Ed Left PhotoLogoEd Right Photo

2010 U.S. Amateur West

Andy Lebovitz 2010 Winner
Andrew Lebovitz 1st Place Tie-Breaks

Equal 1st Joseph Kruml both at 5 wins 1 Loss
3rd Place - Bryan Hu with 4 Wins, 1 Loss and 1 Draw
Championship Section:
  1. Andrew Lebovitz (5 - 1)
  2. Joseph Kruml (5 - 1)
  3. Bryan Hu (4.5 - 1.5)
 Reserve Section:
  1. Raymond Tan (5.5 - 0.5)
  2. Jeff Semmens (5 - 1)
  3. Alek Pensky (4.5 - 1.5)
 Booster Section:
  1. Evan Kuo (5 - 1)
  2. Neal Schrodetzki (5 - 1)
  3. Zac Smith (4.5 - 1.5)





Report by Steve Farmer

     This year showed some exciting chess from the top players and inventive play from the rest of the field. The Championship section fielded 45 players Won by Lebovitz and Kruml, the Reserve also had 45 players and was won by Ray Tan with 5 1/2 points giving up only one draw to the 2nd place Jeff Semmens and the Booster Section had 21 players which was won by Evan Kuo.

     In the Booster Section play was wild and sometimes disappointing. In putting together the games in PGN format I noticed several players meandering in the opening, then as if by divine inspiration one player would strike upon a good plan and follow it for a long time, only to have a momentary lapse and allow a simple combination or even a Mate in one to spoil all their hard work.

     The Reserve Section was much more stable, yet there too, some players seemed to lack a solid plan of action and often their opponent refused to follow suit and it cost them the point. By far the most consistent players in this section were the three prize winners along with Rex Tan and James Broyles.

     The Champion Section was exciting as always. Both of the 1st Place Winners are personal friends and it was hard for me to pick a favorite but I have to say that Andy Lebovitz played an absolutely powerful tournament! Of course, the first round was not much of a match up, so that point could be counted before the start of the tournament (he beat Ed Collins, a 1690 player). In round 2 he had a pretty easy time with Justin Arnold, a 1856 player. Round 3 is where he started to show his power play by mauling Fletcher Peavy who is rated 1971 and made a sacrifice from a superior opening to force a mate in eight. Round 4 was Andy's only low point when he lost his individual encounter with Joseph Kruml. Andy played passively and failed to take Joe's activity seriously and as a result Joe's typical methodical play ruled the day. In round 5 Andy got back in the saddle and dismantled Pavel Savine, a very strong 2012 player (and under-rated in my opinion). This was a very interesting game that resembled the games from the Golden Era of Chess - Pasha came very close to being mated in the middle of the board - but avoiding the mate forced him to lose material.

Championship Section - The Final Round:

     The emotions and nerves are always high in the final round and this case was no exception. Earlier in the tournament Joe Kruml had lost to Bryan Hu and Bryan had drawn his game against Pavel Savine (just barely, Pasha missed a nice win in severe time pressure). Speaking of Pasha, he was also in the hunt if he could win his last round, but he needed help from the other top players to get in the top three.  So, the stage is set; Bryan Hu with 4.5/5 needed a draw or a win to take 1st. Andy and Joe both at 4/5 needed a win, Paul Motta also need a win as he stood at 4/5, Pasha needed a win and Andy, Paul and Joe to draw or lose their games.

     Joe was paired against Paul Motta as he had lost his encounter with Bryan Hu in the previous round. Paul was a daring style of play, opting for odd gambits and such. I didn't give Paul much of a chance in this game due directly to this aspect. At this level and higher you need a strong and solid opening repertoire, something that gives you chances and your opponent the bare minimum. I felt that Joe is such a solid player that handling Paul would be a rather routine matter - such was not the case and I will explain later.

     Pavel was pitted against Fletcher Peavy. Fletcher didn't give an inch and held Pasha to a draw. Fletcher is a strong player but not solid. He is still a young lad and bounces from one extreme to another. He is capable of some very solid play and yet, as in his game against Andy Lebovitz, he folded like a house of cards. I think that if Fletcher were to work on his openings a bit and understand some of the intricacies of move-orders, he will go far to improve his game. Personally, I also feel he needs to widen his repertoire a bit. By doing so one has to rededicate himself to the game and this can bring things back into focus that have been forgotten. Widening the repertoire also has the effect of better understanding various move-order concepts as you begin to assimilate one type of opening with another so that you are rarely caught off-balance. In this game, give Fletcher his proper due, he held a tough opponent to a draw - knocking Pasha out of hopes for the top three slots.

     On Board One Andy Lebovitz had the White pieces against Bryan Hu. In October of last year Andy beat Bryan in a Catalan and before the game we determined that Bryan would most likely follow along the lines of that game. Our estimation was not unfounded, in the October game (by transposition) Bryan played 8. ... QN-Q2 and in this game he opted for 8. ... B-Q2. After the end of Round 5 Andy and I talked in-depth about the pairing possibilities and determined that Andy would have White against Bryan. We examined what we knew about Bryan and came up with a plan. From our estimation Bryan does have a chink in his armor (mind you, he is only 13 and already just a few rating points from being a National Master). We determined that Bryan had two weaknesses; his tactical knowledge will not be on par with a more experienced player, and he does not seem to handle move-order transpositions very well (as was in the case of my game with him and Andy's in October of last year). The plan we came up with was to find a move-order difference and to look for sharp tactical concepts to capitalize on the former. This is exactly what happened!

     By move 13 things looked alright for Black, he was equal in development and only had a slight disadvantage in space, pretty much a +/= situation. The main point of the position at move 13 is that Black's pieces were not ideally placed and this was just the situation Andy was aiming for. When Andy played 13. QN-Q2 it looked like Andy was losing a pawn, but Andy had seen further and in just three more moves Bryan's position may well be close to losing! It was actually at this position, move 16 that I came to the tournament and saw the position on the board - an amazing one at that! Andy was a piece up, but he had two minor pieces and a rook all hanging - Bryan was surely going to get back at least one piece, but would it be enough? Bryan thought for a very very long time over his 16th move, a concept he should have used on his 13th move - and this is my point about move-order transpositions, it can cost you dearly on the clock and at the wrong time - when you are then trying to save the game.

     Bryan finally had to admit to himself that the best he could do was to take Andy's rook and give White two Knights vs. Rook. The problem for Bryan in this scenario is that, while he had total control of the queen's file, there was little else about his position that was desirable. Slowly, Andy kept building his positional advantage to such a point that Bryan offered the exchange on move 27 with 27. ... R-Q8 ch, but Andy preferred to pile on more positional pressure and refused to take the rook, two moves later winning a critical pawn on Black's queenside. Two moves after that White centralized his knights and started exerting pressure on Black's kingside, and by this time the writing was already on the wall. By move 37 Black still had the R vs. 2 N's but he was now three pawns down and resigned at move 43. A fantastic game by Andy and the best of the tournament in my opinion.

     Meanwhile, back on board two Joe Kruml was having a tough time with the unorthodox play of Paul Motta. To explain Paul's playing style, by move 9 we had a fairly typical French Defense... with colors reversed! Now, I consider Joe's style also a bit unorthodox, but this position was carrying things to an extreme. At move 16 Motta moved his h-pawn up to h4, which may have been a mistake, for it felt like things were then a bit better for White. Indeed, both players kept the pressure on for quite a while with White being slightly better all the while - but could Joe win this? I am not familiar with Paul as well as I am with Joe, but I do know that Joe has a tremendous fighting spirit and he will extract every last bit out of any position he is playing. By move 20 they reached a locked up position with Black having two knights versus White's B&N. The rooks and queens were pretty much useless at this point and the players had to use considerable amount of time to find a way to open up the position without giving the opponent too much play. By move 28 Joe had castled queenside and Paul on the kingside, Joe found a way to open things along the f-file but Paul was fairly well developed to handle this plan. By move 35 the position looked pretty drawish to me and I didn't see a way for either side to play to win without undue risk. The trump for Joe was that Paul was extremely low on time...

     Andy's game was over and our scheming minds figured that Andy won first place on tie-breaks. At this point, the game between Kruml and Motta was the only one being played, most of the other players had already left for home save a few spectators. We asked the Tournament Director, Kiki Huerta, if he could figure out the final standings based on the three possible results of this last game being played. Kiki did so as this would also save him time later on. From this we found that no matter the result of the last game Andy would indeed take first place. To tie for 1st Joe would have to win or he would place 3rd on tie-breaks with Bryan Hu if this last game was a draw. Andy won on tie-breaks by 1 point and that was on the secondary tie-break (the first being tied).

     Back to the last remaining fighters... As the players approached the 40th move, the time control, Joe was calm and Paul hovered the board as he was extremely low on time. At move 40 Paul made his last move at what appeared to be 0:00 on his clock, but there must have been a 100th of a second or so left for when he punched his button he was given a new allotment of time and allowed to continue. There may have been a few inaccuracies in his play during the time scramble, as Paul now had some very weak pawns on the queenside, but then again, he had some serious pawn threats of his own on the king side - maybe his odd choice of 16. ... P-KR5 might be the winning move after all. Both players pressed on their advantages, White on the queen side and Black on the king side. At move 49 Joe offered the trade of queens which Paul should have taken, instead he blundered by not trading and had to resign on the next move. Had he traded queens then the odds are in White's favor, but it would still be a long way from calling it a victory. It was easy to tell that both players were exhausted from this epic duel. The Tournament Director presented the last of the awards and Joe was deeply disappointed that he had not taken first place, but as I have explained earlier, his tie-breaks were not enough.

     Sharing 1st place is not bad, true, you can't take home the 1st place plaque, but you did tie for first - Congratulations! I suppose the biggest disappointment for Joe was that along with first place was a paid entry to the National Open in Las Vegas. Well, all I can say is "Andy, you'd better win up there!"

     Congratulations to all the winners and a heart-felt thanks to all the participants. I would particularly like to give out mad props to Kiki Huerta who handled the TD for the three main sections and Karen Pennock for taking on (again!) the three separate scholastic tournaments. I don't know where we'd be without the two of you... don't leave town!

    Some closing thoughts...

     While it was an interesting event I hope I can find someone else to help me with inputting the game scores. My time is limited by my profession and it has taken me almost a full week to complete this task - had I also participated, the length of time would have been much longer. If you would be interested in helping me out with this, please contact me at sfarmer29@cox.net.

    To the players and directors: I don't know about the rules today, but in the past the players were supposed to leave a clear and legible score sheet with the tournament officials. In the current database of the 2010 US Am West there are 137 games when there could have been many more. Some of the score sheets were simply illegible, some from sloppy writing and others from not pressing hard enough to imprint on the copy below the original. What troubles me the most is that there are many game scores that are simply not tuned in at all. Many players use the MonRoi (I won't even get into the political aspects of this device) and others use a personal score book, in either case most often no game score is submitted to the tournament officials and if a person with a personal book plays a person with a MonRoi, we will never know what happened in that game unless the players follow the rules and print out from the MonRoi or copy the game from their book - also, aren't signatures from both players required to confirm the result? Now, I may not be up to date on the current rules regarding this situation, but I bring the point up because there were many interesting games I watched at the event this weekend but failed to find the score sheets.

     Here's a request for the players of this year's US Am. If you do not see your game in our database of the 2010 US Am West please email me the pgn and I'll add it to the database.