Blog GilaChess

Chess Addiction. Sometimes Good. Sometimes Bad.

2026-10-24T05:14:25.079+08:00

Yes, chess is definitely an addiction, No doubt about it. That's what this website name is based on. How else can you explain a normal person sitting down for hours in front of some boring plastic chess pieces almost motionless to try to beat another addicted chess player.

Ok Ok I know some of you will defend chess saying it's a constructive past time or hobby. Good for the brain and so on. I am here to tell you it's not. It can be but half of the time it's not.

Alright. I'll be fair. Let me start with the good side, because there is plenty.

It sharpens the mind: Focus, strategic thinking, seeing a few moves ahead. and it certainly trains you to concentrate. And hogwash to the popular belief chess makes you smarter. It teaches you a discipline. It DOES NOT make you smarter.
It teaches emotional control: One careless move can wreck a perfect game. Chess drills patience into you and forces you to deal with your own blunders, usually while the clock is ticking. This I have to admit is a great skill to attain. The tai-chi like calm even in the face of calamities.
It gives you flow: Finding a nice combination or cracking a tough puzzle feels wonderful. That dopamine hit of satisfaction is real, and it’s a big reason we keep coming back.

Now the dark side.

The “just one more game” trap: Online bullet and blitz are the worst offenders. You lose a silly game, you want revenge, and suddenly it’s two hours later. I have been there more times than I can count.
Brain drain: Instead of feeling refreshed, you can end up tired, grumpy and mentally fried. Not great for the family, and not great for your rating either :)
False sense of productivity: Chess feels intellectual, so it’s easy to tell yourself you’re “training” when you’re really avoiding work, study or sleep. I’m not naming names, but I know one person who does this.
The blackhole of money: Chess sucks up all your money when you have to travel to some distant chess tournament Pay exorbitant "official" hotel fees and so on. How do you fund such expensive quests? The lucky few will have some generational wealth to fall on, have cushy jobs that support this lifestyle or have chess sponsors. The unlucky ones will struggle immensely.

So what to do? The answer logically should be moderation. Tone down on the chess routine that is eating up your life. Spend less on those expensive tournaments. But try telling an addict that!

To conclude,

Chess is a great mental workout when you stay in control of it.
Fast online games, chasing that elusive "I am going to do better" in endless expensive tournaments is where the addiction usually bites.
Slower games, puzzles and modest local tourneys is the way.

How has chess been affecting your routine lately? And don't tell me you are not an addict because that is what an addicts would say!

What happened to Philippine chess?

2026-10-22T08:50:35.790+08:00

Philippine chess has fallen a long way, and it hurts to write about it. I say that as a Malaysian blogger who recognise Eugene Torre as one of the big names in Asian chess. He became Asia’s first Grandmaster back in 1974, and for years the Philippines was the country everyone else in the region looked up to.

At it's height, Philippines finished 11th in the 1974 World Olympiad lead by Eugene Torre! 30 years later, With Wesley So, spearheaded the national team, the Philippines reached a FIDE country ranking of World Number 32! Right after his official federation transfer to the United States was approved by FIDE on October 28, 2014, the impact was immediate. Phillipines dropped to 43rd place!

Today the Philippines sits around #54 in FIDE’s global rankings (I’m quoting the figure from the article I read, so please check the current list yourself). That’s a steep drop for a country with so much history.

Before I go on, a caveat. I’m a third-rate blogger sitting in Malaysia, not someone inside the Philippine chess scene. What follows comes from what players, analysts and critics have said, plus plenty of “he said, she said” that I can’t verify. Take it as a summary of the complaints, not the gospel truth.

Here are the main issues people point to:

Politics and federation management: This comes up the most. Critics say the National Chess Federation of the Philippines (NCFP) has been run more like a personal business than a development body, with control and favouritism coming ahead of supporting players. The long leadership of Prospero Pichay Jr. has been controversial, and the disputes have split the local community.
Brain drain: The talent keeps leaving. The most painful case is Wesley So, who peaked at World No. 2 with a rating of 2822. After winning gold at the 2013 World University Games, he reportedly had his government incentives blocked by the NCFP because he’d skipped another event the federation preferred. He later described an “endless cycle of corruption” and switched to the United States Chess Federation. Others followed a similar path - Bong Villamayor moved to Singapore, and Oliver Barbosa also went abroad to build a career. GM Mark Paragua has moved to New York and has a niece Megan Paragua who is making waves in US Chess now.
Money, or the lack of it: India pours support into coaching, sponsorship and youth pipelines. In the Philippines, talented provincial players struggle just to get started. Getting the GM title means playing expensive norm tournaments overseas, and each trip can cost ₱100,000 or more. Local prize pools are modest and barely cover travel and accommodation, so many masters end up treating chess as a hobby or leaving for other careers.
A long Grandmaster drought: The Philippines hasn’t produced a new homegrown open GM since Richard Bitoon in 2011. That’s about 15 years. The NCFP has also apparently failed to send youth teams to big events like the World Youth Championships or the U-16 Olympiad for much of the past decade. If kids don’t get exposure, they don’t get strong. It’s that simple.
One WGM: Janelle May Frayna officially became the Philippines' first Woman Grandmaster (WGM) when her title was confirmed by FIDE in 2017, after completing her final WGM norm in September 2016 at the 42nd Chess Olympiad in Baku, Azerbaijan. She is their ONE and only WGM so far. To be fair, there are other top Filipina chess players looking to earn the WGM title include:

It isn’t all gloom, though. In 2020 the Professional Chess Association of the Philippines (PCAP) launched the first professional chess league in Southeast Asia, aimed at giving local players a real livelihood. There’s also the National United Chess Federation of the Philippines (NUCFP), a grassroots group pushing the old guard for transparency, accountability and reform. Will they succeed? I honestly don’t know, but there are parties that are trying.

Economy is a factor

Malaysia has a higher GDP per capita ($13,125 vs $4,171) and stronger industrialization, whereas the Philippines has a slightly larger total economy ($487 billion vs $473 billion), a bigger population (117 million vs 36 million), and lower public debt-to-GDP (59% vs 71%). I've been to Philippines and comparatively, Malaysia is doing better than the Philippines. Of course that's from my limited one off visit there. I saw that quite clearly when I went for the 1st Prospero Pitchay Open, I saw how the everyday Pinoys lived and it was definitely more humble compared to everyday Malaysians. So there is definitely the economic struggles to contend with - but on the other side of the argument, Philippines have many more GMs compared to Malaysia. But I'll put that to grassroot support. Pinoys are more crazy about chess than Malaysians. Just one subjective metric used, online views of live big chess events in KL and Penang can hardly reach 10 whereas a Penang friend said they have hit 50+ before. Whereas I saw just from WGM Janelle May Frayna casual blitz stream hitting hundreds of simultaneous viewers!!

To summarise,

Politics: Control and favouritism over player development.
Talent loss: Wesley So, Villamayor, Barbosa and Paragua all left.
Funding: Costly norm trips, small prize pools.
Results: No new open GM since 2011.
Hope: PCAP and NUCFP are pushing for change.

As a Malaysian, I can’t help seeing a mirror here. We have our own problems with funding and grassroots support, and I want to learn by seeing what is happening to our neighbours. The Philippines has produced world-class talent before and could do it again, so I’m hoping the next Torre is out there right now, waiting for someone to sponsor his plane ticket.

What do you think - can Philippine chess recover, or has too much damage been done?

Philippine Chess Divide

2026-10-21T18:11:16.919+08:00

I couldn't help noticing this in Facebook about Philippine chess. Suddenly there is a flood of FB posts about a big divide. One side is the National Chess Federation of the Philippines (NCFP), the official body. The other is a loose crowd of grassroots organizers and critics, some of them tied to alternative movements like NUCFP. Everyone has opinions, and a lot of them are loud. NUCFP is backed by big names like Manny Pacquiao, GM Wesley So, Paul Elauria, Cliburn Anthony Orbe, Jose Dionisio "Jong" Guevarra, Orly Ortega, Ariel Potot, Tony Aguirre, Melben Jochico, Rey Rabago, Wesley So, Julio Catalino Sadorra, Rogelio Barcenilla Jr., and John Paul Gomez.

So what are people actually fighting about? From what I’ve been reading, it comes down to three things.

1. Sanction fees (a.k.a. “who pays for what?”)

This one keeps coming up. Independent organizers and critics have raised concerns about the sanction requirements and fees attached to big open tournaments, regional and international, like the Manny Pacquiao International Open. It's a substantial event with attractive prize fund ₱5,000,000 (RM 320,000+) across the many divisions.

AI generated for illustration only

2. Manila vs. everyone else

The NCFP, is the country official chess federation, currently led by Prospero Pichay Jr. and working with the Philippine Sports Commission, runs the national championship qualifiers through three legs: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. But hubs like Cebu keep pushing for more autonomy, more local recognition, and more support for homegrown, grassroots chess. The seems to be tension between a Manila-centric structure and strong provincial scenes.

3. Who gets to wear the flag?

Because NCFP is the official federation, selection for the Chess Olympiad and the Asian Games goes through NCFP semi-finals and grand finals, and every so often that causes a stir. There are voices, questioning whether talented players who come up outside the official pipeline get a fair shot.

I’m not here to side any party. A lot of what’s out there is critics’ claims and Facebook posts, and the official side has its own story. Only time will see how this pans out..

165 players in the FIDE World Amateur Chess Championships 2026

2026-10-19T13:31:26.618+08:00

This is a snapshot of the participants list. For the latest, see : https://s3.chess-results.com/test/tnr1516532.aspx?lan=1&tno=1516532&zeilen=99999

No.	Title	Name	FIDE ID	FED	Rating
1	FM	Mester, Gyula	704008	HUN	2281
2	FM	Ammar, Sedrani	9312331	UAE	2223
3		Hristov, Nikolay Valeriev	2907976	BUL	2189
4		Chong, Jin Cheng	5762510	MAS	2156
5	CM	Mohamed, Saeed Laily	9314946	UAE	2084
6		Leong, Khai Shen	35850868	MAS	2074
7	CM	Zulkipli, Zaidan	5704154	MAS	2073
8	FM	Myratgulyyev, Shohratguly	14000547	TKM	2070
9	WFM	Naymanova, Patricie	2925907	BUL	2056
10		Ng, Shu Heng	35827300	MAS	2019
11		Khandhar, Kaushal	5702763	MAS	2016
12		Nik, Nik Ahmad Farouqi	5701791	MAS	1999
13		Tan, Francis	5701910	MAS	1998
14		Tin, Shan Wen	5712653	MAS	1998
15		Dziubinski, Pawel	1126385	POL	1991
16		Julmiri, Muhammad Zulfaqar Bin Abu Baka	393200070	MAS	1987
17	CM	Shen, Ree Herng	5799031	MAS	1976
18		Ong, El Win	35833726	MAS	1973
19		Akhramsyah Muammar Ubaidah, Aqil Ainuddin Naufal	5714958	MAS	1966
20		Wee, Yin Lin	35823097	MAS	1963
21		Atharvaa, P Tayade	25042955	IND	1956
22		Mohd. Zain, Harith Kamil Zafri	35828340	MAS	1945
23	WCM	Nithyalakshmi, Sivanesan	5706955	MAS	1927
24		Yee, Hao Loong	5741742	MAS	1927
25		Likoh, Jason Warren	5757142	MAS	1926
26		Yap, Kah Yii	35829540	MAS	1921
27		Sod-Erdene, Sandagdorj	4927575	MGL	1918
28	CM	Khalifah, Khaled	9312552	UAE	1888
29		Zielinski, Olgierd	1132776	POL	1884
30		Cheah, Cheok Fung	5703271	MAS	1870
31		Wan Abd Rahim, Wan Mohd Azmie	5715857	MAS	1869
32		Razali, Faeznor	5703492	MAS	1866
33		Rosli, Irfan Harith	35816082	MAS	1863
34		Nik Norhisham, Nik Muhd Haziq	5718830	MAS	1862
35		Chek, Kin Keuw	5711380	MAS	1857
36		Lee, Onbin	13208586	KOR	1857
37		Asadel, Nadiv	7144750	INA	1852
38		Kumaran, Ashwiniy	35815787	MAS	1842
39		Yeoh, Wei Shen	5798329	MAS	1842
40		Nizam, Nazhan Syahmi	5733910	MAS	1833
41		Tey, Yong Zhun	35859881	MAS	1831
42		Hoareau, Hugues	644374	FRA	1826
43		Fan, Li Feng	35820900	MAS	1823
44		Ibnu, Iwan Schani	5736684	MAS	1823
45		Diaskyzy, Daliya	13744950	KAZ	1808
46		Lam, Choong Wai Edwin	5701732	MAS	1804
47		Ng, Yong Rui Benjamin	5837340	SGP	1783
48		Lum, Zhun Hoong	5708338	MAS	1778
49		Dhanpal Rajkumar, Manish	35826860	MAS	1774
50		Lee, Donghyun C	13220632	KOR	1771
51		Mohd Hazriman, Iffat Huzaiman	35879491	MAS	1763
52		Goh, Ching Hayk	5835259	SGP	1760
53		Lim, Wei Sheng	5703638	MAS	1760
54		Chen, Yu Kun Austin	5750660	MAS	1757
55		Ting, Ji Yan Triston	35823399	MAS	1744
56		Aamer Saeed, Alyileili	9319930	UAE	1737
57		Hon, Zig Zeth	6003257	HKG	1735
58		Liew, Mark	129057710	SGP	1725
59		Tee, Yuan Khai Eamonn	35859695	MAS	1723
60		Tan, Ze Hao Brighton	35821868	MAS	1721
61		Wong, Kah Hing	5726166	MAS	1717
62		Salihin, Afiqah Zahra	5736196	MAS	1715
63		Ng, Yu Cheng Rigel	5840007	SGP	1709
64		Mohd Radzuan, Muhd Harith Farhan	5714036	MAS	1708
65		Khang, Yee Herng	35808322	MAS	1706
66		Mohana Raj, Shivendra Raj	35821540	MAS	1704
67		Govindaraju, Arvind	35813300	MAS	1703
68		Lim, Howe Luong	35825464	MAS	1703
69		Fong, Zhi Yang	35841729	MAS	1702
70		Chua, Kian Meng	5712378	MAS	1699
71		Mohd Firdaus, Firast Haiqal	35821213	MAS	1680
72		Chong, Bok Siong	5726905	MAS	1675
73		Dederichs, Wolfgang	12960985	GER	1675
74		Wong, Ming Wei Benjamin	5831296	SGP	1666
75		Mohana Raj, Dharvindra Raj	5798280	MAS	1662
76		Yeoh, Leighton	35860456	MAS	1660
77		Yoon, Zi Jie	35824921	MAS	1659
78		Khuzaili Hairizam, Iman Qhaliff	35844353	MAS	1657
79		Zhong, Zheng	8691452	CHN	1655
80		Mah, Nok Xii	35885351	MAS	1648
81		Alban Mendez, Carlos Billy	3638235	ECU	1647
82		Merel, Paul	1376446	SUI	1645
83		R., Ashockumar Viswaa	5743052	MAS	1641
84		Leong, Khai Ling	35851074	MAS	1640
85		Engku Mohd Hafiz, Engku Aida Sofea	35820160	MAS	1633
86		Abdul Razak, Aida Suriana	5733952	MAS	1628
87	WCM	Salihin, Farah Liyana	5731470	MAS	1625
88		Por, Yan Bin Edvard	35830255	MAS	1623
89		Ho, Xing Ern Megan	35873108	MAS	1619
90		Heng, Xiang Qing Elizabeth	35811471	MAS	1616
91		Lee, Kai Zhe	35828447	MAS	1616
92		Tan, Sue Anne	35825936	MAS	1613
93		Adinur, Luqmanul Hakim	565018869	MAS	1612
94		Tan, Ying Zheng Jeffrey	35836393	MAS	1611
95		Kuan, Rhe Anne	35850884	MAS	1609
96		Lai, Chi Yoong Ethan	5821312	SGP	1609
97		Teoh, Ban Tat	35826096	MAS	1603
98		Woo, Chee Tak Ethan	35862190	MAS	1603
99		Suze, Zi Nan	35849630	MAS	1597
100		Govindasamy, Kanes	5716012	MAS	1596
101		Abdul Rashid, Hasidin	5709725	MAS	1590
102		Siow, Sean Loong	35831472	MAS	1590
103		Sangkaran, Ashreeya Rao	35833025	MAS	1585
104		Ngu, Qi Ruii Lucas	35829575	MAS	1580
105		Zhilkin, Valeriy	14004976	TKM	1571
106		Mohd Shahrul Annuar, Muhd Aariz Daniel	35856700	MAS	1570
107		Lim, Kian Hwa	5700744	MAS	1566
108		Liong, Chee Seng Benjamin	5703883	MAS	1563
109		Tengku Muhd Azzazzuddin, Tengku Huffaz Harith	35846372	MAS	1563
110		Lee, Guan Sheng	35888121	MAS	1550
111		Amiruddin, Amirul Iman	35808551	MAS	1547
112		Mohd Shahrul Annuar, Nur Aara Daniel	35876816	MAS	1546
113		Leong, Yao Wen	35899166	MAS	1545
114		Lim, Cheng Siang	5748003	MAS	1545
115		Vickneswaran, Divyeshwaran	35852186	MAS	1544
116		Enkhdelger, Amarjargal	4906268	MGL	1542
117		Vijendran, Grittiban	5754500	MAS	1542
118		Yong, Zie Mun	35818573	MAS	1539
119		Chow, Luo Ern Ashlynn	35806990	MAS	1536
120		Jaya Kumar, Kaashini	5743923	MAS	1531
121		Anuar Batcha, Akmal	5737222	MAS	1526
122		Mohamed Ibrahim, Muhammad Idris	5750954	MAS	1525
123		Muhd Ridzuan, Ariessa Rihana	5795672	MAS	1521
124		Chai., Haw Xuan Nicodemus	35851155	MAS	1519
125		Tassygozhin, Nurlan	13750844	KAZ	1519
126		Yoon, Zhi Yong	35834510	MAS	1517
127		Koh, Hui Qi	35828323	MAS	1514
128		Foo, Bo Cheong Mark	35867566	MAS	1512
129		Woo, Soo Kit	35879173	MAS	1511
130		K.B. Thevantheran, Lakshminaraina	35899859	MAS	1498
131		Wong, Melissa	35843527	MAS	1496
132		Cheong, Hoi Yan	35858613	MAS	1491
133		Galang, Alvin Marallag	5835410	SGP	1489
134		Narayanan, Sri Shiva Kumar	5703808	MAS	1489
135		Assvin, Thirishaanth	35877146	MAS	1485
136		Tan, Zheng Kai	35872888	MAS	1485
137		Lee, Xin Rui Alicia	35897503	MAS	1484
138		Yeo, Li Huang	35897368	MAS	1481
139		Abd Azim, Muhd Darwish Hakimi	35876824	MAS	1475
140		Kumaran, Sharvinth	35815795	MAS	1456
141		Genkeswaran, Genvisha	5782236	MAS	1452
142		Rk, Pradhyumna	35858184	MAS	1452
143		Ng, Jin Jie	35878215	MAS	1450
144		Tay, Ye Zhe Eliot	5838061	SGP	1446
145		Kumaressan, Vetrivel	5785685	MAS	1442
146		Muhd Hazim, Muhd Ammar Aryan	35888105	MAS	1425
147		Bahari, Ramli	35855398	MAS	1420
148		Abdullah, Hasyraf Danish Kiew Hasmawi	565006208	MAS	0
149		Kanthan, Ramanan	35893800	MAS	0
150		Kong, Hau Yi	35877707	MAS	0
151		Kueh, Hao Quan Dennis	565020499	MAS	0
152		Kumaressan, Kayelvili	5785693	MAS	0
153		Lee, Jia En Natalia	35878991	MAS	0
154		Lim, Shu Zheng Janson	35863145	MAS	0
155		Mohd Azrul, Adam Uzair	35889675	MAS	0
156		Mohd Rizal, Muhd Adam Muqri	35827076	MAS	0
157		Silauddin, Afiqah Afrina	565014588	MAS	0
158		Siow, Shayn Lynn	35873868	MAS	0
159		Siva Kumar, Abeayshaaran	35899158	MAS	0
160		Smith, Bryson King	565021177	MAS	0
161		So, Ze Shyun	35885980	MAS	0
162		Suwanto, Joel Wilson	365200078	INA	0
163		Tiong, Kung Ming	5740975	MAS	0
164		Visuvam, Sharwin	35890070	MAS	0
165		Yeo, Lu Siew Joelle	35879408	MAS	0

```

Why Chess Struggles to Find Money, and What One Organiser Does Differently

2026-10-18T19:30:13.379+08:00

A summary of the late Peter Long’s 2015 opinion column in Malay Mail, “Funding chess tournaments... the right way”. These are the columnist’s views, not established facts.

the following is referenced from https://www.malaymail.com/news/opinion/2015/04/02/funding-chess-tournaments...-the-right-way/870787

Chess is one of the most widely recognised games in the world, with a potential audience in the hundreds of millions. Yet Long argues it is badly short of sponsorship, and he puts the blame on the people running it rather than on the game.

The problem starts at the top

Long’s first target is the World Chess Federation (FIDE), which he says has been led for twenty years by someone who has delivered no real direction or purpose. In his telling, FIDE has never learned to sell the game commercially. It relies instead on flagship events bankrolled by governments that want a turn on the world stage, and on wealthy Gulf states. The rest of its income, he says, comes from its own members: cuts of prize money, plus fees for entries, titles and ratings.

He also describes a trickle-down effect. National federations copy this model, and he says youth tournaments are the clearest example. Organisers don’t need sponsors if families will pay for hotels, entry and travel. Because children usually have to be accompanied, parents often bring the whole family along.

Long contrasts this with independent organisers of elite events and big opens abroad, who have kept local sponsors happy and worked with tech providers on live coverage, expert commentary and mobile-friendly viewing.

The Malaysian picture

Long is harsher still about Malaysia. He says local officials mostly repeat what has been done before, with no goals or targets for growing the game. He sorts Malaysian organisers into several groups, mainly by what motivates them:

Dormant state associations that run events to meet minimum obligations, and are led by a handful of people who never let go of their posts.
Aspiring international events, often backed by a veteran patron, such as the Penang and IGB Malaysian Opens.
Tradition-keepers without sponsors, like the Selangor Open, which he notes needed a small prize-fund top-up from a regional chess foundation, alongside some government-linked rapid events in Sabah.
Ego-driven or self-serving events, which he says exist to give organisers status, favours or rating points for their own students or friends.
One-day rated weekend events that he describes as unsupervised, with high entry fees, low prize payouts and children as the main market.

The national federation

Long reserves his strongest criticism for the Malaysian Chess Federation (MCF). He says it seems to exist mainly so certain officials can profit, while the rest of the committee tolerates the conflicts of interest. He points to the federation’s control over national titles and team selection, which he says rests with one person. He argues that this power is used against children and their parents, who want to join overseas youth events and face inflated fees, coaching costs and the expense of an accompanying official. He also repeats a rumour that complimentary hotel rooms from organisers have sometimes been sold.

A better model

The column ends on a positive example. Mohd Fadli Zakaria, known as “Stonemaster”, runs Cerdik Catur Enterprises. Long says it secures around RM200,000 a year in sponsorship, which he describes as modest but vastly more than the MCF has raised. Fadli’s team runs events almost every weekend in Selangor and across the country. Long attended a two-day open at the Petaling Jaya Community Library, in its fifth year, with RM10,000 in prizes.

Fadli is a vocal self-promoter who uses social media well and has his critics. But Long says all sponsorship money goes back to players as prizes. When the sponsor covers entry fees, Fadli takes only a small fee for his work. Long adds that the MCF benefits from his events through rating fees and grassroots activity without doing any of the work.

The takeaway

Long’s argument is that chess can pay for itself through real sponsorship, with money flowing back to players, without squeezing parents and children. Organisers who treat the game as a service rather than a personal platform can still make a living, and his one example is Fadli.

This is a 2015 piece, so a lot have changed since then. The late Peter Long writing about the late Fadli Zakaria but doing so at what I feel - height of their lives. So what do you think? Have conditions improved since 2015??

The SUKMA Lichess Controversy: When a Platform Feature Becomes a Tournament Problem

2026-10-18T07:26:29.312+08:00

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the recent SUKMA online chess controversy is the assumption that Lichess can somehow provide definitive proof of a player being logged in from multiple devices at the same time.

In reality, the situation is far more complicated.

The issue is not whether simultaneous logins are technically possible. They are. The real question is whether tournament organisers can obtain reliable evidence that such activity occurred during a game. As things stand, the answer appears to be no from the organiser’s publicly available tooling; internal Lichess data may exist but is not something organisers can assume they can access.

A Feature, Not a Bug

Lichess has long supported multiple concurrent sessions on the same account. A player can remain logged in on a phone, tablet, and computer simultaneously without the system automatically terminating the other sessions. For comparison, even chess.com allows multiple logins BUT strictly limits the playing feature to one login, the other logins can use the chess.com features like forums, analysis room etc but only one login for playing session.

From a user experience perspective, this makes perfect sense. Players often switch between devices, suffer unstable internet connections, or need a backup device during online play. Multiple active sessions are therefore an intentional feature rather than a security flaw.

This practical convenience, however, creates a challenge for competitive events especially eSports.

If the same account can be accessed from more than one device at the same time, then the possibility exists for another person to interact with that account remotely.

The existence of this possibility does not prove wrongdoing. It simply establishes that the mechanism exists.

What Lichess Actually Tracks

Some observers assume that a tournament organiser can simply ask Lichess for login records and verify whether an account was being accessed from different locations.

Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

Lichess allows users to view their own currently active sessions and revoke them if necessary. However, once a session ends, it is no longer available as a persistent historical record that can be used later as evidence.

More importantly, there is no public API that allows organisers to retrieve detailed login histories, simultaneous connection records, or lists of IP addresses associated with an account during a specific event.

In other words, there is no readily available "double-login report" that an appeals committee can request and examine.

Anti-Cheat Is Not Identity Verification

Another common misconception is that Lichess's anti-cheating system would automatically detect this sort of scenario.

Not necessarily.

Lichess's cheat-detection tools are primarily designed to identify suspicious play patterns such as engine assistance, unusual move accuracy, statistical anomalies, and related behavioural indicators.

They are not designed to determine who is physically operating the keyboard or mouse.

This distinction is important.

If a second person logs into an account and makes moves manually, the resulting game may still look entirely human. From the platform's perspective, the moves may not trigger conventional anti-cheating alarms because no engine assistance is involved.

The platform can analyse the moves. It cannot easily determine the identity of the person making them.

Why the SUKMA Demonstration Matters

This helps explain an important detail in the SUKMA case.

Reports indicate that the Appeals Committee conducted an on-site demonstration showing that the same Lichess account could indeed be accessed and used from multiple devices.

Notice what this demonstration accomplished.

It established technical feasibility.

It did not establish direct evidence that such activity occurred in the disputed game.

This distinction is crucial. The committee demonstrated that the alleged method was possible, but because no platform-generated historical login records were available, the demonstration could not function as retrospective proof.

That leaves organisers in a difficult position whenever allegations involve remote account access rather than traditional engine cheating. In my opinion, any decision made would be unfair to both parties. Lose-lose situation.

The Bigger Lesson for Online Chess Events

The real takeaway is that tournament integrity cannot depend entirely on the playing platform.

Whether the platform is Lichess, Chess.com, or any other online system, organisers must build additional layers of supervision if they want to investigate or prevent remote intervention.

These measures may include:

Dedicated competition devices
Continuous screen recording
Webcam monitoring
Arbiter observation
Controlled playing environments
Pre-game security checks of active sessions

Even these measures are imperfect, but they provide evidence that the platform itself cannot supply.

Final Thoughts

The SUKMA controversy highlights an important blind spot in online chess administration.

Lichess is excellent at hosting games and detecting many forms of cheating. However, it was never designed to serve as a forensic tool for proving that an account was simultaneously controlled from multiple locations.

For tournament organisers, that means a simple but important reality must be accepted:

Lichess can facilitate fair competition, but it cannot by itself provide conclusive evidence of remote move manipulation.

If organisers want that level of accountability, the responsibility lies not with the platform alone but with the tournament's own monitoring and regulatory framework.

Of course the other solution is not to use LiChess at all and develope a custom playing platform or at least if still using LiChess, define an online-chess evidence protocol before the event. This was ridiculous a year ago but today with the advances of AI one can comfortably do this even without coding expertise.

As for me, I am not even suggesting any solution or pointing out who or what is at fault. I am not qualified for that. My only interest is to document this so that something, hopefully, can be learned from this. Just like chess, a disastrous move was documented in the opening, next time steer away from this.

Esports - playing hall and "local" matters

2026-10-16T10:21:40.665+08:00

Internet-only is not the way to go for serious esports chess, and I’ll try to explain why without sounding like I know more than I do (third-rate blogger, remember).

MyChessDB is adding an e-sports feature, and the platform is online, a bit like a mini Lichess or Chess.com. Good on them for trying. But I keep coming back to one problem, and it’s cheating.

Chess is odd among esports. In an FPS game you can ban the aimbot software. In chess, the cheat doesn’t have to touch the game at all. A phone or second laptop running an engine, just out of the webcam’s view, does the job. Webcams on, screen share on, lockdown browser on - these all help, but they’re speed bumps, not walls. A second camera angle and a friend in the room beat most of them. That is why Chess.com titled Tuesdays are limited to bullet (hard to get engine recommendations) and blitz (depends on algorithmic engine detection). And of course not open to players without titles - which would open the floodgates for cheaters who are untitled. Even with this measures, we have many who still regards online cheating is rampant and too easy on chess.com and lichess.org.

So for anything with real prize money, I think the players should be in the same hall. Arbiters in the room, devices checked at the door, phones in a box. That’s how over-the-board chess has dealt with this for years, and I haven’t seen anything online that replaces it.

Another matter is network topology.

I prefer the entire eSport system not to be online but offline. Meaning, no internet server to host the game. Instead have the computers (or mobile devices) connected via Local Area Network (LAN) since eSports would be in the same playing hall.

Latency barely matters for most chess: Even 100 ms of lag is nothing at rapid or classical. But in bullet and blitz it is a concern. Server-side clocks with lag compensation is ok for rapid or slower but not for blitz or bullet. So there will always be lag if the internet is used.

You don't have to take my word for it, serious multi million dollar eSports events like

Starcraft 2,
League of Legends,
Dota 2
Street Fighter 6
Tekken 8
Valorant

All host their games "locally" meaning the server is at the playing stage and not relying on a web server that is hundreds of miles away. The objective here is to get speeds approaching "zero-lag". If it was on the internet, there would be no such thing as "zero-lag" as the server pings are about 100ms even if the venue of the playing hall and web server is in Malaysia.

There are of course things a hall event would need them:

A backup plan: A local server is one machine. If it dies mid-round with 100 people playing, you need failover and a recovery routine. Offline platforms usually have redundancy built in.
Broadcast delay: If the event is streamed, someone could feed engine lines to a player through a spectator. Top events delay the broadcast (I’ve seen 10 to 15 minutes mentioned, but check the specifics yourself). That’s a software feature whether you’re on a LAN or not.
Arbiter tools: Pause, adjust the clock, override a result, export the game log.
Reach and cost: A hall limits who can show up. Not everyone can travel, and organisers have to find the venue and the sponsors. Live broadcasts is important in this case.

To summarise, the hall solves the cheating problem and the internet doesn’t. MyChessDB can keep its online platform and add hall events on top, but I'd prefer they have the "offline" option.

I may well be wrong on some of this, especially the technical bits, so do tell me. Has anyone here played in a hall event with a local server setup? Because as far as I know, even professional eSports chess today rely on Chess.com as the server and no one has made a local "offline" platform.

World Amateur Chess Championship in Malaysia- on or off?

2026-10-14T09:09:52.798+08:00

The World Amateur Championship is still on in Klang, as far as I can tell. FIDE has not postponed it or moved it - they extended the registration deadline instead.

Here is what I have, going by FIDE’s announcements:

Venue: KSL Esplanade Hotel, Klang, Selangor
Dates: Arrival 4 November 2026, departure 13 November 2026
Latest update: On 9 October, FIDE pushed registration back to 16 October. So if you have been dithering, you have only two days left!!
Format: Nine-round Swiss, 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move from move one. Open and Women’s sections, each with U2300, U2000 and U1700 categories.

Now, the awkward bit. There is some controversy because Malaysia’s entry policy stops Israeli citizens from getting in to Malaysia so taking part is out of the question, and a few parties have called for FIDE to move the event elsewhere.

I should be careful here: the reports I have seen say plainly that it is unclear whether FIDE will act or relocate. I have not seen anything official saying they will, and I am not going to guess (I am third-rate blogger, after all:)).

My takeaway, for what it is worth: plan as if Klang is happening from 4 to 13 November. The strongest signal right now is that FIDE is allowing organisers taking entries for Klang, which is not what you do when you are about to change the venue. Of course, if FIDE issues a new notice, that overrides everything I have written here.

Also, FIDE announcement on their site to postpone the closing date for entries reinforces the fact that no cancellation or relocation decision is taking place.

So officially it's “Scheduled to proceed in Klang. Relocation demands have been reported, but no FIDE postponement or venue change has been announced as of 14 October 2026.”

I will update this post if anything changes. Are any of you planning to play? Have you seen entries of any Israeli players in the participants list? I can't find any, yet.

FIDE Arena Titles Explained What They Cost, What They Mean, and Who Should Bother

2026-10-10T09:05:25.939+08:00

Are FIDE Online Arena Titles Worth It?

Online chess has exploded in popularity, with millions logging on daily, grinding through games, and looking for tangible milestones to prove their progress. You might be playing a casual match and notice that your opponent has an official Grandmaster or FIDE Master prefix on their profile, even though they have never played a professional game in person. This has sparked a massive debate in the chess community: half the forums call these online titles a legitimate badge of honor, while the other half dismisses them as a 55 Euro cash grab.

To figure out what is really going on, we must strip away the noise and look at what it takes to earn these titles, evaluating the effort, the financial cost, and how the community treats them. Before we can decide whether a title is worth it, we have to define what "worth" means for your specific goals as a chess player.

What Are FIDE Online Arena Titles?

FIDE Online Arena titles, or FOA titles for short, are official digital credentials sanctioned by FIDE, the world governing body of chess. They range from Arena Candidate Master up to the highest rank, Arena Grandmaster. While they carry the official FIDE stamp, they are explicitly separate from traditional over-the-board (OTB) titles earned at physical tournaments.

The main differences are:

Format: FOA titles require an "Arena" prefix and are entirely digital, whereas traditional titles strictly require in-person play.
Security: Physical tournaments rely on human arbiters, while FOA uses anti-cheat algorithms.
Cost: Physical tournaments charge entry fees, while FOA requires a 55 Euro annual subscription.

FIDE has not built a replacement for physical chess mastery. It has deliberately created a parallel, distinct credential system for the internet.

The Rating Requirement

The first hurdle is reaching the required Elo rating threshold, and the gap between online and traditional titles is large. An Arena FIDE Master needs an Elo of 1400, while a traditional FIDE Master needs 2300. The lower thresholds give amateurs realistic milestones, but traditional players criticize them, since a 1400 player is a beginner, miles away from a traditional master.

The raw number does not tell the whole story, though:

The player pool on the FIDE Online Arena is highly competitive.
The rating system is not standardized with other chess websites.
Player data shows that Arena ratings are severely deflated. A player at 1500 on the Arena might hover around 1900 on platforms like Lichess or Chess.com.

Earning these ratings still demands serious study. However, because the entry points are lower, an Arena title is not equivalent to the grueling norms required for a traditional master title. Arena titles are also not recognized by Lichess or Chess.com.

How the Title Is Earned

Reaching your target rating is only half the battle, because touching the threshold once won't earn the badge. You must prove consistency by holding your Elo above the threshold for a set number of games:

Rapid: 50 games
Blitz: 100 games
Bullet: 150 games

Once you complete this block, the title is awarded instantly, with no bureaucratic paperwork. This contrasts with traditional norms, which require traveling the globe, paying heavy tournament fees, and scheduling specific classical games. The true cost of an FOA title is endurance: players must commit to an intense, focused volume grind on FIDE's digital servers.

The Financial Reality

To earn and keep an online title, you must pay a 55 Euro annual subscription. The main perk is permanence: once secured, your FOA title is etched into your global FIDE profile database. That recognition carries over to the physical world, as local tournament directors can, and frequently do, print your Arena title next to your name on OTB pairing lists.

However, the "pay to legitimize" requirement creates a heavy pay-to-play stigma in the community. Many traditional competitors mock the credential because it has to be paid for, viewing it as a purchased vanity metric rather than a pure badge of merit.

Major independent chess platforms also refuse to validate the credential. Sites like Lichess and Chess.com ban Arena titles from being displayed. You can put in the hours, pay the fee, and earn the rank, but it won't show up on the apps most people play on. In short, 55 Euro buys you official recognition from the governing body, but it fails to buy you respect across the wider internet ecosystem.

Worth noting: most people cancel their yearly 55 Euro subscription once they have earned the title. After paying the one-time legitimizing fee (30 Euro for Arena Grandmaster), no further payment is needed, as the title is permanent.

Who Is It Worth It For?

The value of an Arena title depends on what kind of player you are and what you want from the game. There are three types:

The ambitious amateur or junior (below 2000 Elo). You lack the time or resources for physical tournament travel. For you, this is a high return on investment. The subscription and the grind are worth it for the motivation, the structured progress tracking, and an official badge to call your own.
The traditional competitor. You value classical rigor, OTB norms, and historical prestige. For you, the verdict is that it's not worth it. An Arena Grandmaster title won't impress an OTB Grandmaster, and grinding hundreds of online bullet games only distracts from earning true classical norms.
The budget-conscious or casual online player. You aren't chasing official prestige, you just want to enjoy competitive games. For you, it's not worth it. The free rating systems on Lichess and Chess.com already reflect your skill level accurately without an annual fee.

Conclusion

FIDE Online Arena titles are definitively not scams. They are exactly what they were designed to be: lower-tier, online-only achievements created for the digital age. Their legitimacy is ultimately subjective, and their value depends on the specific room or server you happen to be in. Choose the path that serves your own chess journey, set your own goals, and ignore the internet toxicity. Some people think it is perfectly worth their time and money, and I won't argue with that.

Asia Pacific Deaf Chess Championship results

2026-10-09T06:55:42.222+08:00

Asia Pacific Deaf Chess Championship (FIDE Blitz)

Category	Rank	Name	Country	Score
Men	Champion	Leong, Ee Hern	Malaysia	10
Men	2nd Place	Muhlis	Indonesia	10
Men	3rd Place	Ankit, Ganguly	India	8
Women	Champion	Shreya, Y S	India	6.5
Women	2nd Place	Ambika, Nagappa Masagi	India	6
Women	3rd Place	Dzhumagazyeva, Balzhan	Kazakhstan	6

Asia Pacific Deaf Chess Championship (FIDE Classical)

Category	Rank	Name	Country	Score
Men	Champion	Kettebekov, Samazhan	Kazakhstan	4.5
Men	2nd Place	Leong, Ee Hern	Malaysia	4
Men	3rd Place	Muhlis	Indonesia	3.5
Women	Champion	Ramakrishnan, Yoshni	Malaysia	4.5
Women	2nd Place	Ambika, Nagappa Masagi	India	4
Women	3rd Place	Malika, Handa	India	3.5

FOA a waste of money in 2026

2026-10-06T05:45:46.025+08:00

FIDE Online Arena titles - Is It Worth It?

This topic came out over a year ago and yet I kept coming back to one question: what exactly am I paying 55 EURO for? It's was transitioning from 25 Euro 2 years go. Then doubled to 50 EURO. And this year it's EURO 55.

What you get:

A title beside your name. That's it. It shows up on your FIDE profile, and in many FIDE rated tournaments the organizers will print it on the starting list or pairing list. Your opponent actually sees "AIM". To some, that flex may be enough.

I've got to admit, the below certificate does look good :)

What you don't get

You don't get a rating boost in over the board play. You don't get title norms, prize eligibility reserved for titled players, or an invitation to anything. Your standard FIDE rating stays exactly where it is. The online title lives in its own little world, and the real world only politely nods at it.

The cost over time

At 55 EURO a year (more than double what it was just two years ago), the subscription adds up. If the price doubled once, and now slightly + 5 EURO this year. It is rising.

For someone playing casually, that is a real recurring expense for a label that could end up being decorative. Whose to say the money is better spent on a chess training site, a good endgame book, or entry fees for two or three local tournaments.

Paywalled Recognition?

The regulations specify title fees: €5 for ACM, €30 for AIM, and €35 for AGM under the lower-rating-band rules. The question of legitimacy, the titles hold up. They are real, they are official, and they are recorded by the same governing body that oversees classical chess. But it is - paywalled.

Where it could make sense.

It depends on who you are:

For a young player, an early title can be a real confidence booster and a stepping stone, and perhaps help with sponsorships or school recognition. For parents of chess kids, extra motivation to study and play seriously can be worth 55 EURO.

For a content creator like me, the title itself is secondary. The journey is the product. But ok, it does give me more roots in chess other than just being there in a chess tournament as an observer,blogger and photographer.

The content angle

I won't be ashamed of admitting this : I can make a series: "Can a 1800 club player earn a FIDE Arena title?" I'd play the 150 bullet games, document the ups and downs, show the training, the tilt, the wins and the embarrassing blunders, and finally reveal whether the title was easy or hard to get.

Bullet is also not my natural habitat. Rating 1793 on Arena sounds comfortable on paper, but maintaining 1700 over 150 games when flagging and premoves enter the picture is a different story. That tension and the struggle is the story.

My verdict (for now)

Take away the content creation angle, as a pure club player chasing improvement or prestige, I'd say skip it. The money is better spent on training or real tournaments where you earn a real rating and real experience. For online sparring I'd choose LiChess for that.

As a content experiment, I'm leaning yes. If I can turn the 55 EURO into videos and posts people actually enjoy, then the title becomes a bonus and precious content.

Over to you

The main question is this. Would you pay for an online title? Do you see value in AGM, AIM, AFM or ACM, or is it a gimmick in your eyes? And if I did take on the challenge, would you want to watch it?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Depending on the response, Part 3 might me blowing away 55 Euro (RM 250) for the chance to log into FIDE Arena for game number one.

#Chess #FIDE #ONLINETITLES #AGM #ACM #AFM #AIM

Anybody can now now make a chess.com and LiChess !

2026-10-05T05:31:23.765+08:00

AI coding tools have made it possible for almost anyone to build something that looks and plays like Chess.com or Lichess. That's mostly true, and I know it because I've done it. I'm a #SyiokSendiri chess fan, and I've built laser chess, real-time chess, a puzzle app, and some PGN tools. Each started as an idea, a few prompts, and a few hours.

A site like mychessdb.com, where two people can log in and play each other online, would have amazed me a year or two ago. Today it doesn't. The barrier to entry has dropped. And it has dropped a lot.

But working apps is not a complete platform, and the gap between them is significant.

What AI makes easy

Game logic. Piece movement, castling, en passant, checkmate detection. It's well-documented and predictable, so AI handles it in seconds.
Engine integration. Plugging in Stockfish over UCI into a web interface is routinely easy now.
The interface. Interactive boards, drag-and-drop pieces, and clean layouts in React or Flutter are quick to generate.
Boilerplate. Databases, user accounts, and basic APIs used to eat hours and now appear almost effortlessly with AI.

🟡 What is hard

Real-time multiplayer. Two friends playing over WebSockets works fine. Thousands of concurrent games across the globe, with low latency, on the other hand, is an architecture problem. My own experience is with small hobbyist sites like mychessdb and catur dot org, where a player base under 100 is manageable. Beyond that, the problems multiply.

State synchronization. What happens when a player's connection drops for ten seconds mid-game, then returns? Clocks, pending draw offers, and move order all have to survive. In my experience, AI rarely gets this right on the first try. Multiple testing and fixing can get you there, but this is just one of many edge cases that appear as usage grows.

Cheat detection. This is the hardest problem on the list. Engine cheating is constant as well as rampant in the online world.Good detection means analyzing move accuracy and behavioral patterns on the server side, while managing false positives, appeals, and reputational damage when you ban someone wrongly. It's an arms race, not a feature you ship once. It's something anyone in the online chess world will know. Also a big problem big platforms like chess.com or LiChess have yet solved. if ever!

Ratings and game rules. Rating systems like Glicko-2 for ELO rating, time controls, abort/draw/rematch rules, and abuse reporting are all details players expect to work perfectly.

Cost and community. Millions of users mean serious cloud bills, database tuning, and caching. Tournaments, leaderboards, forums, and moderation all need ongoing human work. AI can help write the code, but it can't carry the operational load.

Feature	Difficulty with AI	Why
Chess rules and logic	Very easy	Structured, predictable, well-documented
Stockfish bot	Very easy	Standard UCI protocol
Board interface	Easy	Common front-end patterns
Real-time multiplayer	Moderate to hard	Easy to demo, hard to make reliable at scale
Anti-cheating	Very hard	Needs data science and constant iteration
Scale and community	Very hard	Infrastructure, money, moderation, and time

So is anyone trying?

Yes. One example is Hans Niemann's Endgame.ai. it has raised USD 4.8 million in seed funding from venture capital firms and angel investors, with plans for a Series A.

What caught my attention was the product. The interface didn't have the generic look I associate with vibe-coded apps like the ones I make with Gemini, or like mychessdb, which was built with OpenAI. It felt faster, more polished, and more feature-rich. That's just my impression, but it suggests a lot of design and planning went into it.

I should be fair, though. Funding and polish aren't proof of success, and the platform is still new with a small user base. The questions that matter are the ones above: can it attract enough players to keep matchmaking fast, and can it keep cheaters out as it grows? I don't know yet, and I'd be skeptical of anyone who says they do.

Disclosure: I run my own chess sites like catur.org. mychessdb.com is run by a Shin Azwan - a friend. I have no affiliation with endgame.ai

The funding supported the hiring of an initial eight-person full-time development team, low-latency server infrastructure, and monthly tournament prize pools.

Bottom line.

AI has democratized chess software. One developer can now build a good-looking multiplayer chess site over a weekend, which used to take months. Turning that into a platform that can challenge Chess.com or Lichess still takes engineering depth, anti-cheat expertise, serious money, and most of all, players.

Still, it's an exciting time. If more serious projects like Endgame.ai show up, Chess.com and Lichess may finally have real competition. Try it yourself and tell me whether you agree.

China's Women "B Team" wins Gold at the Olympiad

2026-10-04T10:43:50.136+08:00

China won the 46th FIDE Women's Chess Olympiad in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, securing gold even while missing their top four players. The title is not meant to demean or take away from the winning team as they are super strong in their own right.

China left out world champion Ju Wenjun, former champion Hou Yifan, Tan Zhongyi and Lei Tingjie, who together make up the entire women’s top four in the world.

While not officially designated as a "B team," led by top-board gold medalist Zhu Jiner and 16-year-old rising star Lu Miaoyi, the team dominated the field to capture China's seventh women's title.

Women's Podiums and Final Standings

Place / Medal	Team	Match Points
Gold	China	20
Silver	Kazakhstan	18
Bronze	India	17 (tiebreak)

Key Individual Performers for China

Zhu Jiner: Board 1 Gold (7/9 score)

Lu Miaoyi: Board 3 Gold (9.5/11 score)

Song Yuxin won board-two bronze, and Yan Tianqi and Zhai Mo also played. Yan and Zhai suffered the team's only losses.

Ok I admit it their top board Zhu Jiner is World No. 4 so does not qualify to be categorised in the 'B' team - hence the double quotes to the title. :)

So China, by deliberate design or not, has managed to field a younger and cumulatively weaker (in ELO) team and still managed to emerge champion!

Olympiad Penultimate Round - Women did good

2026-09-27T11:35:28.149+08:00

Malaysian Women's Team: 2.5 – 1.5 Victory Over Finland The Malaysian Women’s team (initial seed #68 ) scored a 2.5 – 1.5 match win against 47th-seeded Finland on Board 29 .

Board 1: WFM Tan Li Ting (2067) held higher-rated WIM Anastasia Keinanen (2220) to a solid draw with white.
Board 2: WFM Chong Kai Ni Agnes (2024) fell to WFM Sara-Olivia Sippola (2089).
Board 3: WFM Ainul Mardhiah Mohd Afif (2006) defeated WIM Tanja Tuominen (2054) to bring Malaysia back level.
Board 4: Ashwiniy Kumaran (1712) delivered the winning point by outplaying Helja Lehtinen (1968) with black.

Cumulative Performance: The win brings the Malaysian Women to 12 Match Points (6 wins, 0 draws, 4 losses) and 25.5 Game Points through 10 rounds

Olympiad 2026: Indonesia’s Historic Rise to the Top 10 after 9 rounds

2026-09-26T10:57:55.823+08:00

Giant Killers in Samarkand: at the 46th Chess Olympiad

1. Underdog Story of Samarkand 2026

The 46th Chess Olympiad in Samarkand is reaching the end and the big story to me is the Indonesia’s Women’s team which stated modest #35 seeds but they have posted a string of upsets against top-tier grandmaster opposition, catapulting themselves into the world’s elite top 10 with an astonishing #9 ranking. I first noticed the team all of whose members took part in the 21st Malaysian Chess Festival : SMS Deen Rapid Team tourney some weeks back. The girls actually beat one of the Men's team helmed by GM Priasmoro Novendra. All of them are in the winner's picture here except for WIM Chelsie Monica.

2. Round 9 Upset: Indonesia Stuns 10th-Seeded Germany (2.5 - 1.5)

Indonesia’s defining masterclass occurred in Round 9 against 10th-seeded Germany. Helmed by team captain Lisa Karlina Lumondong, the Indonesian strategy relied on sharp board-management discipline to outmaneuver the formidable squad coached by German captain Zahar Efimenko. Facing a team boasting established Grandmaster and International Master talents, Indonesia orchestrated a calculated 2.5 - 1.5 victory.

Board Number	Indonesia Player (Title & Rating)	Result	Germany Player (Title & Rating)
Board 1	WIM Diajeng Theresa Singgih (2280)	0 - 1	IM Dinara Wagner (2399)
Board 2	WIM Laysa Latifah (2213)	1 - 0	GM Elisabeth Paehtz (2404)
Board 3	WIM Shafira Devi Herfesa (2130)	1 - 0	WGM Jana Schneider (2325)
Board 4	WIM Chelsie Monica Ignesias Sihite (2195)	½ - ½	FM Lara Schulze (2307)

3. Tournament Performance by the Numbers (Through Round 9)

Indonesia's statistical profile reflects exceptional efficiency and performance density under the Swiss scoring system:

Current Rank: #9 globally (surging 26 spots from initial Seed #35).
Overall Record: 7 wins, 0 draws, 2 losses across 9 rounds.
Match Points (TB1): 14 Match Points.
Game Points (TB3): 24.5 cumulative board points.
Sonneborn-Berger Tie-Break (TB2): 219.5 points.

Let's compare

After Round 9, the top tier of the standings is heavily dominated by Asian federations:

China (Seed #4): Ranked #1 (17 Match Points)
India (Seed #1): Ranked #2 (15 Match Points)
Kazakhstan (Seed #3): Ranked #3 (15 Match Points)
Mongolia (Seed #15): Ranked #4 (15 Match Points)
Vietnam (Seed #21): Ranked #8 (14 Match Points)
Indonesia (Seed #35): Ranked #9 (14 Match Points)

4. Round 10 Preview: High-Stakes Clash Against Vietnam

Round 10 sets the stage for a high-stakes Southeast Asian derby as 9th-ranked Indonesia (14 MP, 24.5 GP) faces 8th-ranked Vietnam (14 MP, 25 GP, initial seed #21). Both teams enter the match deadlocked in match points, making this regional showdown a direct quarterfinal-level clash for potential Olympic medal contention.

Vietnam, managed by captain Vinh Bui (made me lose a RM 100 bet to Shin Azwan), comes into Round 10 with tremendous momentum after dismantling 11th-seeded Bulgaria 3.5 - 0.5 in Round 9. Vietnam showed lethal depth across their lower boards, securing full wins from WGM Vo Thi Kim Phung, WIM Bach Ngoc Thuy Duong, and WGM Nguyen Thi Mai Hung, while IM Pham Le Thao Nguyen held the top board against IM Nurgyul Salimova.

To overcome Vietnam, Captain Lumondong’s squad will once again need to rely on their board-management discipline—stifling Vietnam’s aggressive middle boards while seeking decisive counter-punches.

Giant-Killers in Samarkand:Women’s Team(R7,8,9) and WIM chances?

2026-09-26T08:08:00.750+08:00

Giant-Killers in Samarkand: Malaysian Women’s Team Player-by-Player Analysis Across Rounds 7, 8, and 9

The Malaysian Women’s team (initial seed #68, rating average 2009 Elo) has put together one of the most exciting runs of the 46th FIDE Chess Olympiad in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Facing increasingly tough international opposition, the Malaysian squad showcased remarkable tactical sharpness, culminating in a historic top-board upset in Round 9.

Through 9 rounds, Malaysia sits at #59 overall in the world out of 189 competing nations, boasting 10 Match Points (5 wins, 4 losses) and an impressive 23.0 Game Points—comfortably outperforming their initial tournament seeding.

Here is the complete player-by-player breakdown across Rounds 7, 8, and 9.

Round 7: Establishing a Top-60 Foothold (MAS 2.5 – 1.5 GUA)

In Round 7, Malaysia secured a hard-fought 2.5 – 1.5 match victory over Guatemala, earning 2 vital Match Points and climbing to #59 overall. The match demonstrated the squad’s balance, as contributions from the lower boards provided the decisive edge.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — WFM Tan Li Ting (2067) ½ – ½ WCM Jenny Fernanda Santiago Sontay (1844): On top board, WFM Tan Li Ting kept tight positional control with the white pieces, securing a draw.
Board 2 — WFM Chong Kai Ni Agnes (2024) ½ – ½ WFM Deycy Daniela Raymundo (1832): WFM Agnes Chong engaged in a balanced tactical battle, splitting the point smoothly.
Board 3 — WCM Chua Jia-Tien (1938) 1 – 0 WCM Kerstin Danielle Reinhard Moller (1719): WCM Chua Jia-Tien delivered a clinical attack, converting white’s initiative into a full point.
Board 4 — WFM Ainul Mardhiah Mohd Afif (2006) ½ – ½ WIM Carolina Mazariegos Kummerfeldt (1919): Continuing her outstanding tournament form, WFM Ainul Mardhiah held higher-titled WIM Mazariegos to a solid draw.

Round 8: A Dominant 3–1 Surge Over Kenya (MAS 3.0 – 1.0 KEN)

Carrying strong momentum into Round 8, Malaysia swept past Kenya with a convincing 3.0 – 1.0 match victory, vaulting into the Top 50 (#46 overall) worldwide with 10 Match Points and 21.5 Game Points.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — WFM Tan Li Ting (2067) 0 – 1 WFM Zuri Kaloki (1839): In a sharp tactical skirmish on Board 1, WFM Tan Li Ting suffered a surprising slip against Kenya's top board.
Board 2 — WFM Chong Kai Ni Agnes (2024) 1 – 0 WFM Sasha Maingi Mongeli (1928): WFM Agnes Chong quickly sacrificed a knight for a pawn on f7 - which he opponent did not accept, finally outplaying Mongeli with a Queen check on e6 winning at least Black's Queen.
Board 3 — WCM Chua Jia-Tien (1938) 1 – 0 Glenda Madelta (1796): WCM Chua Jia-Tien scored her second consecutive win, dismantling black's kingside structure.
Board 4 — Ashwiniy Kumaran (1712) 1 – 0 Shamira Nicole Albright Ogaga (1770): Coming off the bench, Ashwiniy Kumaran outmaneuvered her opponent to seal a dominant 3–1 team victory.

Round 9: High Drama & A Monumental Upset vs. Austria (MAS 1.5 – 2.5 AUT)

In Round 9, Malaysia was paired against 34th-seeded Austria (average rating 2200+ Elo). Although Malaysia narrowly lost the match 1.5 – 2.5, the round featured the single most spectacular individual result of the Olympiad for Malaysian chess.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — WFM Chong Kai Ni Agnes (2024) 1 – 0 IM Olga Badelka (2424): The Upset of the Tournament! Promoted to Board 1, WFM Agnes Chong faced 2420+ International Master Olga Badelka. Overcoming a 400-Elo rating gap, Agnes launched a brilliant knight sac on c6 but ultimately winning material, defeating the Austrian Grandmaster/IM to register a monumental victory for Malaysia!
Board 2 — WCM Chua Jia-Tien (1938) 0 – 1 WIM Jasmin-Denise Schloffer (2236): WCM Chua Jia-Tien fought tenaciously against WIM Schloffer before the experienced Austrian converted a late knight endgame.
Board 3 — WFM Ainul Mardhiah Mohd Afif (2006) ½ – ½ WFM Chiara Polterauer (2083): WFM Ainul Mardhiah maintained her composure, holding higher-rated WFM Polterauer to a draw to move her individual tournament tally to 4.5 points.
Board 4 — Ashwiniy Kumaran (1712) 0 – 1 WIM Elisabeth Hapala (2090): Outrated by nearly 380 points, Ashwiniy put up stiff resistance before WIM Hapala managed to break through.

Tournament Progress Summary (Rounds 7–9)

Round	Opponent	Match Result	Malaysia Rank	Cumulative Match Points	Game Points
Round 7	Guatemala (GUA)	2.5 – 1.5 (Win)	#59	8 MP	18.5 GP
Round 8	Kenya (KEN)	3.0 – 1.0 (Win)	#46	10 MP	21.5 GP
Round 9	Austria (AUT)	1.5 – 2.5 (Loss)	#59	10 MP	23.0 GP

Expectations & Hopes for the Final Two Rounds (Rounds 10 & 11)

As the Olympiad enters its final two rounds, the Malaysian Women’s team has established itself as one of the standout overperformers in Samarkand:

Aiming for a Top-45 Finish: Sitting at #59 with 23.0 Game Points (the highest among many 10 MP teams), strong results in Rounds 10 and 11 could propel Malaysia well inside the top 45 nations—far ahead of their #68 starting seed.
Title Norms & Individual Rating Surges: WFM Agnes Chong’s sensational victory over IM Olga Badelka (2424) and WFM Ainul Mardhiah’s consistent performance against 2100+ opposition put both players on track for major FIDE rating increases and potential WIM norm considerations.
Closing Out SEA Rivalries: Malaysia (10 MP, 23.0 GP) is locked in a fierce regional battle, trailing leaders Vietnam (#8, 14 MP), Indonesia (#9, 14 MP), and the Philippines (#41, 11 MP), while holding a higher game-point tiebreaker than Singapore (#57, 10 MP, 21.0 GP).

Last 3 rounds results - Malaysia going into Round 10 of the 2026 Olympiad

2026-09-26T05:15:06.523+08:00

Samarkand: Malaysia’s Player-by-Player Analysis Across Rounds 7, 8, and 9

The Malaysian Open team (initial seed #67, rating average 2360 Elo) has reached the final stretch of the 46th FIDE Chess Olympiad in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. It is gruelling. It is tiring. Well at least, I imagine it must be. Facing an intense three-round stretch—including back-to-back clashes against 2500+ European grandmaster powerhouses and a high-stakes Round 9 encounter—Malaysians showcased stamina and grit, scoring 11 Match Points and 21.0 Game Points through Round 9.

Here is the complete player-by-player breakdown of the action across Rounds 7, 8, and 9.

Round 7: Holding Grandmaster-Heavy Switzerland (MAS 2.0 – 2.0 SUI)

In Round 7, Malaysia was paired against Switzerland (average rating 2519 Elo). Outrated on every single board, the Malaysian squad delivered an exceptional defensive and tactical performance to hold the Swiss team to a 2–2 match draw, earning 1 Match Point and jumping to #52 overall in the global standings.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — IM Tan Jun Ying (2399) ½ – ½ GM Sebastian B
ogner (2547): Playing white against a 2540+ GM, IM Tan Jun Ying commanded the center with poise, neutralizing Bogner’s counterplay to secure a clean half-point.
Board 2 — IM Chan Kim Yew (2383) ½ – ½ GM Nico Georgiadis (2535): IM Chan Kim Yew demonstrated ironclad defensive technique against GM Georgiadis, steering the game into a level endgame to split the point.
Board 3 — FM Lim Zhuo Ren (2309) 0 – 1 IM Fabian Baenziger (2426): FM Lim Zhuo Ren pushed hard in a complex positional battle but eventually succumbed to Baenziger's endgame technique.
Board 4 — CM Chow Yi Chen (2152) 1 – 0 FM Colin Federer (2269): The hero of the match, CM Chow Yi Chen, outplayed FM Federer with the white pieces, scoring a decisive win that leveled the match at 2–2.

Round 8: A Heartbreaker Against 36th-Seeded Sweden (MAS 1.5 – 2.5 SWE)

Riding high on momentum, Malaysia faced Sweden (#36 seed, average rating 2515 Elo) in Round 8. In a edge-of-your-seat battle that went down to the final clock minutes, Malaysia narrowly lost 1.5 – 2.5.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — IM Tan Jun Ying (2399) 0 – 1 GM Nils Grandelius (2603): Facing Sweden’s premier 2600+ Super-GM, IM Tan Jun Ying fought hard in a sharp opening but was eventually overcome by Grandelius’s deep preparation.
Board 2 — IM Chan Kim Yew (2383) 0 – 1 IM Jung Min Seo (2503): IM Chan Kim Yew engaged IM Seo in a tense tactical contest, with Seo converting a late-game pawn advantage.
Board 3 — FM Kavin Mohan (2348) 1 – 0 GM Erik Blomqvist (2482): FM Kavin Mohan produced one of the tournament's biggest individual upsets, outplaying GM Blomqvist in a brilliant attacking game to notch a full point for Malaysia.
Board 4 — CM Chow Yi Chen (2152) ½ – ½ IM Edvin Trost (2472): Outrated by over 300 Elo points, CM Chow Yi Chen punched far above his weight once again, holding IM Trost to a remarkable draw.

Round 9: Rebound Dominance Over Zambia (MAS 3.0 – 1.0 ZAM)

Refusing to let the narrow loss to Sweden dampen their spirits, Malaysia bounced back forcefully in Round 9, overwhelming Zambia with a commanding 3.0 – 1.0 victory to claim 2 crucial Match Points.

Board-by-Board Meets

Board 1 — IM Tan Jun Ying (2399) 1 – 0 IM Chitumbo Mwali (2328): IM Tan Jun Ying returned to winning form on Board 1, outclassing Zambia's top International Master in a positional masterpiece.
Board 2 — FM Kavin Mohan (2348) 1 – 0 IM Andrew Kayonde (2316): Continuing his stellar form from Round 8, FM Kavin Mohan claimed his second consecutive win, defeating IM Kayonde.
Board 3 — FM Lim Zhuo Ren (2309) 1 – 0 FM Prince Daniel Mulenga (2198): FM Lim Zhuo Ren delivered a sharp, energetic performance to defeat FM Mulenga, securing Malaysia's team victory early in the session.
Board 4 — CM Chow Yi Chen (2152) 0 – 1 Micheal Kaoma (2133): CM Chow Yi Chen battled Kaoma in a wild endgame, falling just short after a taxing run of games.

Tournament Summary & Progress Track (Rounds 7–9)

Round	Opponent	Match Result	Malaysia Rank	Cumulative Match Points	Game Points
Round 7	Switzerland (SUI)	2.0 – 2.0 (Draw)	#52	8 MP	16.5 GP
Round 8	Sweden (SWE)	1.5 – 2.5 (Loss)	#73	9 MP	18.0 GP
Round 9	Zambia (ZAM)	3.0 – 1.0 (Win)	#59	11 MP	21.0 GP

Expectations and Hopes for the Final Two Rounds (Rounds 10 & 11)

With only two rounds remaining in Samarkand, the Malaysian Open team sits in a prime position to deliver one of its most successful Olympiad campaigns in recent history:

Targeting a Top-50 Global Finish: Having entered as the #67 seed, sitting at 11 Match Points gives Malaysia a realistic opportunity to finish in the top 50 nations with strong results in Rounds 10 and 11.
Individual Title Norms & Rating Booms: Standout individual runs—most notably FM Kavin Mohan's back-to-back wins against GM Blomqvist and IM Kayonde, alongside CM Chow Yi Chen's giant-killing draw streak against 2400+ IMs—have primed several players for significant FIDE rating gains.
Regional Pride: Malaysia remains locked in an exciting neck-and-neck race with Southeast Asian peers Singapore (11 MP), Vietnam (11 MP), Indonesia (10 MP), and the Philippines (10 MP) for regional bragging rights.

Official Team Standings Trajectory (Rounds 0–9)

Vietnam (VIE): Seed #47 $\rightarrow$ #28 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #18 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #43 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #35 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #46 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #31 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #23 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #23 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #23 (R9)

Singapore (SGP): Seed #50 $\rightarrow$ #33 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #28 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #17 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #45 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #56 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #43 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #28 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #31 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #31 (R9)

Indonesia (INA): Seed #52 $\rightarrow$ #36 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #57 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #50 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #23 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #13 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #34 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #62 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #48 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #48 (R9)

Philippines (PHI): Seed #57 $\rightarrow$ #40 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #66 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #54 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #31 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #49 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #29 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #55 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #37 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #57 (R9)

Malaysia (MAS): Seed #67 $\rightarrow$ #47 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #111 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #87 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #100 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #82 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #59 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #52 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #73 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #59 (R9) (Surges 14 places back into the top 60 following their Round 9 win over Zambia)

Chinese Taipei / Taiwan (TPE): Seed #83 $\rightarrow$ #58 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #71 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #61 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #72 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #65 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #70 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #53 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #74 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #74 (R9)

Thailand (THA): Seed #104 $\rightarrow$ #105 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #78 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #101 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #133 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #97 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #125 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #96 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #75 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #75 (R9)

Hong Kong (HKG): Seed #108 $\rightarrow$ #106 (R1) $\rightarrow$ #76 (R2) $\rightarrow$ #114 (R3) $\rightarrow$ #98 (R4) $\rightarrow$ #76 (R5) $\rightarrow$ #88 (R6) $\rightarrow$ #79 (R7) $\rightarrow$ #86 (R8) $\rightarrow$ #86 (R9)

Malaysia's Open team after 7 rounds - 46th Chess Olympiad in Samarkand

2026-09-24T10:00:42.707+08:00

Malaysia's Open team is having a great run at the 46th Chess Olympiad in Samarkand. We started as the #67 seed, and after seven rounds of the 11-round event we're sitting 52nd.

It hasn't been a smooth climb. We jumped to 47th after Round 1, then dropped all the way to 111th after Round 2 once the pairings got tougher. From there we slowly recovered: 87th, 100th, 82nd, 59th, and finally 52nd. Going from 100th to 52nd in three rounds is a big swing.

The highlight was Round 7, when we drew 2-2 with Switzerland, the #33 seed, whose average rating is over 2500. That result took us to 9 match points and 16.5 game points. Holding a team that strong also helps our tiebreaks and keeps us in the upper half of the pairings.

Credit goes to the whole lineup. IM Tan Jun Ying on Board 1 and IM Chan Kim Yew on Board 2 have been taking on much stronger opposition, which lets the rest of the team play with a bit more freedom. CM Chow Yi Chen on Board 3 has been good at turning level positions into winning chances, and FM Lim Zhuo Ren on Board 4 has been picking up the wins that turn draws into match victories.

Regionally, the Philippines (#29), Vietnam (#31), Indonesia (#34) and Singapore (#43) are all still ahead of us, but they're mostly sitting close to where they were seeded. Our move from #67 to #52 is a gain of 15 places, which looks like the biggest jump in Southeast Asia.

Next up is Sweden, the #36 seed, in Round 8. A good result there could push us into the top 50.

Malaysia Women after 7 Rounds in the 46th Chess Olympiad at Samarkand

2026-09-24T09:43:40.163+08:00

Malaysia's women are having a solid run at the 46th Chess Olympiad in Samarkand. After seven rounds, they sit 59th out of 189 teams, a nice jump from their starting seed of 68th. They've won four matches and lost three, for 8 match points and 18.5 game points overall.

The standout so far is WFM Ainul Mardhiah Mohd Afif on Board 4. She's scored 4 out of 5 with a performance rating of 2153, easily the best result on the team.

She's had good backing, too. WCM Chua Jia-Tien has picked up 3 points from 5 games, and Ashwiniy Kumaran has been superb off the bench with 3 out of 4. WFM Tan Li Ting and WFM Chong Kai Ni Agnes have held things together on the top boards.

Within Southeast Asia, Malaysia is holding its own. With 18.5 game points, the team is ahead of Singapore (16.5) and keeping close to the regional front-runners.

The latest round saw Malaysia whitewashing Nicaragua 4-0.

There are still 4 rounds to play, but it's been a strong start for the team.

LiChess August Updates

2026-09-23T07:06:21.845+08:00

I am a big supporter of open source and I've always favoured LiChess of Chess.com

Here are the latest changes andd improvements to LiChess.

At a glance

New theme options on the website - select your name/the ⚙️ icon on the top bar and then Theme to try them:
- An all-new special light theme with a custom background image. In the Theme menu, set it to Light and toggle on Background image to try it.
- Adjustable background image opacity for background image themes, making many parts more readable in both light and dark styles.
- Customise how round the website is, from straight to very round edges on nearly every part of the user interface.
Major mobile app improvements:
- Get notifications for broadcasts for tournaments and FIDE players you follow.
- Sign in by email, which resolved common sign-in issues. If you or your friends had issues signing into the app in the past, now is the time to try it again.
- Play against Maia offline, an engine designed to mimic human play.
- Go even darker with the AMOLED black theme. Being pure black, it complete turns off the pixels, saving you battery life on AMOLED screens.
Analysing correspondence games on web is more convenient: copy sub-variations, prune to the main line, both accessible from the right-click menu on moves.
We now include computer annotations in imported games you download from the website.

Full changes here: https://lichess.org/changelog

Olympiad halfway - Malaysia compared to neighbours

2026-09-22T12:34:19.058+08:00

Southeast Asian Ascent or Descent at the 46th Chess Olympiad (Round 6)?

Crossing the halfway mark, the dust settles on Round 6, the 11-round Swiss-system "pressure cooker" has begun its ruthless sorting of the 2026 field. Also, apt is the rest day today which must be needed by all the 205 countries taking part.

Malaysia’s ping pong results ending with Seed #67 to the Top 60

Malaysia’s campaign is consistent as in past Olympiads, we go up, then we go down. That is why, I am only looking at starting rank vs the final round rank to see our performance.Entering as the 67th seed (SNo 67), the Malaysian squad found themselves languishing at Rank 82 after a bruising fifth round. However, the team successfully clawed back from that slump with a decisive surge in Round 6, catapulting up the standings to Rank 59. Now if we can only stop the ping pong effect and keep our improved rank and/or improve on it!

Malaysia have now surpassed their initial seeding by 8 places. While their match record of 4 wins and 2 losses (8 match points) keeps them in the thick of the mid-table battle, an expert eye looks to their 14.5 game points (Tie Break 3). This figure suggests a team that is fighting for every half-point on the lower boards, a necessity for maintaining upward mobility as the pairings become increasingly difficult.

The Frontrunners: Philippines and Vietnam Break into the Elite

The most electrifying story of the tournament’s first half involves the Philippines and Vietnam, both of whom have effectively broken into the "Elite" tier. By the end of Round 6, these teams have positioned themselves in contention for prestigious Category Awards, which are often the true measure of success for rising chess nations.

Philippines (Seed #57): In a staggering display of giant-killing, the Philippines has soared to Rank 29. This represents a +28 position gain, one of the most significant ascents in the top half of the table. Their 18.0 game points highlight a lethal efficiency across all four boards.
Vietnam (Seed #47): Steady and clinical, Vietnam has navigated the Swiss-system minefield to reach Rank 31, a +16 gain over their starting seed.

Both nations boast identical match records that underscore their consistency:

4 wins
0 draws
2 losses

The Indonesian Rollercoaster: From Peak #13 to Round 6 Reality

Indonesia (Seed #52) has provided the most dramatic arc of the regional cohort. After Round 5, Indonesia occupied the dizzying heights of Rank 13, flirting with the tournament's absolute elite. However, Round 6 saw a correction, with the team shifting to Rank 34.

From an analytical perspective, this tumble is less a collapse and more a symptom of the Swiss-system’s ruthlessness. Having reached the top 15, Indonesia was inevitably paired against a top-10 powerhouse; their subsequent drop is the standard "tax" paid for facing elite opposition. Despite this, they remain 18 spots above their initial seeding with a healthy 16.5 game points, keeping them well within striking distance of a top-20 finish.

Recovery and Regional Consolidation: Singapore and Beyond

Singapore (Seed #50) is the picture of consistency , recovering from a Round 5 dip (Rank 56) to secure Rank 43. Beyond the primary seeds, the regional depth is further evidenced by:

Chinese Taipei (Seed #83): Holding firm at Rank 70 (+13 Net).
Hong Kong (Seed #108): Punched well above their weight to reach Rank 88 (+20 Net).
Myanmar (Seed #128): In arguably the greatest overperformance of the region, Myanmar has ascended to Rank 79—a massive +49 net seed change that signals a historic run for the D-Group contenders.

The lone outlier in this regional success story is Thailand (Seed #104), which has struggled to find its rhythm. Sliding to Rank 125 (-21 Net), the Thai squad stands in sharp contrast to the otherwise "green" status of its neighbors.

Comparative Regional Performance Table

The following data reflects the standings of the eight specified regional teams at the conclusion of the sixth round:

Team	Starting Seed (SNo)	Rank after Round 5	Rank after Round 6	Net Seed Change (SNo vs R6)
Philippines	57	49	29	+28
Vietnam	47	46	31	+16
Indonesia	52	13	34	+18
Singapore	50	56	43	+7
Malaysia	67	82	59	+8
Chinese Taipei	83	65	70	+13
Hong Kong	108	76	88	+20
Thailand	104	97	125	-21

Conclusion: Looking Toward the Final Five Rounds

The "honeymoon phase" of the tournament is over. The final five rounds in Samarkand will test the psychological depth of these teams as the pairings tighten and every game carries the weight of history. Philippines and Vietnam are hoping to consolidate their top-30 positions.\

Malaysia hope is to continue its upward trajectory.

Olympiad after 3 Rounds: How Malaysia (Open) is doing compared to neighbours

2026-09-19T15:20:08.095+08:00

The purpose of this blog post is to compare Malaysia's performance for the Open team compared to our neighbours like Singapore, Indonesia, Phillippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Hong Kong. It's purely trivia and of interest to me only but I wanted to share this on the blog on the off chance anyone else may be interested. This is only after 3 rounds and I will post the stats again after a couple of rounds more..

The Big Picture

The Olympiad runs 11 rounds. Rounds 1-3 are the "opening phase," where seeding gaps are widest. Singapore and Vietnam went in as the region's top dogs (seeds #50 and #47), with Malaysia (#67) in the middle of the pack, and Thailand/Hong Kong starting from the back.

Malaysia's Rollercoaster

Round 2: Got swept 0-4 by Croatia (a much higher seed) — a rough blow.
Round 3: Bounced back hard, beating Honduras 3.5-0.5.
Current standing: 4 match points, 7.5 board points.

The takeaway: Malaysia took a real hit but recovered well. If they'd lost again in Round 3, they'd have slid toward the bottom half of the field — instead they're holding steady in the middle.

Star of the Region: Singapore

Singapore is having a breakout tournament — perfect 6/6 match points:

Beat Wales 3-1 in Round 2
Upset Norway (a top-25 seed) 2.5-1.5 in Round 3

That Norway win is a genuine giant-killing result for a #50 seed, and it's likely to earn them a Round 4 clash against elite competition (India, USA, or hosts Uzbekistan).

How the Rest of the Neighborhood Did in Round 3

Team	Result	Notes
Singapore	Beat Norway 2.5-1.5	Huge upset, still undefeated
Philippines	Beat Tunisia 4-0	Clean sweep, back in the mix
Indonesia	Beat Uganda 3.5-0.5	Recovered from a narrow loss to India
Chinese Taipei	Beat Mauritania 4-0	Second win in a row
Vietnam	Lost to Greece 1-3	Stumble for the other regional favorite
Malaysia	Beat Honduras 3.5-0.5	Recovery after Croatia sweep
Thailand	Drew Portugal 2-2	Gritty result vs. a much higher seed
Hong Kong	Lost to Chile 0.5-3.5	Still searching for form

Standings Snapshot (After Round 3)

Team	MP	Board Pts
Singapore	6	9.5
Philippines	4	9.0
Indonesia	4	9.0
Chinese Taipei	4	9.0
Vietnam	4	8.5
Malaysia	4	7.5
Thailand	3	6.0
Hong Kong	2	5.0

What's Next

Singapore's hot streak means much tougher pairings ahead as the Swiss system starts matching them against world powers. Malaysia, having steadied the ship, should also expect stiffer opposition in Round 4 — but their recovery from the Croatia loss is a good psychological sign heading into the tougher middle rounds.

The 5th Blue Chevaliers International Open 2026: A Recap

2026-09-15T13:53:27.084+08:00

5th Blue Chevaliers International Open 2026

1. Setting the Scene

Another year, another edition of the Blue Chevaliers Open in the books — and honestly, this one might be the best yet. Phuket has quietly become one of the go-to spots on the Southeast Asian chess calendar, and the clash with the 1st Berjaya event did nothing to hurt that reputation. For local Thai and even Malaysian players especially, this tournament is gold: a full nine-round Swiss against a genuinely international field, played at home, with real chances to pick up rating points and norms. You don't get that kind of opportunity.

Here's the rundown on the logistics:

Venue: Novotel Phuket Resort, Patong Beach, Thailand
Dates: September 7–13, 2026
Format: 9-round Swiss System
Time Control: 90 minutes plus 30 seconds increment from move 1
Organizers: Blue Chevaliers and Red Knight Chess Club
Tournament Director: Peter Frost
Officiating Team: Chief Arbiter IA Ellie Emira Syamimi, assisted by Deputy Chief Arbiters IA Chuah Jin Hai Jonathan, IA Wasinee Brahmawong, and IA Patcharawee Brahmawong.

I know 3 of the arbiters!!

And what a week it turned out to be. The title race went right down to the last round.

2. Khegay Gets It Done

If you've ever played top board in a big Swiss, you know how thankless it can feel. Everyone below you is playing with house money — a draw against the top seed is a great result for them, so they take risks, dig in, and generally make your life miserable. GM Dmitriy Khegay (FID, 2504) had to deal with exactly that pressure for nine rounds, and he handled it about as well as you could ask.

The story really came down to the last round. Khegay walked in needing a win, with the white pieces against GM Harmen Jonkman — no easy out, no draw-and-coast option. He got the job done, closing out the tournament on 7.5/9 and settling the title in the last game of the day.

It's the kind of finish that says more about a player than any single brilliancy could. With the field averaging around 1882, there was no room to relax against "lower-rated" opposition — plenty of those players were more than capable of causing an upset. Khegay's composure under that pressure is really what won him the tournament.

3. The Real Story: A FIDE Master Crashes the Podium

If the champion's story was about steadiness, second place was all about a breakout. It's rare to see a FIDE Master push past a pack of Grandmasters and International Masters to lock down clear second — but that's exactly what happened here.

FM Varun Gampa Aditya (IND, 2307) was the player everyone was talking about by the closing rounds. He capped off a gritty tournament with a Round 9 win over A Qil A Lauddin Abd Aziz, finishing on 7.0/9. That's a serious result — the kind that puts an IM norm conversation firmly on the table.

Below him, things got crowded fast. Five players tied on 6.5/9, and it took tiebreaks to sort out the order:

Name	Title	Federation
Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad	IM	India (IND)
M.R. Venkatesh	GM	India (IND)
Van Huy Nguyen	GM	Vietnam (VIE)
Nikolai Val. Makarov	FM	FIDE (FID)
Tran Pham Quang Minh	—	Vietnam (VIE)

My favorite name in that group is Tran Pham Quang Minh — no title next to his name, but don't let that fool you. At only 12 years of age, he drew GM Harmen Jonkman in Round 7 and beat the higher-rated FM Ankit Gajwa back in Round 6. Vietnam has been quietly producing a lot of young, dangerous untitled players lately, and Minh's run here is a good example

.

4. The Kids Made Some Noise Too

Open tournaments like this are always a good gauge of where the next generation stands, and this one had a couple of nice junior performances worth flagging.

courtesy of https://www.facebook.com/causofamily0816

Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay came away with solid 6.0/9 finishes. Bandyopadhyay in particular looked comfortable on the upper boards — the kind of composure that usually takes years longer to develop.

And a special shoutout to 10-year-old Jade Causo. Her score, 3.0/9, doesn't tell the full story. She was in the field with adults twice or three times her age and titled players well above her level, and by all accounts she never looked out of place or intimidated. Tournaments like this are exactly where that kind of experience gets built, and she should be proud of the week.

5. By the Numbers

Statistically, this was a tournament defined less by GM density and more by depth. The average rating of 1882 meant the top seeds couldn't coast against anyone — there were too many underrated, hungry players ready to punish complacency.

Who Showed Up

31 federations were represented this year:

Australia, Austria, Brunei, Denmark, England, FIDE (FID), France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Malaysia, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Taiwan, Ukraine, and USA.

Titled Players in the Field

Grandmasters (GM): 6
International Masters (IM): 2
FIDE Masters (FM): 11
Women's International Masters (WIM): 3
Candidate Masters (CM/WCM): 6
Total Titled Players: 28

Final Standings (Top 10)

Rank	Name	Federation	Rating	Points
1	Dmitriy Khegay	FID	2504	7.5
2	Varun Gampa Aditya	IND	2307	7.0
3	Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad	IND	2387	6.5
4	M.R. Venkatesh	IND	2335	6.5
5	Van Huy Nguyen	VIE	2348	6.5
6	Nikolai Val. Makarov	FID	2140	6.5
7	Tran Pham Quang Minh	VIE	2051	6.5
8	Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay	IND	2165	6.0
9	Arsens Batashevs	LAT	2201	6.0
10	David C. Smerdon	AUS	2461	6.0

If there's one takeaway from the numbers, it's this: nobody at the top got to coast. The favorites had to play close to flawless chess just to stay ahead of the FMs and untitled players snapping at their heels — which, honestly, is exactly what makes these Open events fun to follow.

6. Wrapping Up

Another edition down, and the Blue Chevaliers Open keeps proving it belongs on the regional calendar. Khegay's title run showed what disciplined, high-level preparation looks like under pressure, but for me the real headline was the chasing pack — Varun Gampa Aditya's breakout run and Tran Pham Quang Minh's giant-killing streak were the kind of stories that make Open tournaments worth watching in the first place. Here's hoping the next edition brings even more of that chaos.

Links:

Organisers Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/bluechevaliersopen
Chess-results: https://s2.chess-results.com/tnr1365480.aspx?lan=1&art=4&fed=SGP&turdet=YES&flag=30&SNode=S0

Blue Chevaliers after 6 rounds

2026-09-11T19:27:45.699+08:00

4 joint leaders

Round 6 of the 5th Blue Chevaliers International Open 2026 saw the sole leader from Round 5 slowed down by GM David C. Smerdon allowing three chasing masters to catch up and create a four-way tie at the summit.

Round 6 Recap: The Chasing Pack Strikes

Board 1 Draw: Top seed GM Dmitriy Khegay (2504) played Black against Australian GM David C. Smerdon (2461) and negotiated a draw, bringing Khegay to 5.0 points.
Grandmaster & IM Victories:
- On Board 2, IM Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad (2387) scored a decisive White win against FM Nicolas Grandadam (2226) to reach 5.0 points.
- On Board 3, Vietnamese GM Van Huy Nguyen (2348) earned a black-piece victory over Arsens Batashevs (2201) to hit 5.0 points.
- On Board 4, Indian GM M.R. Venkatesh (2335) defeated FM Nikolai Val. Makarov (2140) to join the lead group at 5.0 points.
Crucial Draws & Moves in the Pursuit Group: GM Harmen Jonkman drew with IM Devaki V. Prasad on Board 5, while Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay drew with A Qil A Lauddin Abd Aziz on Board 6. Meanwhile, FM Jack Rodgers, FM Varun Gampa Aditya, and Tran Pham Quang Minh all won their games, joining 2nd seed GM Fabien Libiszewski (who took a half-point bye) at 4.5 points.

Current Standings After Round 6

Going into Round 7, four players share 1st place with 5.0 / 6.0 points:

GM Dmitriy Khegay (FID, 2504) – 5.0 pts
GM Van Huy Nguyen (VIE, 2348) – 5.0 pts
IM Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad (IND, 2387) – 5.0 pts
GM

IND, 2335) – 5.0 pts

Chasing closely behind is a nine-player group at 4.5 points:

IM Devaki V. Prasad, FM Jack Rodgers, Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay, GM David C. Smerdon, A Qil A Lauddin Abd Aziz, FM Varun Gampa Aditya, GM Harmen Jonkman, Tran Pham Quang Minh, and GM Fabien Libiszewski.

Round 7 Scenario: How the Leadership Can Shift

With 3 rounds remaining in this 9-round Swiss event, Round 7 features direct head-to-head collisions among the leaders:

Head-to-Head Battles for Sole Leadership:
- Board 1: GM Dmitriy Khegay (5.0) vs. GM M.R. Venkatesh (5.0)
- Board 2: GM Van Huy Nguyen (5.0) vs. IM Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad (5.0)
- What can change: A winner on either board reaches 6.0 / 7.0, seizing sole or shared control of first place. If both top boards end in draws, all four remain tied at 5.5 points.
The 4.5-Point Pursuit Pack:
- Board 3: A Qil A Lauddin Abd Aziz (4.5) vs. GM Fabien Libiszewski (4.5)
- Board 4: IM Devaki V. Prasad (4.5) vs. GM David C. Smerdon (4.5)
- Board 5: FM Varun Gampa Aditya (4.5) vs. Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay (4.5)
- Board 6: Tran Pham Quang Minh (4.5) vs. GM Harmen Jonkman (4.5)
- What can change: Any winner from Boards 3–6 moves up to 5.5 points. If the top two boards draw, winners from this pack will instantly leap into a shared tournament lead going into Round 8!

♟️

5th Blue Chevaliers after 3 rounds

2026-09-09T16:55:47.290+08:00

Arsens

Khegay

The 5th Blue Chevaliers International Open 2026, hosted at the Novotel Phuket Resort in Patong Beach, Thailand, has delivered three rounds of intense classical chess. With 3 rounds completed and 6 more rounds to go in this 9-round Swiss-system tournament, the battle for the title is heating up as players prepare for Round 4.

The Front-Runners: Three Players with a Perfect 3/3 Start

Out of a competitive 103-player field, only three players have managed to navigate the first three rounds with an unblemished 3.0/3.0 score:

GM Dmitriy Khegay (FID, 2504) – The top seed has played up to his billing, securing three consecutive victories.
Arsens Batashevs (LAT, 2201) – The 14th seed has outperformed expectations to join the top tier.
FM Nikolai Val. Makarov (FID, 2140) – The 22nd seed has put together an impressive streak to share the lead.

Expected Favorites vs. Unexpected Surprises

Expected Mastery

Top seed GM Dmitriy Khegay has executed a textbook opening run, defeating Chay Joon Hoong, Apichit Buakird, and FM Arif Rahman Saragih in succession to hold his spot at the top of the leaderboard.

The Breakout Stars

Arsens Batashevs scored key wins against Peter Frost, Chen-Hao Wu, and Nikolay Gutsulyak to claim a share of first place.
FM Nikolai Val. Makarov achieved one of the top results of Round 3 by defeating higher-rated FM Ankit Gajwa (2245), catapulting himself into the lead group.

Surprises & Upsets

Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay (2165) produced a standout result in Round 3 by holding 3rd seed GM David C. Smerdon (2461) to a hard-fought draw.
GM M.R. Venkatesh (2335) was forced to fight back after an unexpected Round 1 draw against lower-rated Amlan Mahanta (1810), subsequently winning two straight games to reach 2.5 points.
2nd seed GM Fabien Libiszewski (2487) and WIM Heather S. Richards (2096) elected to take half-point byes in Round 3, keeping them in prime striking position with 2.5 points heading into Round 4.

Current Standings After Round 3

Behind the leading trio sits a massive, formidable chasing pack of 17 players tied at 2.5 points:

3.0 Points: GM Dmitriy Khegay, Arsens Batashevs, FM Nikolai Val. Makarov
2.5 Points: FM Ngoc Lan Tran, GM David C. Smerdon, FM Nicolas Grandadam, IM Devaki V. Prasad, IM Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad, FM Varun Gampa Aditya, AIM A Qil A Lauddin Abd Aziz, Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay, FM Jack Rodgers, FM Eugene Yanayt, WIM Heather S. Richards, GM M.R. Venkatesh, GM Van Huy Nguyen, GM Harmen Jonkman, Tupfah Khumnorkaew, FM Deniel Causo, and GM Fabien Libiszewski.

Round 4 Marquee Matchups: Top Boards Clash

As Round 4 begins, the top boards feature crucial head-to-head battles between the leaders and the elite chasing pack:

Board 1: Arsens Batashevs (3.0) vs. GM Dmitriy Khegay (3.0) — The ultimate showdown of perfect scores, with Batashevs taking the White pieces against the tournament's top seed.
Board 2: IM Nubairshah Shaikh Mohammad (2.5) vs. FM Nikolai Val. Makarov (3.0) — Makarov looks to defend his perfect record with Black against the solid Indian International Master.
Board 3: FM Deniel Causo (2.5) vs. GM Fabien Libiszewski (2.5) — Grandmaster Libiszewski returns to action looking to climb into the lead.
Board 4: FM Eugene Yanayt (2.5) vs. GM David C. Smerdon (2.5) — Australia's GM Smerdon aims for a win after his Round 3 draw.
Board 5: Neelabhro Bandyopadhyay (2.5) vs. GM Van Huy Nguyen (2.5) — Fresh off drawing a GM, Bandyopadhyay faces another formidable Vietnamese Grandmaster.
Board 6: GM M.R. Venkatesh (2.5) vs. IM Devaki V. Prasad (2.5) — An all-Indian battle between Grandmaster and International Master.

With 6 rounds remaining, there is plenty of room for moves on the leaderboard as the tournament progresses toward its conclusion on September 13.