08.08.06 After two rounds a pack of eight girls are leading the tournament with 2.0 points. This report brings you another annotated game, Round 2 crosstable and a side-event update.

Photo courtesy Susan Polgar Foundation
Margaret Bryan (immediate right) plays the white pieces during her 2nd round game with Emillia Stuart.

Today I played Emi Stuart of Arizona (1344). Below is my analysis:

Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls
Round 2 August 7, 2006
Margaret Bryan (1076) - Emillie Stuart (1344)

To view this game with our interactive game viewer while following Margaret's annotations, right-click on the hyperlink below and choose "Open in New Window".

Click here to replay.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f5

The Latvian Gambit, or Greco Counter. I had never seen this opening before and decided to accept the sacrifice.

3. exf5 e4
4. Nd4 Bc5
5. c3

Now we are already off book, and I am taking part in one of the most unorthodox games that I have ever played.

5. ’Ķ Nf6
6. d3 exd3
7. Bxd3 d5

At this point in the game I am starting to feel pretty confident. I am a pawn ahead and am about to go on the offensive.

8. Bg5 Qe7+

Okay, so that slows me down a little bit. No problem I just interposed with my bishop.

9. Be2 Bxd4

Another attack by black, causing a slight hindrance in my plan to capture the knight.

10. Qxd4 c6
11. Bxf6 Qxf6

I was rather surprised by this move from Black. It would have made more sense to capture with the pawn. Thus the pin on the bishop would not be broken and I would not have the option of trading queens.

12. Qxf6 gxf6
13. Bh5+ Kf8

Black no longer has the option of castling.

14. g4 Nd7
15. 0-0 Ne5

At this point I almost made the mistake of moving 16. fRe1 but luckily noticed that this would be a disastrous move what with the knight fork on f3, and instead decided on the following:

16. Nd2 Rg8

I completely overlook the threat posed by the light squared bishop capturing on f5 and am only aware of the knight prepared to capture g4. Either way I’Äôm about to lose a pawn.

17. h3 Bxf5

Now black has a positional advantage and I find myself retreating and trying to prevent more of black’Äôs pieces from coming into play.

18. Kh2 Bd7
19. f4 Ng6
20. g5

I’Äôm pretty proud of this move. It wasn’Äôt that exceptional, but it got Black thinking and it prepared me for trading several minor pieces after ’Ķ.

20. ’Ķ Kg7
21. Bxg6 Kxg6
22. Rg1 fxg5

I didn’Äôt think this move very productive because it allows me to advance my rook to g5, although it doesn’Äôt lose any material in the process.

23. Rxg5+ Kf6
24. Rag1 Rxg5
25. fxg5+ Kg6
26. Nf3 Re8
27. Nh4+ Kh5
28. Nf3

That was a waste of a move. Nxh4+ merely enabled black to attack my knight on the far side of the board, forcing me to retreat, and giving me no better position than I had before.

28. ’Ķ.. Re2+
29. Rg2 Re3
30. Rg3

Black offered a draw, and I agreed. I was somewhat relieved, for I felt that my pieces were cramped and not very mobile whereas Black had lots of space and could operate much more easily.

Later today, at 6:00 P.M., there was a puzzle solving championship for girls, which I happened to be late for and did not participate in. However, I did take part in the blitz championship at 6:45. I am not very skilled at speed games and only won 2 out of six, finishing twelfth out of the sixteen girls that competed, but overall I enjoyed myself and found most of my appalling moves cause for humor rather than disgust.

2006 Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls
Cross Table after Round 2

No. Name Ranking State Rating 1 2 Score
1. Marshall, Abby (4)............ VA 1950 W34 W16 2.0
2. Mateer, Amanda (5)............ AZ 1891 W25 W17 2.0
3. Datta, Anjali (6)............. TX 1884 W26 W18 2.0
4. Carter, Ashley (7)............ MI 1848 W27 W19 2.0
5. Lee, Laura L (8).............. NC 1813 W28 W20 2.0
6. Chen, Janice S (9)............ UT 1790 W29 W21 2.0
7. Wamala, Jessica N (11)........ MA 1711 W31 W22 2.0
8. Wiener, Alexandra (12)........ CT 1631 W36 W24 2.0
9. Jamison, Courtney (1)......... TX 1997 W23 D12 1.5
10. Kats, Elina (3)............... NY 1969 D14 W32 1.5
11. Rodriguez, Eunice (10)........ FL 1742 W30 D13 1.5
12. Williams, Jordana (13)........ LA 1581 W37 D9 1.5
13. Liu, Cheryl (22).............. IL 1424 W43 D11 1.5
14. Roy, Ananya (26).............. GA 1373 D10 W33 1.5
15. Livschitz, Louiza (2)......... CA 1983 L24 W36 1.0
16. Chu, Emily J. (15)............ PA 1536 W35 L1 1.0
17. Wu, Connie (16)............... KY 1532 W38 L2 1.0
18. Gibson, Graham (17)........... TN 1519 W39 L3 1.0
19. Buscher, Blythe (18).......... KS 1490 W40 L4 1.0
20. Selby, Krista (19)............ IN 1480 W41 L5 1.0
21. Kaur, Shiny (20).............. IL 1454 W44 L6 1.0
22. Hernandez, Sandra (21)........ NV 1450 W42 L7 1.0
23. Smoak, Anna T (24)............ NM 1421 L9 W37 1.0
24. McGrath, Cailin M (25)........ MN 1383 W15 L8 1.0
25. Ichikawa, Shizuyo (28)........ OH 1334 L2 W38 1.0
26. Barkell, Erica D (29)......... ID 1299 L3 W39 1.0
27. Chen, Alice F (30)............ UT 1292 L4 W40 1.0
28. Marcjan, Karen (31)........... WA 1261 L5 W41 1.0
29. Parshall, Alison K (32)....... AK 1259 L6 W42 1.0
30. Smith, Kaila (33)............. CO 1225 L11 W43 1.0
31. Hannibal, Dana C (34)......... OR 1170 L7 W44 1.0
32. Bailey, Taylor (14)........... OR 1550 D33 L10 0.5
33. Farell, Rachel (23)........... OK 1422 D32 L14 0.5
34. Stuart, Emillia An (27)....... AR 1344 L1 D35 0.5
35. Bryan, Margaret (37).......... ME 1076 L16 D34 0.5
36. Hellwig, Hannah M (35)........ AL 1136 L8 L15 0.0
37. Vyas, Dhrooti V (36).......... IA 1111 L12 L23 0.0
38. Coccio, Kathleen M (38)....... RI 1046 L17 L25 0.0
39. Oliver, Elizabeth (39)........ NE 1020 L18 L26 0.0
40. Mueller, Katy D (40).......... MO 999 L19 L27 0.0
41. Avilova, Tanya (41)........... VT 892 L20 L28 0.0
42. Klauer, Tracie (42)........... WI 862 L22 L29 0.0
43. Wai, Marissa Al (43).......... HI 794 L13 L30 0.0
44. Spitelle, Alisa R (44)........ DE 639 L21 L31 0.0