Tactical Battle in the Najdorf • Openshaw vs Hummel • Denker Tournament of State Champions • Reno, USA (1999) • Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation, Main Line (B99)
Francisco Yepes Barrera
2 min read
Michal Vrba - https://unsplash.com/photos/a-close-up-of-a-chess-board-with-pieces-on-it-CKfxqcOlNYs
At the time of this game, Patrick Hummel was one of the brightest young stars in the United States. He was a multi-time national scholastic champion and later earned the International Master title. He was known for his sharp tactical eye and deep opening preparation.
Pascal Openshaw was a strong regional champion representing his state. In the context of the Denker tournament, players like Openshaw were the “gatekeepers”—talented, dangerous, and capable of upsetting the favorites if given the slightest opportunity.
The Denker Tournament of State Champions is one of the most prestigious invitationals in American chess. It brings together the high school champions from every state to compete for college scholarships and national honors. Held in Reno, Nevada, in 1999, the tournament provided a high-pressure environment where every round felt like a final.
Coming into Round 2, both players were looking to establish momentum. Hummel, often a favorite in these events, likely expected a theoretical battle. The Sicilian Najdorf was the “gold standard” for ambitious players at the time, promising a complex, double-edged struggle. The atmosphere at the Denker is famously intense, as these teenagers are not just playing for themselves, but for the pride of their respective states.
This game is a wild ride through one of the most theoretical lines in chess: the Najdorf, 6. Bg5 variation. It involves a massive early Queen sacrifice and a struggle for compensation.
The game explodes on move 11. After 11. e5 Bb7, White enters a forcing line. Instead of retreating, White plays 12. exf6, allowing Black to capture the Queen with 12… Bxf3. In return, White gets a Bishop, a Rook, and a dangerous initiative.
The engine notes that 13… Nxf6 was an error by Hummel; the move 13… gxf6 was necessary to keep the balance. By capturing with the Knight, Black allowed White to safely grab the Rook on a8 with 14. Bxa8.
White gained a material advantage (two Rooks and a Bishop for a Queen), but the position remained extremely tricky. White’s move 15. f5 was an inaccuracy, allowing Black to castle and stabilize.
A critical sequence occurred around move 20. White centralized the Knights, creating a suffocating web of pieces. Hummel’s move 22… Bh6 was a fatal blunder (4). By placing the Bishop on this square, he allowed White to coordinate a winning attack.
The move 23… Kh8 was the final mistake. It allowed the devastating 24. Ndc7, Facing the loss of heavy material or a direct checkmate, Black resigned.
The game serves as a textbook example of the “Queen vs. Three Pieces” imbalance. In this case, the coordination of White’s Rooks and Knights eventually proved superior. Both players showed immense courage by entering the “poisoned” lines of the Najdorf in a high-stakes tournament. Pascal Openshaw demonstrated that even against a top-tier opponent like Hummel, maintaining tactical pressure can induce game-ending errors.
