BCC Round 6: GMs Romanov and Ganguly lead

The blitz final was won this Thursday night by outsider IM Michael Concio ahead of the two Ukrainian rating favourites, GM Bernadskiy and IM Danylenko.  In spite of a commendable score of 13.5/15, the sole grandmaster in the field was left to rue his only defeat of the evening at the hands of Louie Salvador, a regular competitor at the BCC’s monthly FIDE-rated blitz tournaments.

The six leaders in the Open section were pitted against each other on the top three boards.  First to finish were Paulo Bersamina and Babu Lalit on board 3, following a short and balanced affair.  

On board 1, Evgeny Romanov kept grinding like a grandmaster against James Morris’ well-organised defences, and could have paid a heavy price for his optimistic play.  In the end however, White’s passed pawn prevailed.  

Arif Hafiz and Surya Ganguly appeared to have all the fun to themselves in one of the most mind-boggling games of the tournament so far.  The Indonesian IM entered the tournament hall late like Fischer, went on to play an early Ke2 like Steinitz and proceeded to get in time trouble like Reshevsky.  What followed was the kind of swashbuckling slugfest only an engine can comprehend:

[Event "22nd Bangkok Chess Club Open 2025"]
[Site "Royal Orchid Sheraton Riverside Hotel Bangkok, Thailand"]
[Round "6.2"]
[White "Hafiz, Arif Abdul"]
[Black "Ganguly, Surya Shekhar"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2343"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[WhiteFideId "7104227"]
[BlackElo "2572"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[BlackFideId "5002150"]
[TimeControl "90 min / 40 moves + 30 min / rest + 30 sec from move 1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[ECO "C25"]
[Opening "Vienna Gambit, with Max Lange Defense: Steinitz Gambit, Zukertort Defense"]
[Annotator "https://lichess.org/broadcast/-/-/lYvvm031"]
[StudyName "Round 6"]
[ChapterName "Hafiz, Arif Abdul - Ganguly, Surya Shekhar"]

1. e4 { [%eval 0.18] [%clk 1:21:11] } 1... e5 { [%eval 0.21] [%clk 1:30:53] } 2. Nc3 { [%eval 0.08] [%clk 1:21:04] } 2... Nc6 { [%eval 0.07] [%clk 1:31:04] } 3. f4?! { [%eval -0.53] } { Inaccuracy. Nge2 was best. } { [%clk 1:18:02] } (3. Nge2 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 O-O) 3... exf4 { [%eval -0.47] [%clk 1:31:28] } 4. d4 { [%eval -0.5] [%clk 1:18:28] } 4... Qh4+ { [%eval -0.5] [%clk 1:28:59] } 5. Ke2 { [%eval -0.46] [%clk 1:18:53] } 5... d5 { [%eval -0.05] [%clk 1:29:25] } 6. Nf3 { [%eval -0.52] [%clk 1:11:24] } 6... Bg4 { [%eval -0.07] [%clk 1:28:36] } 7. exd5 { [%eval 0.0] [%clk 1:10:57] } 7... O-O-O { [%eval 0.42] [%clk 1:16:00] } 8. dxc6 { [%eval 0.65] [%clk 1:07:10] } 8... Nf6 { [%eval 0.89] [%clk 1:22:10] } 9. Qd2?? { [%eval -0.92] } { Blunder. Qd3 was best. } { [%clk 0:22:08] } (9. Qd3 Re8+ 10. Kd2 Qf2+ 11. Be2 Re3 12. Qc4 Qxg2 13. cxb7+ Kb8 14. Rg1 Rxe2+) 9... Bc5 { [%eval -0.94] [%clk 0:49:11] } 10. Kd1 { [%eval -0.87] [%clk 0:20:22] } 10... Rxd4? { [%eval 0.57] } { Mistake. Rhe8 was best. } { [%clk 0:46:23] } (10... Rhe8 11. Bd3 Bxd4 12. Ne2 Bxf3 13. gxf3 Nd5 14. Bf5+ Kb8 15. Qxd4 Nb4 16. Bd7) 11. Bd3 { [%eval 0.66] [%clk 0:19:22] } 11... Qh5 { [%eval 0.57] [%clk 0:45:22] } 12. Rf1?! { [%eval 0.0] } { Inaccuracy. cxb7+ was best. } { [%clk 0:18:33] } (12. cxb7+ Kb8) 12... Rhd8?! { [%eval 0.59] } { Inaccuracy. Re8 was best. } { [%clk 0:41:49] } (12... Re8 13. Ne2 Nd5 14. Qa5 Rxd3+ 15. cxd3 Qg6 16. cxb7+ Kb8 17. Qb5 Rxe2 18. Kxe2) 13. Ne2 { [%eval 0.59] [%clk 0:17:50] } 13... Ra4?? { [%eval 2.6] } { Blunder. Bb4 was best. } { [%clk 0:29:29] } (13... Bb4 14. Nxf4 Qa5 15. c3 Rxf4 16. Qxf4 Rxd3+ 17. Bd2 Bd6 18. Qc4 Qf5 19. cxb7+) 14. Bf5+?? { [%eval -0.14] } { Blunder. Nxf4 was best. } { [%clk 0:15:52] } (14. Nxf4 Qe5 15. Qc3 Qd6 16. h3 Bxf3+ 17. Rxf3 Kb8 18. Bd2 Qxc6 19. a3 Rad4) 14... Qxf5 { [%eval -0.2] [%clk 0:27:22] } 15. cxb7+ { [%eval -0.39] [%clk 0:16:20] } 15... Kxb7 { [%eval -0.05] [%clk 0:27:46] } 16. Qxd8 { [%eval -0.28] [%clk 0:16:46] } 16... Bd6 { [%eval -0.29] [%clk 0:27:15] } 17. b4?? { [%eval -4.09] } { Blunder. Bd2 was best. } { [%clk 0:07:49] } (17. Bd2 Re4 18. Re1 Re8 19. Ned4 Rxd8 20. Nxf5 Bxf5 21. Ne5 Ne4 22. Nxf7 Rd7) 17... Qd5+ { [%eval -3.91] [%clk 0:17:07] } 18. Bd2 { [%eval -3.82] [%clk 0:07:56] } 18... Ne4 { [%eval -3.78] [%clk 0:25:58] } 19. Ke1?! { [%eval -5.66] } { Inaccuracy. c4 was best. } { [%clk 0:07:00] } (19. c4 Qd3 20. Qe8 Rxb4 21. Ke1 Bxf3 22. Rxf3 Qxd2+ 23. Kf1 Qc2 24. Rc1 Nd2+) 19... Bxf3 { [%eval -5.67] [%clk 0:21:57] } 20. Rxf3 { [%eval -5.54] [%clk 0:05:32] } 20... Qxd2+ { [%eval -5.79] [%clk 0:21:46] } 21. Kf1 { [%eval -5.84] [%clk 0:05:25] } 21... Rxa2 { [%eval -5.76] [%clk 0:21:25] } 22. Re1 { [%eval -5.65] [%clk 0:01:27] } 22... Bxb4 { [%eval -5.6] [%clk 0:20:00] } 0-1

Cast in the pursuers’ role within a large chasing pack of players on 4/5, top seeds Gustafsson and Short both produced dominant displays albeit with varying levels of fortune.  As the former did not manage to make his pawn advantage count in a Rook endgame, the latter capped his positional advantage with a winning sacrifice.  

Games: https://www.chess.com/events/2025-bangkok-open/games 
Credits: www.bangkokchess.com
Picture database: https://lightboxproductions.pixieset.com/bangkokchessclubopen2025/
Open section: https://chess-results.com/tnr1137279.aspx?lan=1
Challenger section: https://chess-results.com/tnr1137307.aspx?lan=1