For a couple of years I’ve been playing with the idea of AI chess coaches.

Why?

I don’t have the money to pay a real coach! Call me cheap but I want a machine to teach me.

Of course there are materials out there one can use to improve like books, interactive digital courses like Chessable etc.

But these are general purpose marketed for profit to fit the general chess learning public. Everyone will agree with me if you had a personal coach, there would be leaps and bounds in chess improvement.

That’s where a digital coach comes in. It’s personal. It’s available 24/7/ It’s adaptable, learning from your good and bad habits. The ideal and perfect coach. And also improbable as if it was possible, someone would have already created in this fast moving age of AI tech.

I’ve posted many #syioksendiri posts on why it’s not possible. At least not yet. But will be possible in the near future.

I think the future is now.

My initial thought was that you need a specialised Chess LLM – not those silly general purpose LLM like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude etc which is great at many things but horrible at chess. Many still play illegal moves and cheat.

A new LLM based on chess would have been too expensive in terms of hardware, time and monetary costs.

The solution would be to use a free local LLM and do “fine tuning” – teaching it all it needs to know about chess so it can become good enough to commentate like a digital version of GothamChess. 

Think of it. You have GothamChess (Levy Rosman) to explain games to you in his highly effective and engaging style. You can stop him at any time and ask about the position. He tells you all he knows about the position, what goes in the mind of both black and white, plans etc. He is “just” an IM but as a teacher, I think he is better than most Grandmasters. I just want a digital version of him.

How?
By investing in the right hardware and choosing a good LLM.

Hardware Requirements

To achieve high-quality results, your hardware investment should focus on GPU VRAM.

• The “Sweet Spot”: A setup with dual RTX 3090, 4090, or the newer 5090 cards (providing 24–48GB of VRAM) is ideal for running 8-bit QLoRA (Quantized Low-Rank Adaptation). This allows you to fine-tune a powerful model like Gemma-4-31B, which is considered the “gold standard” for the linguistic nuance required for grandmaster-level commentary.

• Entry Level: A single RTX 4090 (24GB) can handle 4-bit LoRA, which is faster but may result in slightly less “fluent” coaching.

The Hybrid Architecture

It is critical to understand that even the best fine-tuned LLMs can hallucinate tactics or illegal moves. Therefore, the most effective feasibility path is a hybrid system:

• Chess Engine (Stockfish): Acts as the “source of truth,” generating evaluation scores, best lines, and identifying tactical threats like blunders or forks.

• Fine-tuned LLM (Gemma 4): Acts as the “translator,” taking the engine’s raw data and converting it into enthusiastic, “Gotham-style” commentary that explains the why behind moves in plain language.

Teaching and Coaching Capabilities

With this setup, the AI can perform advanced coaching tasks:

• Interactive Quizzing: The system can be designed to pause mid-game and ask, “What would you do here?”, followed by an explanation of why the user’s choice was correct or a mistake.

• Narrative Structure: Instead of move-by-move data, the AI can split a game into opening, middlegame, and endgame phases, summarizing the “narrative” of the match just like a human coach.

• Psychological Insight: By fine-tuning on human commentary, the AI can point out “panic” moves or “desperate” central lunges, making the learning process engaging rather than purely mathematical.

By leveraging open-source datasets from Lichess or Chess.com and using parameter-efficient tuning (QLoRA), we can (hopefully) create a professional-grade coach that runs fully offline on our own machine.

Of course it’s going to take an investment in a PC with a good GPU or maybe some rented time on hosted GPUs at Amazon servers, not to mention, a ton of time since we are not commercial and can afford data centres to create and learn from training data. 

But the thing is, it is now feasible and possible.

Of course we know that ChatGPT and other LLMs are horrible at playing chess. So fears of AI computers taking over the jobs of chess coaching is distant and not even asked.

As a programmer, I can say the situation is different and more dire for the software development career scene. Junior positions are wiped out and many are on their toes on what skills to pick up to ensure they are not made obsolete.

The tools are there to make an effective AI coach. Just that the integration of these tools are not there yet and the effort to do this is non existant. Not at the moment anyway.

But if there was, this is how I would go about it.

 The four integration problems that need solving

1. From evaluation to explanation

A chess engine gives you a centipawn evaluation and a best line. That is not coaching. The key integration step is routing that output through an LLM with enough context — who the player is, what rating they’re at, what mistakes they’ve made before — to produce a genuinely pedagogical explanation. Not “Qxf7 was the best move, eval +2.3” but “You played Rd1 because you were focused on the open file, which is correct thinking — but you missed that their bishop had a long diagonal you didn’t close. This is the same type of oversight you showed in games 3 and 7 this month: prioritizing activity over safety.” That kind of synthesis is now possible by feeding structured engine output into an LLM with a rich system prompt containing the student’s error history. Lichess and Chess.com already expose APIs for game retrieval. The glue is buildable today.

2. Error taxonomy and the spaced repetition layer

Human coaches know that blunders cluster. A student who repeatedly hangs pieces in time pressure has a different problem than one who misjudges pawn structure in endgames. The second integration challenge is building a classifier that tags every mistake by type — tactical (hanging piece, missed fork, calculation error), positional (weak square, poor piece coordination), psychological (time pressure, fatigue patterns), or conceptual (misunderstanding a specific opening or endgame principle). Once mistakes are tagged and stored per player, the system can do something a human coach struggles to do at scale: implement genuine spaced repetition for chess concepts, surfacing targeted puzzles on exactly the themes the player is weakest in, at exactly the intervals where forgetting is most likely. Anki has proven this works for knowledge. Applied to chess motifs with engine-curated puzzles, it becomes a powerful learning loop.

3. The curriculum generation problem

A good coach doesn’t just react to mistakes — they have a road map. The third integration challenge is building a curriculum engine that looks at a player’s full game history, identifies the ceiling (what is actually preventing rating improvement right now), and constructs a learning sequence. This is solvable with LLMs that are prompted to reason over structured player profiles: ELO history, opening repertoire weaknesses, endgame conversion rates, time management data. The output is a prioritized learning plan — “spend the next two weeks on rook endgames because you’re converting won positions at only 40% accuracy” — with specific resources, puzzle sets, and model games attached. This is essentially a recommender system with a coaching persona layered on top.

4. The emotional and motivational layer

This is the hardest part to replicate and the most honest reason human coaches won’t be replaced soon. Motivation, frustration after a loss, competitive anxiety, knowing when to push and when to ease up — these require genuine attunement to a person that LLMs can approximate but not yet deliver reliably. The realistic design here is a triage model: the AI handles the high-frequency, low-stakes interactions (daily puzzle review, game analysis, progress check-ins), and flags sessions to a human coach when the student shows signs of frustration, plateau, or motivational difficulty. The human coach’s time is then concentrated on exactly what a human does best — the relationship, the competition preparation, the mental game. This makes the human coach more effective per hour, not redundant.

Also, today there are effective commercial LMS (Learning Management System) digital and online. Integrate that with what we have and we have a system to track and record in detail, students progress, report it, suggest areas of weakness and improvement etc. Just that there is no commercial Chess based LMS (yet).

What practical integration looks like today

The realistic near-term implementation is a platform that ingests a player’s Lichess or Chess.com game archive, runs engine analysis through a Stockfish API, classifies errors with a fine-tuned classifier or a prompted LLM, maintains a structured player profile, and delivers coaching via a conversational interface where the student can ask “why did I lose this game?” or “what should I study this week?” and receive answers that are genuinely personalized. That platform does not require new AI research. It requires good product engineering, thoughtful prompt design, and a database schema that tracks player history over time.

The deeper opportunity — and the one that would genuinely change chess education — is building this at scale for the millions of club players who will never afford a human grandmaster coach but who could benefit enormously from consistent, intelligent, personalized feedback. That is a real gap, and the tools to close it are, as you said, already there.

Of course, like I categerised this post under “brainfart”, almost as a joke. It is not a serious post. Heck, none of this will come to past, ever.

Or so you think !!

 This story is about Penang Open champion 2025. The key takeway from this is he is not a strong GM like past winners – GM Novendra Priasmoro (incidentally also recent 2025 Johor Champion) or GM Sivuk Vitaly, He is not a rising junior star like IM Poh Yu Tian (2024 champion) or a season foreign veteran like IM Oleg Badmatseyranov (2023 champion). He is untitled, 24 years old and is the first time playing in this event.

Peng Hongchi Triumphs at Penang Heritage City International Chess Open 2025

Peng Hongchi clinched the 17th Penang Heritage City International Chess Open 2025 in commanding fashion, scoring an unbeaten 7.5/9 despite being an untitled player seeded only ninth. His performance rating of 2462 and a rating gain of 17.4 Elo underscore how strongly he punched above his 2364 FIDE rating against titled opposition. View full results

Overall Tournament Performance

Peng entered the Open section as the 9th seed with a FIDE rating of 2364 and no international title, in a field averaging 1954. Over nine rounds he scored 7 wins and 3 draws, finishing clear first on 7.5 points with an unbeaten record. Details

His performance rating of 2462 was roughly 100 points above his starting rating, yielding a FIDE gain of 17.4 rating points for the event. This performance is comparable to that of a solid International Master and shows he competed at near-Grandmaster level throughout the tournament. Details

Peng Hongchi Triumphs at Penang Heritage City International Chess Open 2025

Peng Hongchi clinched the 17th Penang Heritage City International Chess Open 2025 in commanding fashion, scoring an unbeaten 7.5/9 despite being an untitled player seeded only ninth. His performance rating of 2462 and a rating gain of 17.4 Elo underscore how strongly he punched above his 2364 FIDE rating against titled opposition. View full results

Overall Tournament Performance

Peng entered the Open section as the 9th seed with a FIDE rating of 2364 and no international title, in a field averaging 1954. Over nine rounds he scored 7 wins and 3 draws, finishing clear first on 7.5 points with an unbeaten record. Details

His performance rating of 2462 was roughly 100 points above his starting rating, yielding a FIDE gain of 17.4 rating points for the event. This performance is comparable to that of a solid International Master and shows he competed at near-Grandmaster level throughout the tournament. Details

Path to the Title

Peng built early momentum with three consecutive wins against Ng Shu Heng (1878), CM Tan Jun Hao (1987) and Shen Houlin (1661), establishing himself among the leaders. These victories laid the foundation for a later run against the top boards. Details

From round 4 onward he faced only players rated above 2290, including three IMs and two GMs, yet still remained unbeaten. His final score against this murderers’ row was 4/6, a remarkable return for a nominally lower-rated, untitled player. Details

Results vs the Nine Opponents

Against his nine opponents, Peng scored 7.5/9 with +6 =3 −0, consistently outperforming his rating on every board. He conceded draws only to three of the highest‑scoring rivals in the final standings: IM Wagh Suyog, Mohammadamin Biriya and IM Almas Rakhmatullaev. Details

Key scalps included:

• Win vs IM Karthik Rajaa (2298), a critical mid‑tournament victory that kept him in contention. Details
• Win vs GM Nguyen Van Huy (2363) on top board in round 7, proving his ability to defeat Grandmasters in direct clashes. Details
• Win vs top seed GM Nguyen Duc Hoa (2432) in round 8, a decisive result that effectively propelled him into pole position for the championship. Details

Relative Rating and Lack of Title

Peng’s starting rank of 9 and rating of 2364 placed him clearly behind the top seeds, several of whom were Grandmasters and International Masters rated between approximately 2390 and 2430. As an untitled player among such experienced professionals, expectations on paper were more modest compared to his eventual winning result. Details

The contrast between his lack of title and his performance is striking: he outscored multiple GMs and IMs while remaining unbeaten, and his 2462 performance is comfortably within typical GM‑norm territory for many events. This run strongly suggests that his current strength is already at a titled level, even if the formal title norms are yet to be completed. Details

Meeting and Neutralising Top Contenders

Peng’s draws were all pragmatic results against top contenders who finished near the top of the table: IM Wagh Suyog (2395, 7/9), Mohammadamin Biriya (2301, 6.5/9) and IM Almas Rakhmatullaev (2390, 6.5/9). By splitting points with these in-form rivals, he avoided unnecessary risks while preserving his lead against the rest of the field. Details

Crucially, when paired with the two top Vietnamese Grandmasters on the first board in rounds 7 and 8, he did not settle for safety but pressed for full points – and succeeded both times. Those back‑to‑back wins against GMs, followed by a solid final‑round draw with IM Rakhmatullaev, underlined his practical match strategy and sealed a deserved championship.

Peng built early momentum with three consecutive wins against Ng Shu Heng (1878), CM Tan Jun Hao (1987) and Shen Houlin (1661), establishing himself among the leaders. These victories laid the foundation for a later run against the top boards. Details

From round 4 onward he faced only players rated above 2290, including three IMs and two GMs, yet still remained unbeaten. His final score against this murderers’ row was 4/6, a remarkable return for a nominally lower-rated, untitled player. Details

Results vs the Nine Opponents

Against his nine opponents, Peng scored 7.5/9 with +6 =3 −0, consistently outperforming his rating on every board. He conceded draws only to three of the highest‑scoring rivals in the final standings: IM Wagh Suyog, Mohammadamin Biriya and IM Almas Rakhmatullaev. Details

Key scalps included:

• Win vs IM Karthik Rajaa (2298), a critical mid‑tournament victory that kept him in contention. Details
• Win vs GM Nguyen Van Huy (2363) on top board in round 7, proving his ability to defeat Grandmasters in direct clashes. Details
• Win vs top seed GM Nguyen Duc Hoa (2432) in round 8, a decisive result that effectively propelled him into pole position for the championship. Details

Relative Rating and Lack of Title

Peng’s starting rank of 9 and rating of 2364 placed him clearly behind the top seeds, several of whom were Grandmasters and International Masters rated between approximately 2390 and 2430. As an untitled player among such experienced professionals, expectations on paper were more modest compared to his eventual winning result. Details

The contrast between his lack of title and his performance is striking: he outscored multiple GMs and IMs while remaining unbeaten, and his 2462 performance is comfortably within typical GM‑norm territory for many events. This run strongly suggests that his current strength is already at a titled level, even if the formal title norms are yet to be completed. Details

Meeting and Neutralising Top Contenders

Peng’s draws were all pragmatic results against top contenders who finished near the top of the table: IM Wagh Suyog (2395, 7/9), Mohammadamin Biriya (2301, 6.5/9) and IM Almas Rakhmatullaev (2390, 6.5/9). By splitting points with these in-form rivals, he avoided unnecessary risks while preserving his lead against the rest of the field. Details

Crucially, when paired with the two top Vietnamese Grandmasters on the first board in rounds 7 and 8, he did not settle for safety but pressed for full points – and succeeded both times. Those back‑to‑back wins against GMs, followed by a solid final‑round draw with IM Rakhmatullaev.

Nearly two decades ago, I played a classical team game at Wilayah Kompleks against Nor Ilhamuddin.

I was unrated, and Nor was slightly over 2000 Elo. I had Black, and right before the game I had watched an Andrew Martin lesson on the Modern Defence.

As the game unfolded  many of the moves and plans I played were straight from the video. Of course, it was ZERO originality, and I was not even calculating – just not believing why this game is following the exact moves from the video. I was mostly following Andrew Martin’s simple theme about attacking weaknesses on a particular color complex, and the moves seemed to choose themselves after the pawn structure was locked.

I reached a position where I was better as Black and offered a draw. Nor declined. After that, instead of my advantage disappearing, Black’s position somehow kept getting better and better, until I eventually won – a result I didn’t deserve at all !

Even though it was one of my biggest results, I also remember like I had “cheated” in a way, because more than half the game was rote memorisation rather than my own understanding. A much stronger player had lost to a much weaker player like me, and part of me felt that was unfair.

That win, plus a draw against Jax in the same team tournament, helped me get an initial rating of 1700+. After FIDE’s last “adjustment,” it became 1800+. I did not play much after that, and my rating has been inactive since.

Here’s a video song I created based exactly on this story:

]]> 673 http://gilachess.blogspot.com/2026/01/who-took-part-in-back-to-back-johor-and.html Mon, 23 Mar 2026 21:12:57 +0000 https://catur.org/blog/2026/03/23/who-took-part-in-back-to-back-johor-and-html-3/

There are 38 players in total who participated in both the 10th Johor International Chess Open 2025 and the 17th Penang Heritage City International Chess Open 2025.

Clearly, both tournaments are symbiotic and have benefited from increased participation of players.

Denmark vs India 

I can’t believe it’s 20th Malaysian Chess Festival and I’ve attended all 20. Only once as a separate entity – a pure blogger not part of the festival helpers. Once as a participant when Hamid needed to make the Open section “even” and not require bye.  The other editions was the normal “official” blogger/photographer for the festival.

The 20th edition should have been historic but the notable venue change this year, relocating from its traditional home at the Cititel Ballroom on the 5th floor to a shopping mall setting was a shock to my systems.

Obviously any normal chess person would prefer the ballroom to the shopping mall as a playing stage. But let’s discuss what happened at the festival.

at Cititel

For players used to the ballroom’s controlled environment(I am one of them!)—with its quiet atmosphere conducive to concentration and consistent lighting—it was quite a culture shock. The shopping mall venue, at best, brought with it the ambient sounds typical of retail spaces and different lighting conditions than the ballroom had offered. At it’s worst, it was chaotic and noisy.

Long-time participants arrived anticipating the familiar setting they had come to associate with the tournament over the years. It’s that expectation I believe,  resulted in the highest number of participants since Covid. 

The contrast between the hushed, purpose-built ballroom space and the more dynamic mall environment was immediately apparent to those who had competed in previous editions. Two participants who were so disappointed that they withdraw from the event after the first couple of rounds.

To be fair, these two were from the classical section which no doubt requires that serene, quiet environment for ideal chess to occur. On the other hand the other events like Rapid, Team Event actually suffered less as even at the Cititel Ballroom these were crowded events and no different from the busy chaotic environment.

Chess, requiring sustained concentration and mental clarity, typically benefits from environments that minimize external distractions. The change in venue conditions presented players with an adjustment period as they adapted to the new surroundings, which differed markedly from the established tournament setting many had prepared for mentally.

To that one person I overheard telling the organisers “it’s chaotic”, my first thoughts were “Duh, everyone can see that it is chaotic!”. The question was how the problems / chaos was addressed.

To the organisers credit, they did address the issue of lighting, adding some DIY led lights above the chess boards where there was poor lighting and changing about half the chairs from plastic to cloth covered ones. But there is so much one can do to smooth over the “tournament chaos in supermarkets and malls”. One amazing outcome there was very little problems in terms of disputes etc. At least from what I observed over all the 9 events anyway.

In the end, if I had to grade the chess festival by venue, the past ones I would give them A- and the latest 20th edition a C-. Penang Open (before Covid) would be a B- and past Johor Open (before Covid) would be a C+.  Although to be fair I think both Penang and Johor Open after Covid at school halls have improved so are both a B. Also take note this is the opinion of a blogger, and other chess players may rate them with vastly differently.

Will there be a 21st Malaysian Chess Festival? I am not sure because initially it was mentioned the 20th would be the last one. But at the end there were talks that it would continue. If it does, I am sure most would agree with me that a better venue is chosen. Or one suggestion was, to remove the classical events and keep the others if a similiar venue like the mall was chosen.

By GilaChess – September 23, 2025

Another Historic Victory for Malaysia

This year’s Open featured 80+ players across Asia and beyond, including top seeds like GM Nguyen Van Huy (Vietnam), IM Zou Chen (China), and a string of high-rated contenders from India, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and Uzbekistan. The tournament, played over nine rounds, delivered a relentless display of fighting chess and dramatic upsets.

Kavin led going into the final round after holding GM Nguyen Van Huy to a tense draw, thus ensuring a tiebreak advantage over his chasers. Unbeaten through six wins and three draws, Kavin showcased mature nerves and tactical clarity, a rarity at his age.

Podium Standings – Asia’s Emerging Powers

Indians in the Spotlight

The Indian contingent made their mark despite the fierce competition:

• IM Kushagra Mohan (5.5/9) was in contention till the final rounds, bouncing back from challenging pairings.

• WIM Aakanksha Hagawane (5.5/9) took wins against several higher-rated opponents, cementing her reputation as a reliable team asset.

• GM Laxman R R and IM Karthik Rajaa (both 5.5/9) maintained top-half finishes, and several other Indian players secured respectable scores in the demanding environment.

A Youth Movement and Women’s Power

Young stars, including Kavin Mohan and Jin Ruijun (China, 2079, 6.5 points), demonstrated that the Malaysian Open continues to be a launchpad for next-generation talents. Among the prominent women, WIM Aakanksha Hagawane (IND), WGM Janelle Mae Frayna (PHI), and WFM Imomkuzieva Nilufarkhon (UZB) kept up the tradition of a gender-diverse leaderboard.

Back-To-Back Malaysian Champions

(the first Malaysian and youngest champion in 2024):

• Malaysia’s chess development, fueled by dedicated organizers and the late Dato’ Tan Chin Nam’s legacy, is inspiring a new wave of homegrown champions.

• The rise of talents like Yu Tian and Kavin reflects years of grassroots work, now producing players who dominate rather than merely participate.

Key Moments 

Kavin seeded only 16 at the start of the tourney scored important wins over IM Kushagra Mohan (IND), FM Wong Yinn Long (MAS), and outlasted top seeds.

Top Indian Results (after 9 rounds):

• IM Kushagra Mohan 5.5 pts, Tiebreak: 48/52

• WIM Aakanksha Hagawane 5.5 pts

• GM Laxman R R 5.5 pts

• IM Karthik Rajaa 5.5 pts

• CM Gireman Ja 5.5 pts

The Legacy and What’s Next

The KL Gateway Mall saw Malaysia’s chess dreams realized once again. As the Open grows in stature, the challenge for Indian hopefuls and Asia’s best only deepens. With the next festival already in planning, eyes will be on whether Malaysia can make it a hat-trick of homegrown champions – and which Indian talents will rise to stamp their mark.

Congratulations to FM Kavin Mohan and all participants. Malaysia’s chess renaissance continues to shine, promising even more drama and breakthroughs in years to come.

Relevant links:

• [ChessBase India: Poh Yu Tian clinches 19th IGB Dato Arthur Tan Malaysian Open 2024, Kushagra Mohan second]

• [ChessBase India: Malaysian Chess Festival celebrates its 19th birthday together with Malaysia Day]

• [Chess-Results: 20th Dato Arthur Tan Malaysian Open Final Results]

Well that’s what NotebookLM concluded and generated the AI infographics based on the results and Chessbase India posts I fed it as “sources”.

Interesting as it’s not far off.

The winner Peng Hongchi is untitled and starting ranked “only” 9th place behind 2 Grandmasters and other titled players.

Goes to show even if one does not have a title, one can win a major tourney in Malaysia.

Also my misconception that since he is untitled, he didn’t have opportunity to “go out” of China to get international exposure. A quick Chessbase search showed how wrong I was.

According to the database he has played the following players at least once over the years:

• Magnus Carlsen (World No. 1 and 5-time World Champion)
• Fabiano Caruana (Former World Championship Challenger and 5-time U.S. Champion)
• Hikaru Nakamura (World-renowned speed chess specialist and top-tier streamer)
• Viswanathan Anand (Former Undisputed World Champion and Indian chess legend)
• Anish Giri (Top-ranked Dutch player and 5-time National Champion)
• Anna Muzychuk (Former Women’s World Rapid and Blitz Champion)
• Etienne Bacrot (Former child prodigy and 8-time French Champion)
• Arkadij Naiditsch (Elite “Giant Slayer” known for multiple victories over Magnus Carlsen)
• Nana Dzagnidze (Olympic Gold Medalist and former European Women’s Champion)
• Matthew Sadler (Two-time British Champion and famous chess author)

So knowing this, it is not surprising Peng Hongchi, the “underdog” took the title 2025 Penang Open Champion. He has played the best in the world and of course there are benefits and improvements to his strength – after all iron sharpens iron.

The top 10 winners of the Open section at the 17th Penang Heritage City Open 2025 are summarized below, based on the final standings:

The top two positions in the Open section were considered undisputed because they required no tie-breaks to determine the final ranking.

• First Place: Hongchi Peng finished as the sole winner with 7.5/9 points, placing him a clear half-point ahead of the rest of the field. Despite being untitled and seeded ninth, he remained unbeaten throughout the tournament, securing critical wins against the top two seeds (both Grandmasters) in rounds 7 and 8.

• Second Place: IM Suyog Wagh also secured an undisputed second place by finishing with a sole 7/9 points. Like the champion, he remained undefeated throughout the event and drew his head-to-head match against Peng in the fourth round.

While the top two spots were clear, the competition for the remaining positions was much tighter, with six players finishing in a tie at 6.5/9 points, requiring tie-break calculations to determine third through eighth place

In a thrilling conclusion to the nine-round Malaysian Open Chess Championship held at KL Gateway Mall, the long-anticipated final round brought a fitting climax to one of Southeast Asia’s premier chess events. The tournament, featuring fierce international competition under Swiss-System rules, witnessed a superb display of skill, resolve, and nerves at every board.

FM Kavin Mohan (Malaysia) Emerges Champion

Malaysia’s own FM Kavin Mohan produced a resilient performance, clinching first place with 7.0 points. Facing GM Nguyen Van Huy (Vietnam) in the last round, Kavin held firm for a crucial draw, securing his spot atop the crosstable. Throughout the event, his consistency was evident, scoring critical wins and solid draws against international masters and grandmasters alike, and with a direct encounter tiebreak advantage he outpaced his rivals—a result bound to invigorate the local chess scene.

International Podium: China, Vietnam, Philippines Impress

IM Zou Chen (China) and GM Nguyen Van Huy (Vietnam) both finished on 6.5 points, sharing second and third places after strong final-round draws. The diversity of talent—China, Vietnam, Philippines, and Australia—at the top table is testimony to the event’s growing stature. Notably, Jin Ruijun (CHN, 2079) emerged as a surprise fourth place finisher, outpacing seasoned IMs and GMs with a combative style and noteworthy victories over stronger-seeded opponents.

IM Concio Michael Jr. (Philippines) and FM Winkelman Albert (Australia) likewise delivered impressive campaigns, each amassing 6.5 points in a closely packed leaderboard, where Buchholz tiebreaks often decided the final order.

Malaysian Masters in the Top-10

FM Wong Yinn Long and FM Lye Lik Zang showed the depth of Malaysian talent, making it to the top 10 with 6.5 and 5.5 points, respectively. Their attacking chess and resilience against a field averaging over 2000 Elo signals a promising future. IM Kushagra Mohan (India), seeded second, found the going tough in the final rounds, finishing with 5.5 points.

Women’s Standouts and Youth Surge

WIM Aakanksha Hagawane (IND) and WGM Janelle Mae Frayna (PHI) made their mark with fighting chess, WCM Salimova Asal (UZB) and WFM Imomkuzieva Nilufarkhon (UZB) also featuring strongly in a gender-diverse top ranking.

A Continental Chess Showcase

With 9 rounds played at a brisk 90+30 time control, the 2025 Malaysian Open gathered over 80 players, mixing rising stars and seasoned veterans. The final crosstable is a testament to chess’s universality—every game, every pairing, a duel echoing well beyond the board.

This edition reaffirms Kuala Lumpur’s place as a chess capital, with DAT Chess Centre and Malaysian Chess Federation presenting a world-class festival. Congratulations to all participants, especially FM Kavin Mohan, whose cool nerves in the closing stages delivered a memorable home victory.

Registration Link :

https://forms.gle/fuC5f3mDRzaxqg146

FM Alex Winkelman

GM Nguyen Duc Hoa

IM Zou Chen

 Current Leaders (after 3 rounds):

• IM Zou Chen (CHN): Leads the tournament with 3 points. He secured victories in all three of his matches, defeating CM Genkeswaran Genivan (MAS), Velarde Jerish John (PHI), and WIM Aakanksha Hagawane (IND).

• GM Nguyen Van Huy (VIE): Also has 3 points, winning all three of his matches against Muraley Rittesh (MAS), WCM Salimova Asal (UZB) , and WGM Frayna Janelle Mae  (17b1).

• FM Winkelman Albert (AUS): Achieved 3 points by winning all three matches against Vo Hoang Quan (VIE) , Le Dang Thanh An (VIE) , and GM Nguyen Duc Hoa (VIE).

372 players from 12 countries

The SMS DEEN Merdeka Open Rapid Team Chess Championship was one of the biggest team events held in Malaysia, with 372 players from 12 countries, such as Australia, Indonesia, India, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, the Netherlands, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, and New Zealand taking part.

Results and pictures here.
Detail Chess-Results here.

a team fom Penang

Hilton’s Friend with GM Alexei Barsov on board 1

Not only the biggest it’s also the strongest team event ever held in Malaysia for the year and it is consistently so for previous years too which explain it’s popularity.

1. Home Field Advantage? Not So Much.

all 9 rounds over but these players can’t get enough and continue playing blitz

Of the 372 players who competed, a staggering 283 hailed from the host nation, Malaysia. But as history has shown it is the foreigners who always take the crown year after year and this year was no different. Last year however, with multiple events clashing with the festival, a Malaysian team made history by winning it for the first time in it’s 19 year history.    

the winning team SKUA GADING SERPONG from Indonesia

This year returned to its traditional winners of the event – Indonesia. The Indonesian team, SCUA GADING SERPONG, clinched the title. One thing to note is that the players from these teams came here just for the team event and left right after. Most of them did register for Blitz but had to cancel as they didn’t have time to play,

as well as make it to the airport in time.

The “Best Malaysian Team” prize went to APEX CHESS ROYALE (SELANGOR), which finished 10th in the overall final rankings.

Best Malaysian Team

2. A Superstar Player Isn’t a Silver Bullet.

The event featured a roster of titled players, but none were rated higher than Australian Grandmaster (GM) Smerdon, David C, who entered with a formidable 2541 rating. His presence on the top board of team DATCC LOYALISTS seemed to signal a deep run.

Instead, his team finished in 24th place. The data tells us why. While GM Smerdon put up a solid 6.5/9 points, the team’s results on lower boards were mixed, including a score of just 2.5/9 on board three

3. An All-Female Squad Outplayed Dozens of Top Teams.

One of the most impressive performances of the championship came from the PHILIPPINE ARCHERS-TAMARAWS CHESS TEAM. This all-female squad, featuring titled players like Woman International Master (WIM) Bernadette Galas and Woman FIDE Master (WFM) Shania Mae Mendoza, navigated a highly competitive field to secure a remarkable 6th place finish in the final standings.

Their outstanding result not only placed them ahead of dozens of other teams but also earned them the “Best Ladies Team” special prize. Their performance was a standout achievement, proving their strength and skill in a demanding open tournament format.

4. The Tournament’s Top Scorer Landed in 7th Place.

If the tournament had an award for individual dominance, the data leaves no doubt who would win it. International Master (IM) Ervan, Mohamad, playing for team SCUA MASTER, achieved an incredible individual score of 8.5 points out of a possible 9 games.

Despite this near-perfect performance, his team finished in 7th place overall. Of course, this highlights again that it is the collective score that ultimately determines who stands on the podium.

5. The Team Names Tell a Story of Community and Fun.

Beyond the intense competition, the data reveals a vibrant and fun-loving community. A quick scan of the team list shows a flair for creativity and humor, with memorable names like HANS NIEMANN FANS CLUB, THE GEEZER GAMBIT, and NOT GOOD BUT NOT BAD.

This spirit was formally celebrated through a diverse array of special prize categories that went beyond pure performance. Awards for “Best Family Team,” “Best Veteran Team,” “Best School Team,” and “Best Under 16 Team” show that the tournament was as much about celebrating the community as it was about crowning a champion. Most notably, the inclusion of a “Best OKU Team” prize for players with disabilities underscores a powerful commitment to inclusivity and the shared love of the game.

Malaysia Vietnam Friends

Best Under 16 team

Under-18 (U18) Category: Final Standings and Prize Winners

Under-14 (U14) Category: Final Standings and Prize Winners

Under-12 (U12) Category: Final Standings and Prize Winners

Under-10 (U10) Category: Final Standings and Prize Winners

Under-08 (U08) Category: Final Standings and Prize Winners