Introduction by Jennifer Skidmore

The 2005 Michigan Junior tournaments returned to East Grand Rapids Middle School for the second consecutive year. While the 2003 event boasted over 400 participants and there were 376 in 2004, only slightly over 300 players competed in the 2005 tournament. Dan Brown once again proved to be a wonderful host. A scheduling surprise placed a road race right outside of the building for Saturday morning plus there was a flash snowstorm, but after the tournament got started it ran quite smoothly. Directing the events were Jennifer Skidmore, Jeff Aldrich, Brad Rogers, Martin Moore, and Eric Choate.

Michigan Junior (K-12)

By Jennifer Skidmore

With 54 participants, the 2005 K-12 section of the Junior was both stronger and larger than the 2004 field. Aaron Kahn was again the top-seed, but this time with an even higher rating. A-players Tim Moroney, John Gattinger, and Randall Brooks were the next highest rated players.

Round 1

First round arrivals were inhibited slightly by the road race being conducted just outside the building, but things got started in a timely manner. The top five seeds emerged from the round unscathed, but Dave Varner, Jordan Rathburn, and Zach Johnson all scored upset victories over their higher rated opponents, Ashley Carter, Michael Collins, and Chris Fraley, respectively.

Jared Stratz (631)
Will Scheller (1246)
Queen's Pawn: Zukertort (Symmetrical), D02

Notes by Tim McGrew

Given the ratings mismatch, the outcome of this game is not particularly surprising. But the finish must be seen!

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6

This bland opening is common at the lower levels of tournament play -- a sort of queenside Four Knights. White can and should vary at move 3 with 3.c4, bringing about a Chigorin Defense to the Queen's Gambit. Black, for his part, might try to unbalance the position a bit with 3...Bg4 instead of maintaining the symmetry.

4.Bg5 e6

And here 4...Ne4 looks like the right way to mix things up a bit. White will not be interested in letting the bishop on g5 be chopped off since that gives Black extra time, e.g. 5.e3 Nxg5 6.Nxg5 e5 and Black has already taken the initiative.

5.Ne5

5.e4 would transpose into a rare Nimzowitsch Defense sideline that is not particularly good for Black.

5...Be7 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Qd3

White starts to lose his grip on the position. He wants to enforce d4, but the undefended Bishop on g5 makes this tactically risky. Better was 7.e3.

7...0–0 8.e4?

Consistent, but White's sense of danger fails him here.

8...dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Qxe4

This is probably where White's analysis stopped. Material is equal and White has better pawns -- so why isn't he better?

11...Qb4+

Ouch! That's why. The exposed king, undefended b-pawn, and rook on a1 all add up to big trouble for White.

12.c3 Qxb2 13.Bd3

This is a gutsy try, but the threat is just too crude to catch an alert opponent.

13...Qxa1+ 14.Ke2 Qb2+!

Of course 14...Qxh1?? would make White very happy.

15.Kf3 f5 16.Qxc6??

O felix culpa! This blunder leads to a fantastic king march.

16...Bb7 17.Kf4 Bxc6 18.Re1 Qxf2+ 19.Kg5 h6+ 20.Kg6 Be8# 0–1

Round 2

Second round games were again decisive and saw most of the top players winning. Will Scheller scored an upset victory on board four making Randall Brooks the first casualty of the top five. Zach Johnson again scored against his higher rated opponent, drawing with Chris Schmidt. Ashley Carter returned to form with her first win of the day.

Scott Thach (1763)
Brendon Farrell (1202)
Four Knights: Scotch, C47

Notes by Tim McGrew

Edward Lasker used to write wryly about the equalizing injustice of chess. Before having a spell of bad luck in his game against Aaron Kahn, Scott gets a taste of the better stuff in a surprisingly difficult game.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4

White to Move

6.f3?

This anti-positional move arises from White's unfamiliarity with the opening. But an amateur might reasonably ask, “Why is it bad? And what should White do instead?” The questions are pressing because there is a superficially similar line of the Sicilian that is all the rage: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 -- the so-called English Attack. White's pawns and knights are on the same squares. But Black's pawns and pieces are not. In the Sicilian line, White is planning to castle queenside and launch a kingside attack with g4-5. But in the position from the Scotch on the board in front of us, White almost invariably castles kingside and keeps his pawns at home. In fact, he sometimes needs the f3-square for his queen since the idea is to apply pressure to Black's kingside with pieces, not with pawns. And in any event, the diagonal from (say) c5 to g1 is accessible to Black's darksquare bishop and, in some lines, his queen; in the Sicilian lines, by contrast, Black's bishop is locked firmly behind the “little center” pawn at d6. For all of these reasons, the theoretically approved line is best: 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 and White has a far more harmonious development than he gets after 6.f3.

6...d5!

Black doesn't waste any time breaking open the center and seizing the initiative.

7.exd5 Qxd5 8.Be3 0–0

It is slightly more accurate to damage White's pawn structure immediately with 8...Bxc3+! 9.bxc3 0–0! when the coming ...Re8 will give White real trouble on the e-file -- because the move f3 weakened White's control of e3.

9.Qd3 Re8?

This slip gives White one chance to consolidate his shaky position. 9...Nxd4! 10.Qxd4 Qa5! leaves White struggling to find a safe place for his king.

10.Kf2?

Not this way! The right move is 10.0–0–0 lending additional support to the knight on d4 so that an exchange sacrifice at e3 fails.

10...Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Bd7?

Chess is such a cruel game! Black misses the moment for decisive action and most of his advantage should evaporate. 11...Rxe3! picks up two minor pieces for the rook. 12.Qxe3 (12.Kxe3 appears to defend the knight adequately, but after 12...Qe5+ 13.Kd3 Nd5!-+ Black not only hits the queen but also threatens a deadly check on e3.) 12...Qxd4 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Rd1 Ne6µ and Black's extra material makes him a definite favorite in the coming endgame.

12.Bc4?

12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bd4 would equalize at once.

12...Rxe3! 13.Bxd5 Rxc3! 14.Bxf7+

The bishop goes desperado since it is lost in any event.

14...Kxf7 15.bxc3

The dust has settled and White has a rook and a pawn for Black's two minor pieces -- on paper, material is equal. But a whole host of details tip the scales in Black's favor. The hole on c4 beckons for Black's minor pieces, and White's knight is easily dislodged from its central post with ...c5. White's queenside pawns, all isolated, will be terribly vulnerable both in the short term and in the long run. White is either lost outright or very nearly so.

15...Nd5

Not a bad move, but 15...Ne5 looks even more to the point, freeing the c-pawn to come to c5 and taking immediate aim at the comfortable c4-square.

16.Ne2 Bf5 17.Rhc1 h5?!

Black is afraid of ghosts and needlessly creates a pawn weakness on White's majority wing. It is better to complete development(!) with 17...Re8, not fearing 18.g4 Bg6 19.f4 and now Black can play 19...h5 or even 19... 19...Ne3 when White has no time for 20.f5?? Nxg4+ 21.Kg3 Bxf5 etc.

18.Rab1 b6 19.a3 Rd8 20.c4 Nde7 21.Rb3 Rd2 22.Ke1 Rxc2! 23.Rxc2 Bxc2

Having won a pawn, Black has an even clearer advantage here and should definitely win with perfect play. But in such imbalanced positions it is important to juggle one's minor pieces so as to rule out counterplay from both of the enemy pieces. Black does not handle this phase very effectively.

24.Rc3 Bf5 25.Nf4 g6?

25...Ne5 26.Nxh5 Be6 27.c5 Nd5! 28.Rc2 Nd3+ 29.Kd2 Nxc5

26.Nd5!

Now Black must lose back the pawn he had won and his advantage is lessened.

26...Nd4 27.Nxc7 Nc2+?

The knight is on a fool's errand -- everything is defended. 27...Nec6 makes better sense.

28.Kd2 Kf6?

Giving up material for nothing. 28...Nd4 at least keeps material equality.

29.Nb5?!

Unaccountably, White doesn't accept the gift. 29.Rxc2! Bxc2 30.Kxc2 would give White good winning chances with his extra pawn. Over the next few moves, both sides ignore the possibility of a capture on c2. Black should play ...a6 and extract his knight; White should simply chop it off.

29...Nc8 30.h3 h4 31.Nc7 Ke5 32.Nd5 g5 33.Nb4 Nxb4

Finally the tension is resolved -- Black will remain nominally ahead in material.

34.axb4 Kf4

Black goes for the g-pawn. If White defended properly this should not cause concern. But...

35.Re3?

This is the wrong way to defend g2. White is hoping that the rook will be more flexibly posted on the open file. 35.Ke2 Kg3 36.Kf1 would minimize White's defensive problems on the kingside, though Black remains better.

35...Nd6!

This hit on c4 yanks the rook back.

36.Rc3 Kg3

Now there is no defending g2.

37.c5!

In a desperate position, White makes a run for it.

37...bxc5 38.bxc5 Nc8?!

This is not the happiest square for the knight. 38...Nb5 39.Rb3 a6 looks much stronger. Black's a-pawn is hard to get, and White's kingside will fall apart if he doesn't pitch one pawn immediately with 40.f4+ Kxf4 etc.

39.f4+ Kxf4 40.Rf3+ Ke5

Compared to the line in the previous note, White -- though still struggling to draw -- is comparatively better off. The chief problem is Black's utterly passive knight on c8.

41.Kc3 Ke4?

The king interferes with Black's bishop here, so I'm not sure that I see the point of this move. It would make good sense to mobilize the knight immediately with 41...Ne7 Another decent idea is 41...Be4 putting pressure on the pawn at g2.

42.Kb4

Black to Move

42...g4??

This is a grave positional error. Black's best winning try is to overwhelm the pawn on g2 -- say with a B/e4 and N/f4. Once that pawn falls, h3 will fall of its own accord and the connected kingside pawns will sweep all before them. By liquidating with ...g4, Black leaves himself with a kingside pawn on a dark square where his bishop cannot defend it. Black is not lost after this move, but his winning chances have just dropped to nearly zero. 42...Ne7 was still the best idea and would still have been winning.

43.hxg4 Bxg4 44.Rf7 Kd5 45.Rf4 Be6

It is almost impossible to shift gears quickly after a bad decision, and Black falters here. 45...Be2 46.Rxh4 a5+! 47.Kxa5 Kxc5= is dead drawn since Black can give up a minor piece (preferably the knight) for the g-pawn and still draw.

46.Rxh4 Ne7

Well at least the knight is finally being developed!

47.Rh5+ Kc6 48.Re5 Kd7 49.Re1 Nc6+ 50.Kb5 Kc7 51.Rc1 Kb7 52.Rd1 Kc7

52...a6+ would drive back White's king, giving Black a little more breathing room.

53.Ka4 Bc4 54.Rc1 Bg8 55.Rh1 a6 56.Rh6 Bc4 57.Rh4 Bg8 58.Rg4 Be6 59.Rg7+ Kd8 60.Rg6 Ke7 61.Rg7+ Kd8 62.g4

The position is still drawn so long as Black does not panic. Since his knight and a-pawn do an admirable job keeping White's king far from the action, he needs to bring his king over at the right time to stop the g-pawn. The bishop can move flexibly and keep the knight defended should the rook menace it.

62...Bxg4??

A terrible decision. Black has no hope of drawing the exchange down, even with the limited material, so long as White has a remaining pawn.

63.Rxg4 Ke7 64.Rg6 Kd7 65.Rg7+ Ke6 66.Rg5 Kd7 67.Rd5+ Kc7 68.Rd6 Kb7 69.Kb3 Nb8

This knight has suffered from a great deal on his own back rank.

70.Rb6+ Kc7 71.Kc4 Kc8 72.Kd4

72.c6! would make the win much easier. With Black's knight corralled, White simply walks his king to d6 and Black falls apart.

72...Kc7 73.Kd5 a5 74.Rb3 Nc6 75.Rh3 Ne7+ 76.Kc4 Nc6 77.Kb5 Ne5 78.Rh7+ Nd7 79.c6 a4 80.Rxd7+ Kc8 81.Ra7 Kb8 82.Rxa4

Black is obviously intent on suffering to the end. 82.Kb6 would put him out of his misery more quickly.

82...Kc7 83.Kc5 Kc8 84.Rd4 Kc7 85.Rd7+ Kc8 86.Kb6 Kb8 87.Rd8# 1–0

Round 3

Eleven perfect scores were poised to begin their final trophy run at the start of round three. These match-ups were more challenging as the top of the field was paired with the middle. Anatoli Zaremba drew with John Gattinger on board three in a long, late game. Joining them at two and a half was Chris Schmidt with his upset of Atulya Shetty. The five remaining perfect scores were Aaron Kahn, Tim Moroney, Scott Thach, Jon Budzenski, and Will Scheller.

Derek Wilder (1706)
Aaron Kahn (2101)
Réti: Dutch, A04

Notes by Tim McGrew

1.Nf3 f5 2.g3

Does anyone still play 2.e4 these days? After 2...fxe4 3.Ng5 both players are likely to be thrown on their own resources, which is a good thing according to some of us. What I'd really like to know, though, is whether Aaron would have met 2.e4 with 2...e5!?

2...Nf6 3.d3

White declines to enter a true Dutch Defense.

3...g6

A sensible reaction. It would be more dangerous -- because positionally inflexible -- for Black to head for a Stonewall position with 3...d5 when a well-timed e4 might shatter Black's center. 3...Nc6 also comes into consideration, intending 4.Bg2 e5 with some useful space on the kingside.

4.Nbd2 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.0–0 0–0 7.e4 e5!

Black has equalized here without difficulty and now looks to make use of his space on the kingside.

8.c3 f4!?

A bold idea.

9.Qb3+

After 9.gxf4, Black might have recaptured or even tried something more imaginative like 9...Nh5!? 10.fxe5 dxe5 when White will have to cope with Black's grip on the f4-square.

9...Kh8 10.d4

A good reaction: White hits back in the center. It is easy to fall into a rut in the King's Indian Attack, thinking that the d-pawn cannot move forward. But in a position like this some central action is desperately needed.

10...Nh5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Rd1 Qe7 13.Nc4 c6

The pressure on b7 is annoying, as Black would like to develop his lightsquare bishop. By playing ...c6, he defends b7 laterally. But the move also weakens the d6 square slightly. Chess is full of these decisions, tradeoffs. It is often very difficult to say with confidence who comes out better.

14.Nd6!

Slipping into the hole. Now the pressure on b7 is intensified and White has the positional threat of exchanging off the bishop on c8.

14...Bg4

Black understands that the loss of this bishop will leave him in a somewhat passive position. On the other hand, he runs a direct risk here because of the hanging pawn on b7.

15.c4?

White should not trust his opponent but should dive in with 15.Qxb7! Qxb7 (15...Nd7 16.Nf5!! gxf5 17.Rxd7 is sharp but, I suspect, favorable to White.) 16.Nxb7 fxg3 17.hxg3 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Rxf3 19.g4!± when suddenly Black's knight is embarrassed for a retreat square due to the threat of Rd8+.

15...Nd7 16.Qc3 Nc5 17.b4 Ne6!

Black is setting up a cunning tactical shot here.

18.Rd3

Missing the point. 18.c5 is more or less forced.

18...Nd4!

Simultaneously cutting off the knight on d6 and threatening a fork on e2. White is lost.

19.c5?? 0–1

Presumably at this point White realized what he had overlooked and threw in the towel.

Round 4

Sunday morning match-ups reduced the number of perfect scores to two. John Gattinger again drew on board three, this time with Will Scheller. Tim Moroney was victorious over Jon Budzneski on board two. Aaron Kahn defeated Scott Thach on board one. Reports from upstairs suggested that this was Aaron’s most difficult game of the tournament, but Scott suffered from time pressure, mixed up his rook and his bishop, and Aaron’s patience carried the day.

Aaron Kahn (2101)
Scott Thach (1763)
English: Ultra-Symmetrical, A36

Notes by Tim McGrew (TM) and Tony Palmer (TP)

TM: The next game is a truly epic contest that sways back and forth. A sharp opening gives White an edge, but he mishandles it and Black takes up a dominating position in the center. But the pendulum swings back after Black overextends.

1.c4 c5

TP: The Symmetrical English, very versatile for both sides.

2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.a3

TM: This subtle move, which became popular after Taimanov used it successfully in the late 1950's, gives rise to difficult positions requiring great judgment -- particularly from Black.

TP: The prelude to a pawn sacrifice (6. b4!?) which livens things up.

5...e6 6.b4!?

TM: One of the points of 5.a3 is that White can lash out with this gambit.

6...cxb4

TM: This natural move is probably already a microscopic misstep. [Black seems to do better by exploiting the pin on the long diagonal with 6...Nxb4! 7.axb4 cxb4 when White seems to be struggling to prove that he has compensation, e.g. 8.d4 [a) 8.Nb5?! Bxa1 9.Qa4 Bf6 (9...Be5 may be even stronger.) 10.d4 a6 11.Nd6+ Kf8µ Lobron-Kavalek, Bochum 1981.] [b) 8.Rb1 bxc3 9.Nf3!? (TP) 9...Ne7 10.0–0 0–0 11.dxc3 d5µ (TM) Ehlvest-Karjakin, Ordix rapid 2004 (TP: Black is safely out of the opening.)] 8...bxc3 9.e3 Ne7 10.Ne2 d5³ and White's compensation is doubtful because his bishop has been locked out of play. Gurevich-Yudasin, Vidra Memorial 1995.

7.axb4 Nxb4 8.Ba3 Nc6

TM: 8...Bxc3 9.dxc3 scrambles White's queenside pawns but gives White a permanent grip on the dark squares, e.g. 9...Nc6 10.Bd6 Nge7 11.e4 0–0 12.c5² and it is very difficult to find a plan for Black.

TP: 8...Bf8 9.Nf3 Na6!? 10.Nb5 Bxa3 11.Rxa3 Nf6 12.Nd6+ Kf8 13.Ng5 Qe7 14.Ngxf7 Nc7 Haessel-Ramaswamy (Montreal 2001) and White had a winning bind. The knight is more active on c6 than a6.

9.Nb5!

TM: A nice touch. At the moment, the d6-square is more important than the rook on a1.

9...Bf8!

TM: Black must fight for the control of d6, though it is a losing fight under the present circumstances. Of course not 9...Bxa1?? 10.Nd6+ and the discovered check will win Black's queen.

TP: 9...Nge7? 10.Bd6 Qb6 11.Nc7+ Kf8 12.c5 1–0 Amman-Berthelot (Manila 1974) showing the devastating potential of this line.

10.Bb2?!

TM: White flinches and gives up some control of the key d6-square. Better is 10.Bd6! Now the threat of a fork on c7 forces 10...Bxd6 But after 11.Nxd6+ Kf8 12.c5². White's excellent knight gives him more than adequate compensation for the pawn.

10...f6 11.Nf3 a6 12.h4!?

TP: Aggressive, but the c4-pawn is loose. Consider the unassuming 12.d3 first.

12...Na5!

TP: Breaking the pin on the a-file and winning a pawn.

13.Na3 Bxa3 14.Bxa3 Nxc4!

TM: Two extra pawns and no hole on d6 -- this is a dream for Black.

TP: Black is now two pawns up for speculative compensation. If he can develop while still protecting the king, Black should do well.

15.Bb4 d5 16.Bc3 e5

TM: There has been a complete sea change in the position over the last seven moves. Black dominates the board and White's counterplay is invisible.

17.d3 Nd6 18.e3 Ne7 19.Nh2 Nb5!?

TP: Decentralizing the knight, which was well posted on d6, meanwhile Black's development is lagging. Maybe 19...b5 and 20...Bb7, or else 19...Be6 to bring the queen's bishop into the game.

20.Bb2 Nc6 21.h5!

TP: Weakening Black's kingside.

21...Be6 22.Ng4 g5 23.0–0 Rf8

TM: Black secures f6 so that his queen can move. This is perfectly good, but later Black's king suffers from exposure since he never castled.

TP: 23...Qd7?? 24.Nxf6+. The text is necessary before developing the queen to d7.

24.f4

TM: White plays to mix up the position any which way he can.

24...Qd7 25.Bh3 Bxg4

TM: Exchanging pieces when you're ahead is a time-honored method of winning a won game, but here it gives White the bishop pair against a pair of knights. What's worse, it opens the light squares for possible infiltration. Black knows this, and he intends to lock up the pawn structure completely after the exchange to minimize the value of White's bishops. Still, it looks more natural for Black to open the g-file first in order to take advantage of his opponent's king position, e.g. 25...gxf4 26.exf4 Bxg4 27.Bxg4 Qg7 and White has more things to worry about than he did a few moves ago.

26.Bxg4 f5 27.Bh3 g4?!

TM: Here 27...gxf4 is definitely more logical. The only one who benefits from a completely closed kingside is White, who can now turn his attention to the center and queenside in his admittedly desperate attempt to find counterplay.

28.Bg2 e4

TP: Black is closing lines which helps consolidate the two pawn plus. See how White's king bishop is shut out of play, however White's queen bishop controls the long diagonal.

29.dxe4

TM: 29.Qb3

29...dxe4 30.Qb3 Qf7

TM: This is a bit of “bullying” -- Black offers the exchange of queens, knowing that White cannot accept.

31.Qa4 Qxh5

TM: Adding another pawn to Black's winnings. But look closely -- is the h-pawn going to become a queen? Not likely. So the gain of a pawn, though not bad, doesn't have the significance it might in a different position. Black should still be looking for a way to consolidate his position and get his king out of the center.

TP: Three pawns up. Odd as it looks, 31...0–0–0 may actually be a better choice.

32.Rac1 Qf7

TM: Better would be 32...Rd8 Black needs to activate some of the other pieces besides his queen.

33.Rf2 Qe7!?

TP: After playing so well, Black is slipping. The first priority is king safety, so 33...Qe6 and 34...Kf7 hiding on the kingside would be a great plan.

34.Qa1 Rc8?!

TM: Not a very useful move, pinning his own knight. Much better is 34...Nb4! aiming to sink the knight in on d3 when exchanges favorable to Black are inevitable.

35.Bf1 Nc7?

TM: This is a tactical error, but it is a strategic blunder as well. There was no compelling need to avoid the exchange of minor pieces. And where is the knight going from here? 35...Rd8 was still the right move, unpinning the knight and looking for active play on the open d-file.

TP: Drops the exchange due to the Qe7/Rf8 lineup. 35...Qe6 is not as good now because of 36.Bc4 so 35...Nd6 would be strong.

36.Ba3 Qf6 37.Bxf8 Qxf8?

TM: Here Black is at fault for not having seized the opportunity to swap off queens. After 37...Qxa1! 38.Rxa1 Kxf8 Black is fine since his three pawns should outweigh the exchange in the endgame. TP: 37...Qxa1 38.Rxa1 Kxf8 gives Black better chances in the endgame, with three pawns for the exchange.

38.Rh2

TM: Now a cold wind starts to swirl around the denuded Black monarch. Despite the reduction in material, this is a middlegame position -- not an endgame. King safety is of paramount importance. For the record, Black's “extra” h-pawn is something of a burden to him here.

38...h6 39.Qb2 Nb5?!

TP: Black's position is tough, but this drops a key pawn. 39...Nd5 would improve, and then Black can dream about establishing a knight on d3.

40.Bxb5 axb5 41.Qxb5 Rc7?

TM: Falling into passivity. Black needs to activate his queen and take control of squares on the a-file with 41...Qa3! in order to generate some counterplay and draw. Now the game spins out of control.

42.Ra1!

TP: White expertly utilizes the open lines.

42...Qf6 43.Ra8+ Kf7 44.Qd5+ Kg7?

TM: Other moves lose too, but this is the quickest way to the bottom.

TP: Oops. 44...Ke7 was forced.

45.Qg8# 1–0

Jonathan Budzenski (1720)
Timothy Moroney (1905)
French: Exchange, C01

Notes by Tony Palmer

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4!?

This version of the Exchange French has a theoretical drawback because White accepts an isolated queen pawn (IQP) but Black has a rock solid pawn formation, also the queen bishop is free to develop. Compare this to the Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4) where Black gets a bad bishop with 4...e6. However, this line scores well for White in practice.

4...Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Bf5

5...Qe7+ 6.Be3 Nf6 7.h3 Be6 8.Qb3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bxc4 10.Qxc4 c6 Anderssen-Szen (London 1851) with a balanced game.

6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Ne7 8.Nf3 c6 9.Bf4 Ng6 10.Bg3 Qe7+

10...0–0 11.Be2 Re8 12.0–0 Nd7 looks even. Trading queens might help White who has the two bishops for the endgame.

11.Qe2 Nd7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.c5 f6 14.Kd2 Kf7 15.Bd3

15.c4!? Be4 16.Bd3 f5! 17.Ng5+ Kf6 18.Nxe4+ dxe4 19.Bc2 f4 wins a piece, yet this line is not forced. Trading White's good bishop for Black's bad bishop can only help Black.

15...Bxd3 16.Kxd3 b6 17.Bd6 Ne7 18.cxb6

18.a4 Nc8 wins a pawn. Yet opening the a-file exposes the pawn on a3 as a glaring weakness.

18...axb6 19.Bxe7 Kxe7 20.Nd2 Ra4 21.Ra2 Rha8 22.Rha1 Kd6

Black has the superior endgame due to White's passive rooks, however Black's rooks aren't doing much else either. Material is even, so White has very good chances to hold the draw.

23.Nf1 b5 24.Ne3 g6 25.Nc2 Nb6 26.Ne3 Nc4 27.Nc2

27.Nxc4+ bxc4+ 28.Kc2 Rb8 is great for Black.

27...Kd7 28.Ke2 Nd6 29.Kd3 Ne4 30.f3 Nd6 31.Ne3 h5 32.Ke2 Nc4 33.Nc2 Kd6 34.Kd3 g5 35.h3 f5 36.Ke2 Re8+ 37.Kf2 f4 38.Re1 Rea8 39.Rea1 Ke6 40.Re1+ Kd7 41.Rea1 Kd6

Black is making the most out of his position before advancing g5-g4 and opening up the kingside.

42.Kf1 g4! 43.fxg4 hxg4 44.hxg4 Rg8 45.Kf2 Rxg4 46.Kf3 Rg3+ 47.Kxf4 Rxg2

Now the c3-pawn is a glaring weakness, but all the pawns are on the same side of the board, which helps White's drawing chances.

48.Kf3 Rd2 49.Nb4 c5 50.dxc5+ Kxc5 51.Rxd2 Nxd2+ 52.Ke2 Nb3 53.Rd1 Rxa3 54.Rxd5+!?

54.Nxd5 should guarantee the draw, protecting the pawn on c3 while preventing ...b4. The check was probably too tempting.

54...Kc4 55.Rh5

55.Rd3? Nc1+

55...Kxc3 56.Rxb5??

A shame to lose on a blunder. 56.Rh4 holds for now, then White can sacrifice the knight for Black's pawn with a theoretical draw.

56...Nd4+ 57.Ke3 Nxb5 58.Nd5+ Kc4+ 59.Ke4 Nd6+ 60.Ke5 0–1

Black wins easily after 60...Ra5 61.Kxd6 Rxd5+. A great game by both players.

Christopher Schmidt (1333)
Anatoli Zaremba (1483)
Sicilian: Sozin, B57

Notes by Tony Palmer

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3

White can take advantage of Black's move order by 5.c4 creating a Maroczy Bind formation, controlling d5 with a solid game. The text transposes into the main lines.

5...Nf6 6.Bc4

Air it out!

6...Qb6 7.Nxc6 bxc6

7...Qxc6?? 8.Bb5 1–0.

8.Bb3

8.0–0 e6 9.Bf4 Qxb2!? 10.Qd3 Qb4 11.Rab1 Qc5 Fischer-Byrne (Manhattan 1971) gave White good compensation for the pawn. Note this was a blitz game where they might have taken more chances than otherwise.

8...g6 9.Be3 Qc7 10.f3

The game is taking on a new character, more of a Dragon set-up for Black, and thus a Yugoslav set-up for White (Be3/f3). Yet White rarely castles queenside here due to the half open b-file.

10...Bg7 11.Qd2 h5 12.0–0–0!?

Going for it!

12...c5?!

Weaknening the queenside light squares which proves harmful. Consider playing 12...0–0 safeguarding the king and preparing for battle.

13.Nd5 Nxd5?

13...Qb7 14.Ba4+ Kf8 and Black is still in the game. The text loses a piece due to the threat on f7.

14.Qxd5 Be6

14...Bb7 15.Qxf7+ Kd7 16.Qxg7 also wins for White.

15.Ba4+ Kd8 16.Qxa8+ Bc8 17.Qc6

White has an easy win.

17...Qb8 18.Qb5 Qc7 19.Bxc5 Bd7 20.Qxd7+ Qxd7 21.Bxd7 Kxd7 22.Bd4 Bh6+ 23.Kb1 Ra8 24.Rd3 a6 25.Rhd1 Bf4 26.h3 1–0

Thomas Hoffman (1191)
Nataiya Taliaferro (899)
Queen's Gambit Declined, D35

Notes by Tim McGrew

White's play in this game has a clean, fresh feel -- the moves seem right, and White's attack unfolds without any dreadful blunder by Black.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6

If Black wants to defend the pawn, 2...e6 is better.

3.Nc3

3.cxd5! would lure something into the center to get batted around.

3...e6 4.e3

This is a fairly passive way to handle the Queen's Gambit.

4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4

Now we've transposed into a Nimzo-Indian line where ...Nc6 is rare but not unheard-of.

6.Qc2 0–0 7.Bd3 g6

This is an instructive moment. Black, fearing the power of the battery on the diagonal leading to h7, creates a permanent structural weakness on the kingside. At the moment there is no attack in sight, but White now plays consistently to exploit the darksquare holes.

8.0–0 Bd7 9.Bd2 Bxc3?

This is not a tactical blunder, but it is a clear strategic error. Black will miss this piece, which is really wanted on the kingside for defense now. 9...Be7 looks more circumspect.

10.Bxc3 Kg7?

This move gives a hostage to White, putting the king on the same diagonal as the bishop. Many players do not understand that center pawn structures can shift and that such a lineup can create grave tactical problems later.

11.Rfe1 Qe8 12.e4!

White correctly judges that it will favor him to open the center.

12...dxe4 13.Bxe4

Now the threat of d5 is constantly over Black's head.

13...Nxe4 14.Rxe4 Ne7

To preserve the knight, which was menaced by 15.d5+.

15.Rae1

Here and on the next move White could play d5 to good effect, but he plays to invade at the hole on h6.

15...Nc8 16.Qd2 Nd6 17.d5+ Kg8 18.Rh4 Nf5 19.Rh3

All very consistent!

19...c6 20.g4!

Perfect. White does not fear moving the pawns in front of his king since he recognizes that he is close to his goal.

20...Nd6 21.Qh6

Two focal points beckon, one at g7 and one at h7. Black is defenseless.

21...f6 22.Qxh7# 1–0

Round 5

Board one in round five had the same players from the 2004 tournament, with one key difference; a draw had the potential to create a three-way tie for first place. Aaron Kahn retained his title of Michigan Junior Champion for the third year in a row with his victory over Tim Moroney. However, unlike the previous two years, no one joined Aaron as co-champion. Chris Schmidt was clear second with four and a half points. He scored a final round victory over Will Scheller on board two. Tim Moroney was the first of five players with four points.

Timothy Moroney (1905)
Aaron Kahn (2101)
Sicilian: Chekhover, B53

Notes by Tim McGrew (TM) and Tony Palmer (TP)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4!?

TM: The Hungarian Variation is one of White's better Anti-Sicilian weapons, dodging the heavily analyzed main lines. This is not the first time that Moroney and Kahn have crossed swords in this line.

TP: An interesting alternative to 4.Nxd4. The centralized queen often gets hit by 4...Nc6 and then 5.Bb5 leads to an unbalanced game.

4...a6

TM: Black spends a tempo to prevent a Bb5 pin. Of course, in many Sicilian lines the move ...a6 proves useful, denying White the use of the b5 square and preparing queenside expansion. But in this variation in particular it weakens the b6 square. The normal continuation 4...Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 and 7.c4 gives White a favorable Maroczy Bind formation.

TP: Black delays 4...Nc6 for now and prevents Bb5 ideas. This line works well in practice.

5.Bg5

TM: It is not clear to me that White actually profits from this sortie with the bishop. 5.c4 right away looks logical, seizing space in response to Black's loss of time. 5.Be3 also has a point since it could lead to something similar to the note to White's 7th move, below.

TP: A standard maneuver to redeploy the queen's bishop to g3. 5.Bf4?? e5.

5...h6

TM: This may actually be an inaccuracy. By playing 5...Nc6 first to drive away White's queen, Black could avoid the possibility in my next note.

6.Be3

TP: 6.Bh4 Nc6 7.Qd2 g5 8.Bg3 Bg7 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.0–0–0 Be6 Rozentalis-Ftacnik (Tyskland 1994) with chances for both sides.

6...Nc6 7.Qd2

TM: White should seriously consider invading the weakened dark squares with 7.Qb6 This idea is seen more often in the 5.Be3 lines -- just nudge Black's h-pawn back a square. The difference isn't too significant here. White probably has a small pull in the positions after the queen exchange, and given what happens in this game I'm sure Tim Moroney wishes he had settled for that.

7...Nf6 8.Nc3 e6

TP: Both players know this line deeply, so they were well prepared.

9.a4

TM: This preventative thrust limits White's options. In particular, Whtie often castles queenside in the Hungarian Variation, and that is obviously not an option any more.

TP: 9.h3 Be7 10.a4 0–0 11.Be2 Qc7 12.0–0 b6 Radlovacki-Balogh (Novi Sad 2002) with a level game, later drawn.

9...Qc7 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nd4 Bd7 12.f4 Rb8 13.0–0 0–0

TP: White has a slight advantage in space, also central control, but Black's formation is solid. Chances are even.

14.e5?

TM: This central push is mistimed. White would love to get a whole bunch of open lines and perhaps come crashing through with sacrifices at h6 and f6, but all that really happens is that he gets a weak pawn in the center.

TP: A pawn sacrifice to open lines. Consider 14.g4 instead, especially since Black's queen bishop is not on the long diagonal.

14...dxe5 15.Nxc6?

TM: This exchange develops Black's lightsquare bishop to a better square. 15.fxe5 Nxe5 16.Bf4 shouldn't work, but it would at least keep an extra pair of minor pieces on. Where there are enough minor pieces, there's always the hope of stirring up trouble!

15...Bxc6 16.f5

TP: A consistent follow-up to 14.e5!? yet Black's kingside has no weaknesses.

16...Rbd8 17.Qe1 Nd5!

TP: This is a sound strategy: chop wood to repel the attack.

18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.f6!?

TM: This bold and desperate move shows that White realizes his is losing control of the game. 19.c4 Be4 20.fxe6 f5!µ leaves the orphaned e-pawn to be plucked off at Black's leisure.

19...Bxf6 20.Rxf6!?

TP: An enterprising exchange sacrifice for play on the weakened dark squares. White is playing to win.

20...gxf6

White to Move

21.Bxh6?

TM: Exchanges, as my students have heard me say far too many times, are comparisons. Here White is exchanging his c-pawn for Black's h-pawn. Who gets the better of the deal? Easy -- White is losing a healthy pawn on his majority wing, while Black is losing an isolated weakling. If White nabs the exchange back on f8, Black is left with an enormous block of pawns in the center that will dominate the endgame. And to top it all off, from c2 Black's queen will have a diagonal back to the kingside to stop any attacking plans White may devise. 21.c3! saves the c-pawn and locks Black's queen out of the kingside play for the time being. One strange-looking possibility is 21...f5 22.Bxh6 f6 23.Qg3+ Kh7 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 when Black's solid block of pawns is as geometrically pleasing as it is strategically puzzling. Probably Black has the advantage here despite his exposed king. 21.Qg3+ comes close but fizzles against good defense: 21...Kh7 (21...Kh8 22.Qh4 Qxc2 23.Bxh6 Qg6 24.Bf1² with Ra3-g3 coming up.) 22.Qh3 (22.Bxh6?? Rg8-+) 22...Qxc2 23.Bxh6 Kg8 24.Ra3 Be4!-+ and White's attack runs out of gas.

21...Qxc2

TP: Giving the exchange back while grabbing another pawn.

22.Ra3

TP: 22.Qg3+ Qg6 holds.

22...Be4!

TM: A critical move. The exchange doesn't matter: getting back to g6 does.

23.Rg3+ Bg6 24.Qf1 Qf5

TM: 24...f5 would be even more convincing, intending an eventual ...f4.

25.Rf3 Qb1!

TM: Forcing queens off. This may not be the sharpest way to play the position, but it is very practical.

TP: Black alertly forces a queen trade, leaving the favorable endgame.

26.Bxf8 Qxf1+ 27.Kxf1 Kxf8 28.Rxf6

TP: Black is only one pawn up, so it will take some technique to convert the win. White has good chances to draw if the pawns can be traded off safely.

28...Rd4!

TM: Black's pieces have so much activity that White's h-pawn will never turn into a threat. Here Black uses his initiative to force White's queenside pawns onto light squares where they will later prove vulnerable.

29.b3 Bf5 30.Bh5 Rd7

TM: I wonder whether Black was tempted by the idea 30...Rh4 31.Rxf7+ Kg8 32.Rxb7 Rxh5...

31.g4 Kg7

TP: A good zwischenzug (in-between move) gaining time by hitting the rook. 31...Ke7? 32.Rxf7+.

32.g5 Bc2 33.Rf3 e4 34.Rc3 Bd3+ 35.Kf2 f5!

TP: Black has made very good progress. White must trade, otherwise Black's pawn cluster will march right down the board.

36.gxf6+ Kxf6 37.Bg4 Ke5 38.Ke3 Rh7 39.h3

TP: Notice all the pawns are now on light squares, however Black's pieces are much better situated and his king placement is superior. Black now has a decisive advantage.

39...Bf1 40.Rc5+

TM: Tim was probably in desperate time pressure somewhere around here. The rook check is a fine move if its purpose is just to drive back the Black king.

40...Kd6 41.Rh5?

TM: The simplification here makes Black's job easier. 41.Rc1! keeps the play complex and may even give White some drawing chances. Of course Black cannot reply 41...Bxh3? because of 42.Rh1 when Black has nothing better than to give up the bishop and vacuum up White's pawns, e.g. 42...Rg7 43.Bxh3 Rg3+ 44.Kxe4 Rxb3 and a draw is almost inevitable.

TP: There was no other way to defend the h-pawn however trading rooks helps Black.

41...Rxh5 42.Bxh5 Bxh3 43.Kxe4

TM: Shift Black's bishop to h4, creating opposite color bishops, and this endgame is a simple draw. That one detail makes a world of difference! Now the rest is just a matter of decent technique.

43...Kc5 44.Kd3 Kb4 45.Bd1 Bg2 46.Kc2 Bd5 47.Kb2 e5

TP: Excellent play by Black who now has an easy win.

48.a5 e4 49.Bc2 e3 50.Bd1 Bxb3! 51.Be2 Bc4 52.Bxc4 Kxc4 53.Kc2 Kb4 54.Kd3 Kxa5 55.Kxe3 Kb4 56.Kd2 a5 57.Kc2 a4 58.Kb2 a3+ 59.Ka2 Ka4 60.Ka1 b5 0–1

TP: Nice game by both sides.

Scott Thach beat fellow senior teammate Eric Myers in the final round to finish in 4th place.

Scott Thach (1763)
Eric Myers (1313)
Philidor: Exchange, C41

Notes by Tony Palmer

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6

Philidor's Defense, solid but somewhat restricting for Black.

3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4

White already has an advantage in space plus the only pawn in the center. Black must play patient defense until White shows his hand more.

4...Be7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bc4 0–0 7.Bb3

7.0–0 Nxe4! 8.Nxe4 d5 and the fork trick helps Black to equalize.

7...Bd7

7...a6 8.0–0 c5 9.Nf3 b5 10.Bd5 Ra7 Watai-Starr (Haifa 1976) where Black mobilized the queenside pawns with tempo, also swung the queen's rook over to e7 later, giving Black a good game.

8.0–0 a6 9.f3 Nc6 10.a4 Ne5 11.Bf4 h6 12.Qe1 Ng6 13.Be3 Kh8

White has an advantage in space; also more centralized pieces, yet Black's set-up is quite solid. Chances are equal.

14.Qg3 Nh5 15.Qe1 c5 16.Nde2 b5

Black is gaining ground on the queenside.

17.Bd5 Rb8 18.axb5 axb5 19.Qd2 b4 20.Nd1 Kh7 21.Nf2 Nf6 22.c4 Nxd5

22...bxc3 23.bxc3 Nxd5 24.exd5 Bb5 might have given Black more play on the queenside instead of trading immediately.

23.exd5 Kg8 24.g4 Nh4 25.Nd3

Black threatened the family fork 25...Nxf3+ and 26...Nxd2.

25...f5 26.gxf5 Bxf5 27.Ne1 Bh3 28.Rf2 Qe8

With the queenside blockaded, Black sets his sights on a kingside attack.

29.Ng3 Qg6 30.Kh1 Nf5

30...Rf7 31.Nd3 Rbf8 32.Nf4 Qh7 with an exciting fight on the kingside. Trading knights off helps White here.

31.Nxf5 Rxf5 32.Nd3 Bh4 33.Nf4 Rxf4

33...Qf7 34.Nxh3 Bxf2 35.Nxf2 Rxf3 and White's two pieces are better than Black's rook.

34.Bxf4 Bxf2 35.Qxf2 Rf8 36.Qg3 Qxg3

36...Qh5 37.Ra7 g5 38.Bxd6 Rxf3 39.Ra8+ Kg7 40.Qe5+ and White wins. The text trades off queens but the endgame might be hard to hold given the fixed pawn chain weakness at d6.

37.Bxg3 Rf6

37...Rxf3 38.Bxd6 Rf2 39.Bxc5 Rxb2 looks better for White, although the king is stuck on the first rank.

38.Kg1 Kf7 39.Kf2 Bg4 40.Ra7+ Kg6 41.Ra6 Rxf3+ 42.Ke1 Rf6 43.Rxd6 Kf5 44.Rxf6+ gxf6 45.b3

45.Bd6 picks off both pawns, but White sees another way.

45...Ke4 46.Kd2

46.Bd6 Kd4 47.Be7 f5 48.Bf6+ Kd3 49.Be7 Kd4 should draw.

46...f5 47.Bf2

Aha! Black cannot defend c5 anyway, therefore the pawns fall and White wins.

47...Ke5 48.Bxc5 f4 49.Bxb4 Kd4 50.Bc3+ Kc5 51.Ke1 Bf5 52.Kd1 f3 53.Be1 Kd4 54.Kd2 Bb1 55.Bf2+

Good technique by White, consolidating defense of the passed f-pawn before advancing the queenside pawns to victory.

55...Ke5 56.Bg3+ Kf6 57.b4 Ke7 58.c5 Be4 59.d6+ Kd8 60.b5 Bd5 61.c6 Kc8 62.d7+ Kd8 63.Bh4+ 1–0

Interesting game, well played on both ends.

John Gattinger finished in fifth place. He was undefeated throughout the tournament, but early draws kept him from a higher finish. With the larger field, we awarded overall trophies to all players scoring four points. Jon Budzenski defeated Tim Johnson in the final round to move into sixth place and Ashley Carter received seventh place for her victory over Brent Kowalski.

Ashley Carter (1751)
Brent Kowalski (1276)
Slav, D10

Notes by Tony Palmer

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6

The Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defense, giving Black good chances to equalize since the queen's bishop isn't blocked in as after 2...e6.

3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3

4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 is an entirely different game altogether.

4...Bf5 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3

This trade helps Black, however White intends e3-e4 and there isn't much Black can do about it.

6...e6 7.Nf3 Bd6

7...Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2 0–0 Haik-Stefanova (Cannes 1996) with an even game.

8.0–0 Qc7 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nbd7 11.Re1 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 0–0–0!?

A bold decision since Black looks fine after 12...Nf6 and 13...0–0.

13.Bg5 Rde8 14.d5!

Blowing open the center, since Black can't take with the e-pawn due to the weak back rank.

14...h6 15.Bh4 g5 16.dxe6!

16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3 e5 18.dxc6 bxc6 and Black holds. The text is a nice zwischenzug.

16...Rxe6 17.Qd4

White gains time against the undefended rook on h8.

17...Rhe8 18.Rxe6 Rxe6 19.Bg3 Ne5?!

19...a6 or 19...Kb8 was necessary. Now White wins a pawn and infiltrates with her queen.

20.Nxe5 Bxe5 21.Qxa7 Bxg3 22.hxg3 Re2 23.Qd4

Defending b2 before proceeding -- a prudent choice.

23...Qd7 24.Qh8+

24.Qxd7+ Kxd7 25.b3 Kd6 would be difficult to win. White keeps the queens on the board.

24...Kc7 25.Qxh6 Qf5

25...Qd4! 26.Rf1 Qxc4 27.Qxg5 Qxa2 (27...Rxb2?? 28.Qe5+ and Black has excellent chances to draw.)

26.Rf1 Rxb2 27.a3 Kb6 28.Qh8 Ra2 29.Qd8+ Kc5??

A blunder. 29...Ka7 works instead.

30.Qa5+ 1–0

Great game with outstanding fighting spirit by both players.

With the insurgence of younger students competing in the top section of the junior, we have handed out additional grade prizes for several years. This year, four non-high school students entered the tournament. Zach Johnson took up the challenge of playing in the K-8 tournament as well as the K-12. He scored two and a half points in the Junior section to finish as the top eighth and under student. He was joined by Atulya Shetty, who also scored two and a half points, but elected to play only in the K-8 tournament on Sunday. Goutham Kappa received third place amongst the non-high school students.

Ninth-graders Brent Kowalski, Roger Jia, and Thomas Hoffman, all scored three points and finished first, second, and third in ninth grade, respectively. Sophomores Anatoli Zaremba, and Nick Perlongo both scored three and a half points to finish in first and second places. Third place in tenth grade was awarded to three-pointer, Nick Applebee. Juniors winning grade prizes were Will Scheller with three and a half points, and finishing in second and third were Derek Wilder and Phil Kautz, each with three points. The top seniors were Randall Brooks with three and a half points and Eric Myers and Tim Johnson, with three.

First and second place winners, Aaron Kahn and Chris Schmidt will receive Michigan Chess scholarships of $300 and $150, respectively. Aaron Kahn will represent Michigan at the Denker Invitational tournament of high school champions this summer and Ashley Carter will represent Michigan in the Polgar invitational tournament for girls. Both of these events will be held concurrent with the US Open this summer in Phoenix. Aaron and Ashley were the Michigan representatives to the 2004 events and both scored very well. Congratulations to all of the winners and participants.

Young Junior (K-8) Championship

By Jennifer Skidmore

Like the Young Junior Reserve, the 2005 Young Junior Championship met with at startling drop in attendance. Unlike the 75 participants in the 2004 event, only 49 players entered the field. The 2005 field was quite strong, including three B-players, top-seeded James Canty III, Justin Brereton, and two-time defending champion, Neal Anderson. 47 of the 49 entrants were rated suggesting an experienced and competitive tournament. No upsets came on the top nine boards, but six came from the bottom half of the field, perhaps because of a smaller disparity amongst the ratings of the players involved. There were very few early draws, leaving a large group of perfect scores at the end of the second round. Justin Brereton, James Canty III, Diana Tabak, Neal Anderson, Eric Larson, Dalton Barksdale, Atulya Shetty, Bethel McGrew, Chris Autera-Polzin, Gary Tsai, and Cameron Beatty were the eleven players with two points.

In round three, James Canty, Justin Brereton, and Neal Anderson maintained form by winning on the top three boards over Cameron Beatty, Dalton Barksdale, and Bethel McGrew, respectively. Diana Tabak and Atulya Shetty drew on table four while Gary Tsai and Eric Larson made the total perfect scores five with their respective wins over Chris Autera-Polzin and Robert Taliaferro II.

Round four match-ups included a win by James Canty over Gary Tsai on table one and win by Justin Brereton over Neal Anderson on table two. Eric Larson became the third perfect score with a win over Atulya Shetty on table three, and Diana Tabak rebounded from her round three draw with a win over Josh Patton on table four.

Round five began with the possibility of co-champions with perfect scores and ended in a three-way tie for first place where all of the players had four and a half. Diana Tabak defeated Eric Larson on table two to lead the field with four and a half points. This was Eric’s only loss in two days as he won the Children’s championship on Saturday. James Canty and Justin Brereton proved as evenly matched as their ratings suggested and ended the game on board one in a draw. Thus, the 2005 Young Junior co-champions are Justin Brereton from Okemos Kinawa, James Canty from Detroit Bates, and Diana Tabak, from West Bloomfield.

Rounding out the top five were two of the four players with four points. Neal Anderson won in the final round over Gary Tsai to finish in fourth place and collected his third top five trophy in three years. Eric Larson finished in fifth place.

Atulya Shetty and Jacob Fauman, both with three and a half points, won grade prizes amongst the fifth grade and under students. Prashantha Amarsinghe finished in third place with two and a half points.

No sixth graders won overall prizes. Finishing first amongst the sixth graders was Bethel McGrew with three and a half points. Bethel equaled her point-total from last year, but the smaller section certainly made this result a more competitive one. Ian Edgerle from host school East Grand Rapids also scored three and a half points. Finishing in third, from Okemos Kinawa, was Matthew Hempel with three points.

The seventh graders look to be a strong group. Top-seeded James Canty became one of the three co-champions and his teammate on championship Bates team, Dalton Barksdale finished first among seventh graders with four points. Max Wilson from Okemos Kinawa also scored four points to finish second among seventh graders. Cameron Beatty from Ann Arbor Emerson finished with three points and received the third place seventh grade award.

Eighth graders won three of the top five awards. Receiving the first place eighth grade trophy was Chris Autera-Polzin from Lansing with three and a half points. In second place was Gary Tsai with three points and receiving the third place trophy, also with three points was Zach Johnson from Flint. Zach also played in the Junior section on Sunday.

Congratulations to the 2005 co-champions Justin Brereton, James Canty III, and Diana Tabak.

Young Junior (K-8) Reserve

By Jennifer Skidmore

With 34 players, the 2005 Young Junior Reserve tournament had 21 fewer participants than the 2004 field. However, this made for an extremely competitive tournament with few draws.

Erik Bolda scored a perfect five and zero to win the event. His games included victories over Thundill Champion, Nathaniel Weiss, Aaron Bunker, David Lu, and Domenic DiGiovine. Erik’s perfect score was an impressive feat as he was originally the eighth seed in the event.

Domenic DiGiovine from Ann Arbor Logan Elementary finished in second place ahead of three other players with four points. Domenic won the 2004 Children’s Reserve tournament. This year, he scored wins against Leonard Thomas, Kailash Krishnan, Michael Pelton, and eventual fourth place finisher Shrayven Wells before losing to Erik Bolda in the final round.

Andrew Smith, from host school East Grand Rapids, scored four points to finish in third place. He defeated Sam Snyder in round one, and eventual fifth place finisher Ashwin Fujii in round two before losing to Shrayven Wells in round three. Andrew completed his four-point performance by winning against Benjamin Kehoe and Tom Spitzer.

Shrayven Wells, from Detroit Edison, finished in fourth place with four points. She won her first three games against William Rebholz, Raphael Wieland, and Andrew Smith before losing to Domenic DiGiovine in round four. She then completed her performance with a final round win against Aaron Bunker.

Ashwin Fujii from Ann Arbor Thurston finished in fifth place with four points. Ashwin defeated Visakan Jayakumar in round one, lost to Andrew Smith in round two, and scored wins over Joshua Roger, Corey Thomas, and David Lu in the final three rounds.

Congratulations to Erik and all of the participants.

Children’s (K-5) Championship

By Jeff Aldrich

This section also saw a significant drop in attendance compared to last year. A total of 39 players came to battle it out for the state’s K-5 individual championship. Five players came in with ratings over 1000. Two of the three did not make it past round one unscathed as Srinivas Srirangam upset Alan Li and Bradley Petrowitz defeated Graham Keep.

In the second round, number one seed, Jacob Fauman, fell of the pace as William Liu, one of our National Champions, held him to a draw. Nine players head to round three perfect.

Things went according to form in round three as the higher rated player won on the top five boards. A quad of players stays perfect: Eric Larson, Jalen Smith, Nishant Jain, and Daron Brown.

In the fourth round, Eric Larson defeated Daron Brown while Nishant Jain pulled a small upset of Jalen Smith. After a round two draw, Srinivas Srirangam kept winning to put himself within as the only player one-half point off the pace.

Eric Larson held strong in round five to stay perfect and become the 2005 Michigan Children’s (K-5) Champion. With four victories and a draw against higher rated opponents, Srinivas Srirangam earns second place. Nishant Jain’s four wins put him in position for third place. Demetrius Brown had two drawn in route to his four points and takes the fourth place trophy. Daron Brown came back in round five to win his fourth game and take fifth place.

The fifth grade prizes were all taken home by players scoring three and a half points. Jalen Smith took first on tie-breaks, followed by Alan Li and Raghuveer Achukola.

For grade four, Waleed Yassine was the only player to score three and half points and earn the top fourth grade prize. A pair of three pointers in Jacob Fauman and Nathan Janick took second and third, respectively, in their grade.

Children’s (K-5 U700)

Reserve By Jeff Aldrich

Like the K-5 Championship section, attendance in this one was way down from last year. A total of 28 players competed. Next year, bring a friend.

The section champion with a perfect score was Yosef Moore, from Detroit Bates. He scores victories over Alexander Pulice, Megan Voisard, Daniel Mandell, Amir Jairazbhoy, and Brady Woods. Congratulations to Yosef.

Finishing in second place with four points was Brady Woods. Brady won his first games before succumbing to Yosef Moore in the last round. His victories were against Basel Alghanem, Evan Piotrowski, Amir Jairazbhoy, and Troy Spell.

Third place was won by Canzhi Ye, whom also scored four points. He won his first two games over John Kelly and Nicholas Bos. He was then slowed with a third round defeat to Troy Spell, but came back strong with wins in the final two rounds over Sharath Anand and Daniel Mandell.

The final four pointer was Samir Desai, whom won the fourth place trophy. Samir lost his first round game to Andrew Pruim, and then reeled off four wins against Gage Matthews, Heidi Hoess, Elizabeth Roger, and Kevin Fernandes.

Two three and a half pointers tied for fifth place. Heidi Hoess took the trophy on tiebreaks over Troy Spell, whom she drew with in the last round. A couple of wins over James Keane Jr. and Sharath Anand were followed by a loss to fourth place finisher, Samir Desai. Heidi also picked up a fourth round victory over John Kelly.

Young Children’s (K-3) Championship

The 2005 Young Children’s Championship was smaller than the 2004 event by eight participants. The experienced field included defending co-champion and top seed, Michael Carter, three other players rated over 1000, and a total of 34 rated participants.

No startling upsets occurred in rounds one and two. Perfect scores at the end of round two included Andrew Ying, Michael Carter, Ryan Leever, Kyle Webster, Epiphany Peters, Charlie Fauman, Jacob Seeterlin, Skanda Palanirajan, and Meredith Fox.

In round three, draws on tables one and four between Skanda Palanirajan and Michael Carter, and Charlie Fauman and Epiphany Peters, respectively, reduced the number of perfect scores by two. Wins by Deniz Gulari, Joseph Tang, and Haoyang Tang brought the number of players with two and a half points to seven. The only two perfect scores remaining at the end of the round were Kyle Webster and Ryan Leever, as they defeated Andrew Ying and Jacob Seeterlin, respectively.

Round four saw the meeting of the only two perfect scores and some fierce match-ups amongst those players with two and a half. Ryan Leever was victorious over Kyle Webster on table one to become the only player with four points. Joseph Tang, Epiphany Peters, and Charlie Fauman each won their game against Michael Carter, Skanda Palanirajan, and Deniz Gulari respectively, to move to three and a half points.

The trophy round proved to be continually challenging for the tournament participants. Ryan Leever defeated Epiphany Peters to complete his perfect tournament and become the 2005 Young Children’s Champion. Epiphany finished with three and a half points and won the top second-grade prize. Joseph Tang from Ann Arbor Haisley defeated Charlie Fauman from Ann Arbor Summer’s Knoll to win clear second place with four and a half points. With his three and a half points, Charlie Fauman won the top first grade prize. Resurgent performances by Kyle Webster, Andrew Ying, and Debra Yan brought their totals to four points and rounded out the top five. Kyle Webster from Ann Arbor Summer’s Knoll defeated Anika Pruim to finish in third place. Andrew Ying defeated Haoyang Tang and Jacob Seeterlin in rounds four and five to finish with four points and in fourth place. Haoyang and Jacob won the third and second place awards amongst third graders. Debra Yan, from Okemos Cornell, lost to Charlie Fauman in the second round before winning three in a row against Jared Dempsey, Meredith Fox, and Max Danielwicz to finish in fifth place.

Michael Carter was the top third grader not receiving an overall prize. He finished with three and a half points. Michael recently led the Monroe Custer team to first place at the Primary team tournament.

Second graders not winning overall prizes included second place finisher Deniz Gulari from Ann Arbor King with three and a half points and third place finisher, Russ Lupino from Bobcean, who scored three points.

No students in first grade or in kindergarten received overall prizes. Rounding out the grade prizewinners amongst first graders were Bemis teammates Skanda Palanirajan and Safal Bora. Skanda finished in second place with three points and Safal received the third place trophy with two and a half. A record seven kindergarteners entered the tournament. Julian Wellman scored three points to demonstrate a clearly superior skill-level. He received the first place trophy. Joshua Tang, from Ann Arbor Haisley, scored two and a half to finish in second place. Rounding out the kindergarten trophies and scoring two points was Cassius Cook, the son of Wayne coach, John Cook.

Congratulations to all of the participants and 2005 champion, Ryan Leever.

Young Children’s (K-3 U500) Reserve

The 2005 Young Children’s Reserve tournament continued to grow. This year a record 38 participants entered the field. Nine rated players led the section, but none of them finished in the top five. This illustrates the large numbers of improving students throughout the state.

Michael Shi was the 2005 Young Children’s Reserve winner with a perfect five and zero score. He had a bye in round one followed by victories over Dariel Zullo, Lynus Zullo, Cameron Ball, and Larry Chen.

Edgar Witowski scored four and a half to finish in second place. He drew with Corey Stratz in round one before scoring four straight victories over Andrea Petrowitz, Camron Barksdale, Cameron Ball, and Jeffrey Waldmiller.

Larry Chen lost only in the final round, to champion Michael Shi. His four points in the first four rounds earned him third place. En route, he defeated Adam Petrowitz, Cheri Agner, Ian Epke, and eventual fourth place finisher, Hidde Dijkstra.

Hidde Dijkstra lost only in round four to Larry Chen. Hidde’s victories included wins over Andrea Petrowitz, Dylan Edgerle, Cheyenne Honey, and Dariel Zullo.

Finishing in fifth place with four points was Eric Vitek. Eric defeated Abhijit Das, lost against Ian Epkey, and won his remaining three games against Cole Goaotley, Cheyenne Honey, and Alexander Vidovic.

Congratulations to winner Michael Shi and all participants.