cxd4 14.exd4 0–0 15.Nge4 (15.Nxe6 Re8) 15...Nxe4 16.Nxe4 axb5 17.Rxa8 Qxa8 with Black’s clear advantage.
13.Nce4 Be7 14.Bc4?! White missed a tempting opportunity: 14.Nxe6! fxe6 15.Qxe6 threatening with checkmate in two after 16.Nd6+. Black’s best defense is: 15...Nf8 but White seems to get at least sufficient compensation after 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.Qh3 Qd5 (preventing the check on h5) 18.Bf5 h5 19.0–0.
14...0–0 Finally Black succeeded to castle!
15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15...Nxf6 was also too.
16.Nxe6 White did not have much of a choice, as after the retreat with 16.Ne4 Black gets very active play after 16...c5 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.dxc5 Rfc8 19.0–0 Rxc5 20.Be2 Rd8.
16...fxe6 17.Bxe6+ Rf7 18.0–0 White is in no rush to capture Black’s Rook as it cannot run away since it is pinned.
18...Qe7 19.a5 More logical was to develop with 19.Bd2.
19...c5! Finally Black has activated the light squared Bishop. Black is better due to their pieces are positioned more actively than White’s.
20.Bd2 After 20.d5 Black could quickly create a dangerous passed Pawn after 20...c4.
20...Re8 Black could not win a Pawn by 20...cxd4 21.exd4 Bxd4 as White would have a cute little combination: 22.Bxb4! Qxb4? 23.Bxf7+ Kxf7 24.Qxd7+ Kg8 25.Ra4.
21.Bb3 After 21.Bxf7+ Qxf7 It is true that White is up on the material scale. However, it is Black who would have the initiative and the advantage due to superior positioning of their pieces.
21...Kh8 22.dxc5 This was the last opportunity the capture Black’s Rook on f7. However, White chose a different option: to grab a couple more Pawns instead...
22...Rff8 23.Bxb4 Ne5 Stepping into a pin with 23...Nxc5 is clearly inferior to Black’s choice 24.Rac1. White now needs to be careful not to let her Queen get trapped.
24.Ba3 With this move the Bishop moved to a protected square and White threatens with c5-c6 discovery.
24...Bc8 25.Qg3 White’s Queen got trapped, but the game is not over... 25.Qh5? would lose right away to 25...Bg4.
25...Bh4 26.c6! Bxg3 Black could not play 26...Qd8 as then the table would turn around after 27.c7! Qf6 28.Qf4 with White’s advantage.
27.Bxe7 Bxf2+! 28.Rxf2 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Rxe7 As the complications had cleared out Black has an extra Knight for three Pawns. However, White is likely to lose one of those Pawns real soon.
30.Bd5 Rc7 30...Ng4+ was an option too. Black rather chose to go after to further advanced passed c6 Pawn.
31.Kg3 White could not protect the c6 Pawn by 31.Rc1? due to the fork by 31...Nd3+.
31...Nxc6 32.Rc1 Bb7 It is true that the Black Knight is pinned but will be able to get out by Rc7-c8.
33.b4 Rc8 34.e4 This loses another Pawn.
34...Nxb4 35.Rb1 Bxd5 36.Rxb4 Bc4 The rest is easy technique...
37.Rb7 Rc5 38.Kf4 Rxa5 39.e5 Ra2 40.Rc7 Bb5 and White resigned. 0–1
Source: http://lubbockonline.comWhen Susan was the age of many of her students, she dominated the New York Open chess competition. At 16 she crushed several adult opponents and landed on the front page of The New York Times. The tournament was abuzz not just with the spectacle of one pretty young powerhouse: Susan's raven-haired sister Sophia, 11, swept most of the games in her section, too. But the pudgy baby of the family, 9-year-old Judit, drew the most gawkers of all. To onlookers' delight, Judit took on five players simultaneously and beat them. She played blindfolded.
In 1991, when Susan was 21, she became the first woman ever to earn the designation Grandmaster, the World Chess Federation's title for top-ranked players. Judit picked up the honor the same year, at age 15. She was a few months younger than Bobby Fischer was when he won the title.
Judit, who is now the top-ranked woman and eighth overall player in the world, would go on to win a match in 2002 against reigning champion Garry Kasparov, who has said that "women by nature are not exceptional chess players." But the Polgar sisters may be the exceptions that prove Kasparov's point: Only 11 out of the world's about 950 grandmasters, including Susan and Judit, are female. The sisters' saga may cast light on the knotty question of why so few women are elite performers in math and the hard sciences. But in the Polgars' case, a unique upbringing and the idiosyncrasies of chess itself further complicate the picture.
Judit, Susan and Sophia grew up in a veritable chess cocoon spun by their father, Laszlo, the intellectual equivalent of Serena and Venus Williams' autocratic tennis dad, Richard. Some people consider Laszlo's role in shaping his daughters' careers to be absolute; others call it a happy coincidence. Raw talent and a childhood with all the advantages account for success in many fields, and chess is no exception. But the paths Susan, Judit and Sophia took as adults illuminate many intangibles in the achievement equation. An aggressive streak, birth order, a chance encounter that leads to a marriage on the other side of the world—these factors and changes of fortune are just as critical in determining whether a person rises to the top of his or her game.
Forty years ago, Laszlo Polgar, a Hungarian psychologist, conducted an epistolary courtship with a Ukrainian foreign language teacher named Klara. His letters to her weren't filled with reflections on her cherubic beauty or vows of eternal love. Instead, they detailed a pedagogical experiment he was bent on carrying out with his future progeny. After studying the biographies of hundreds of great intellectuals, he had identified a common theme—early and intensive specialization in a particular subject. Laszlo thought the public school system could be relied upon to produce mediocre minds. In contrast, he believed he could turn any healthy child into a prodigy. He had already published a book on the subject, Bring Up Genius!, and he needed a wife willing to jump on board.
Laszlo's grandiose plan impressed Klara, and the two were soon married. In 1973, when she was barely 4 years old, Susan, their rather hyperactive firstborn, found a chess set while rummaging through a cabinet. Klara, who didn't know a single rule of the ancient game, was delighted to find Susan quietly absorbed in the strange figurines and promised that Laszlo would teach her the game that evening.
Chess, the Polgars decided, was the perfect activity for their protogenius: It was an art, a science, and like competitive athletics, yielded objective results that could be measured over time. Never mind that less than 1 percent of top chess players were women. If innate talent was irrelevant to Laszlo's theory, so, then, was a child's gender. "My father is a visionary," Susan says. "He always thinks big, and he thinks people can do a lot more than they actually do."
Six months later, Susan toddled into Budapest's smoke-filled chess club. Aged men sat in pairs, sliding bishops, slapping down pawns and yelling out bets on their matches. "I don't know who was more surprised, me or them," she recalls. One of the regulars laughed when he was asked to give the little girl a game. Susan soon extended her tiny hand across the board for a sportsmanlike victory shake. It was an ego-crushing gesture. Soon thereafter, she dominated the city's girls-under-age-11 tournament with a perfect score.
In 1974 Susan was in the middle of a chess lesson when Laszlo received the call that Klara had given birth to another daughter, Sophia. Just 21 months later, Judit was born. As soon as they were old enough to feel the pain of parental exclusion, the younger girls peeked through a small window into the room where their father taught Susan chess for hours each day. Laszlo seized upon their curiosity. They could come in and watch, he told them, but only if they also learned the game. With that, Laszlo gained two additional subjects.
Laszlo battled Hungarian authorities for permission to homeschool his children, and he and Klara then taught them German, English and high-level math. (All three are multilingual; Susan speaks seven languages, including Esperanto, fluently.) They swam occasionally and played Ping-Pong, and a 20-minute breather just for joke telling was penciled in each day. But their world was largely mapped onto the 64 squares of the chessboard. "My dad believed in optimizing early childhood instead of wasting time playing outside or watching TV," Susan says.
Laszlo believed that the girls' achievement in chess would bring them not only success. More importantly, it would make them happy. Klara took care of the pragmatic aspects of her family's intense home-life, and in later years, coordinated their travels to tournaments in 40 countries. "They complemented each other perfectly," says Susan. Laszlo initiated the great plans, but, as Klara said, "I am always part of the realization. The thread follows the needle. I am the thread."
The brain has three tasks to carry out when contemplating a chessboard. It must comprehend the rules, as each piece moves according to its own powers and restraints. Then it must analyze potential moves, which involves envisioning different configurations on the board. Lastly, it must decide which move is most advantageous. Here the game requires critical thinking in the visual-spatial realm. Visual-spatial processing is the single biggest ability gap between men and women—the glimmer of truth behind the stereotype of men-as-road-trip-aces who deftly follow maps and fit the luggage into the car. The visual-spatial processing center is located in the right side of the brain; among elite chess players (Kasparov included), there is a much higher proportion of left-handers, who have dominant right brains, than chance would predict.
Testosterone accelerates development of the right brain and may slow development of the left side. But the effects aren't binary: Regardless of its sex, each brain falls on a continuum between "male" and "female" extremes in an array of traits. Furthermore, the neural pathways that allow for chess's cognitive pyrotechnics develop in response to environmental influences and are most malleable in young children. Estrogen, in fact, enables neural plasticity—women tend to recover better from strokes than men, for example—and the hormone primes women for neural growth and change, points out neuropsychiatrist Mona Lisa Schulz, author of The New Feminine Brain. By teaching his daughters chess at a young age, Laszlo essentially molded their brains, enriching their visual-spatial centers and closing any gap that gender may have broached.
Gender differences do emerge, however, in the way kids look at chess. "Girls can learn how to play just as well as boys," Susan says. "But they often approach the game differently. Girls would rather solve chess puzzles than play against one of their friends," she says. Boys will always choose to compete.
These orientations can long influence a player's style, says Paul Truong, captain of the U.S. Women's Olympiad chess team and coauthor of Susan's forthcoming book, Breaking Through: How the Polgar Sisters Changed the Game of Chess. "When I play Susan," he says, "I look for the quickest, most brute force way to win—even if it's a very typical checkmate. She looks for a more elegant, unusual way." As a teacher, Susan indulges girls' preference for conflict-free mental challenges and supports sex-segregated events for beginners. There are so few girls in attendance at national coed tournaments, she says, that their self-consciousness often squashes their enthusiasm for the game.
Susan's feminine touch is apparent at her club, where tea and cakes are served to the mostly male members. "It's rare to have someone of Susan's stature interacting with amateurs like us. You wouldn't see Kasparov sitting here, talking to a normal person," notes Ruth Arluck, a retired teacher. Truong agrees. "Susan even insisted on wooden instead of plastic chess pieces. It takes a woman to notice these things," he says.
Here is the full article.Rank | Name | Title | Country | Rating | Games | B-Year |
1 | Polgar, Judit | g | HUN | 2682 | 0 | 1976 |
2 | Koneru, Humpy | g | IND | 2600 | 11 | 1987 |
3 | Hou, Yifan | g | CHN | 2577 | 36 | 1994 |
4 | Kosintseva, Tatiana | g | RUS | 2562 | 11 | 1986 |
5 | Stefanova, Antoaneta | g | BUL | 2560 | 0 | 1979 (Former women's world champion) |
6 | Kosintseva, Nadezhda | m | RUS | 2551 | 10 | 1985 |
7 | Lahno, Kateryna | g | UKR | 2535 | 4 | 1989 |
8 | Muzychuk, Anna | m | SLO | 2527 | 21 | 1990 |
9 | Cmilyte, Viktorija | m | LTU | 2527 | 7 | 1983 |
10 | Sebag, Marie | g | FRA | 2519 | 7 | 1986 |
Here are the results:
2010 SP Girls Invitational Puzzle Solving Championship
July 26
Final standings:
1. Anu Bayar 10 / 10 in 12 minutes (Anu Bayar just applied to come to Texas Tech. She plans to major in math.)
2. Taylor McCreary 10 /10 in 16 minutes
3. Brianna Conley 10 /10 in 29 minutes
4. Rebecca Deland 10 /10 in 30 minutes
5. Agata Bykovtsev 9 - 10
6. Shayna Provine 9 - 15
7. Alexandra Wiener 9 - 22
8. Devina Devagharan 8.5 - 26
9. Kristen Sarna 8 - 18
10. Emily Nguyen 8 - 19
11. Sayaka Foley 8 - 19.5
12. Katie Abderhalden 8 - 30
13. Minna Wang 8 - 30
14. Annastasia Wyzywany 8 - 30
15. Rachel Ulrich 8 - 30
16. Rebekah Liu 7.5 - 28
17. Chrystal Qian 7 - 12
18. Victoria Bian 7 - 16
19. Maggie Feng 7 - 19
20. Tori Whatley 7 - 30
21. Selena Wong 7 - 30.1
22. Emily Hasch 7 - 30.2
23. Alexandra Timofte 7 - 30.2
24. Mandy Lu 6 - 15.5
25. Helen Lou 6 - 30.05
26. Bethany Carson 6 - 30.07
27. Estella Wong 6 - 30.13
28. Susanna Ulrich 6 - 30.15
29. Charity Carson 6 - 30.17
30. Clarissa Abella 5.5 - 29
31. Aiya Cancio 5 - 30.06
32. Sydney Morris 5 - 30.08
33. Amelia Wyzywany 5 - 30.09
34. Isabel James 5 - 30.11
35. Sadia Qureshi 5 - 30.12
36. Hannah Cheng 5 - 30.14
37. Bernadette Perez 4 - 30
38. Anna Lee 2 – 30.01
39. Jacinda Lee 1 - 30
2010 SP Girls Invitational Blitz Championship
July 29
Final standings:
1. Anu Bayar 2099 6.0 points in 6 games
2-3. Taylor McCreary 1697 5.0
2-3. Victoria Bian 1577 5.0
4-6. Julia Jones 1749 4.5
4-6. Rebekah Liu 1724 4.5
4-6. Maggie Feng 1579 4.5
7-11. Agata Bykovtsev 1790 4.0
7-11. Sayaka Foley 1731 4.0
7-11. Alexandra Wiener 1629 4.0
7-11. Mandy Lu 1595 4.0
7-11. Devina Devagharan 1561 4.0
12-17. Rebecca Lelko 1855 3.5
12-17. Katie Abderhalden 1729 3.5
12-17. Brianna Conley 1583 3.5
12-17. Shayna Provine 1502 3.5
12-17. Bethany Carson 1316 3.5
12-17. Charity Carson 918 3.5
18-25. Rachel Ulrich 1513 3.0
18-25. Emily Nguyen 1515 3.0
18-25. Annastasia Wyzywany 1474 3.0
18-25. Clarisa Abella 1458 3.0
18-25. Kristen Sarna 1421 3.0
18-25. Alexandra Timofte 1151 3.0
18-25. Susie Ulrich 899 3.0
18-25. Emily Hasch 785 3.0
26-30. Sadia Qureshi 1346 2.5
26-30. Rebecca Deland 1254 2.5
26-30. Helen Lou 1176 2.5
26-30. Crystal Qian 1016 2.5
26-30. Tori Whatley 1004 2.5
31-38. Amelia Wyzywany 1283 2.0
31-38. Sydney Morris 1155 2.0
31-38. Aiya Cancio 1120 2.0
31-38. Minna Wang 1108 2.0
31-38. Isabel James 1079 2.0
31-38. Selena Wong 890 2.0
31-38. Estella Wong 720 2.0
31-38. Jacinda Lee 485 2.0
39-41. Bernadette Perez 1024 1.0
39-41. Anna Lee 468 1.0
39-41. Hannah Cheng 234 1.0
2010 SP Girls Invitational (Parents, Coaches, and Sibling) Blitz Championship
July 29
Final standings:
1-3. Vlad Timofte 4 / 5
1-3. Tony Wong 4 / 5
1-3. Lawrence Wong 4 / 5
4-7. Zach Cancio 3 / 5
4-7. Paul Michel Truong 3 / 5
4-7. Angelito Abella 3 / 5
4-7. Danie Carson 3 / 5
8-10. Angie Abderhalden 2
8-10. Tim Carson 2
8-10. Kumari Nallakumar 2
11. Martha Underwood 1
12. David Whatley 0
2010 SP Girls Invitational Team Bughouse Championship
July 26
Final standings:
1. Purple People 4.0
2. The Chess Players 4.0
3. Emu 4.0
4. 2000 4.0
5. The Wreckers 3.0
6. Smiley Penguiney 3.0
7. The Chess Girls 3.0
8. The Perfect Squares 3.0
9. Carson Sisters 3.0
10. The Bishops 3.0
11. The Yellow Jackets 2.0
12. Purple Eye Liner 2.0
13. Sunny 2.0
14. Pillowy 2.0
15. Chessmare 2.0
16. Knightmare 2.0
17. Typos 1400 2.0
18. The Twins 1.0
19. Cornerstone 1.0
http://lubbockonline.com/columnists/2010-08-01/champions-crowned-susan-polgar-girls-invitational?v=1280619041