This was my fourth classical tournament and my second time competing in the Gonzaga Charity Classic. In 2024, I played this event as my first-ever classical tournament, scoring 3/6 as an unrated player. That year, I had several close losses, so I was eager to prove myself this time around.
I had hoped to enter the middle section but missed the rating requirement by just 11 rating points. That meant competing in the Challengers section, with players up to 500 points below me, and a median rating nearly 200 points lower. With this in mind, I knew I had to win nearly every game—any loss or even draw would mean a guaranteed rating drop.
With this in mind, I planned ahead the idea of playing aggressively in the openings, aiming for an early advantage, avoiding drawn out middle-games and even endgames wherever possible.
Game 1
I opened with d4, opting for the Jobava London. My opponent’s early c5 push allowed me to establish a strong knight on b5, secured by a quick a4. A blunder followed when he played Nh5, dropping a piece. After simplifying with a queen retreat and central pawn exchange, he launched an unsound kingside attack with g5. I spotted a tactical sequence with 10. Be5 f6 11. Qf5+, winning at least pawn and leaving him with a wrecked structure, unable to castle.
A few moves later, he moved his knight to b4, and I responded by castling, thinking he may have missed that my long-range bishop from h7 covered c2. He then captured on c2, immediately losing material. By move 27, I had a mate in four, but after his desperate rook sacrifice on g2, I too quickly played Kf2 instead of the simpler Kh1, briefly and wrongly fearing some future mating threat on the a-h diagonal. Despite this misstep, I
maintained a clear advantage and checkmated 14 moves later, being careful to avoid stalemate tricks.
Game 2
My opponent opened with e4 and I responded Nf6 (Alekhine’s Defense). I was immediately gifted a pawn when my opponent blundered with the surprisingly common 2. d4, allowing me to capture on e4. The game then developed into a familiar French or Caro-Kann type structure.
On move 6, I played c5 to contest the center and was hit with Bb5+, and after Bd7, we traded-off light-squared bishops. I then played a6, overlooking a potential tactic with Bxf6, which could have ruined my kingside structure as taking back with queen would allow a fork on c7. Fortunately, my opponent missed this and retreated her knight instead.
The game proceeded with natural developing moves until I castled kingside and played Qa6, intending to follow with a queenside push. She responded with dxc5, setting a trap—had I taken with Bxc5, b3 would have forked my queen and bishop. After briefly calculating bishop takes followed by Qxh6 (a line that doesn’t work out after Rg6), I sidestepped any tricky lines by capturing with my queen instead.
A key turning point came when she sacrificed on h6, to win a pawn while trading bishop for knight. Instead of recapturing immediately, I played Ne4, threatening Nxf2. She defended by bringing the bishop back to e3, but this allowed me to play d4, threatening to win a piece (and if Bf4, d3 would win a rook & pawn for a knight).
After the exchanges, I was up a piece for two pawns and poised to win another pawn while essentially forcing a queen trade. At this point, my opponent resigned.
Game 3
I opened with d4, again opting for the Jobava London. After my opponent’s went Bf5 on move 4, I responded with f3 preventing his knight from jumping into the e4 square. His next move e6 then allowed me to push his bishop back with g4, and h4, gaining space and setting up an attack.
When he played h6 instead of h5, I responded with Bd3, aiming to trade bishops and weaken his kingside as I could later play g5 using h6 as a hook to open the position. His slow queenside play with b6 made counterplay difficult, and I seized the moment by taking his Bishop on g6 and after fxg6 Qd3, his king was forced forward to protect the pawn, leaving it stuck over the side of the board where I was forming an attack.
I castled to connect my rooks and immediately launched g5. His knight retreated to g8, disconnecting his rook from the queen. Capturing on h6 allowed Be5, forcing him to awkwardly block with Ne6. I then brought my rook into the attack with Rdg1, and after he played Rg8, I calculated for a bit and found a decisive sequence: Nf4 attacking g6, which he couldn’t defend so forcing g5, then hxg5 and after he recaptures hxg6 then Rh7! A brilliant tactic — that at first glace appears to drop a rook for a knight but if taken, it would have led to forced mate.
Even after he moves the king back to e8 this position is clearly winning for me and after Nxe6 the computer says black needs to play Qd7 giving up the queen for the rook in order to play on.. My opponent tried Qa5 but missed that this led to a position with me having forced mate. After a few moves, seeing the inevitable, he resigned with a forced mate-in-two on the board.
I was particularly proud of this game—between the Rh7 tactic and consistently finding the best moves, I felt in control the entire time, it really felt like my opponent had no chances and was constantly having to find ways to keep in the game. Plus I found out only after my game that my opponent was the highest rated player in the section with a 1586 ICU rating – the pairings page had him mistakenly listed at a rating of just 780.
Game 4
My opponent opened with d4, and I responded with Nf6, keeping my options open. After 2. Nf3 3. g3, I assumed a Catalan setup and immediately played c5, an aggressive but playable line against a delayed c4 Catalan. Her follow-up with e3, b3, and Bb2 confused me, as it’s rare to see a double fianchetto when the center is blocked.
After she played a delayed c4 on move 8, I exchanged (cxd4 exd4) in the center and castled. I had briefly considered the computer’s top move of dxc4 but decided my d-pawn effectively restricted both of her bishops. She developed with Nc3, and I played Be7, anticipating Nb6, but she instead went Ne5 since my bishop move had left that square open.
She continued with Qd2, and I pinned the knight to the queen with Bb4. She played Qf4, getting out of the pin and offered a draw, which I declined. After I played a6 to control b5, she took cxd5. I first captured her c3 knight (In hindsight things could have gotten messy if after Bx3 my opponent took first dxc6) as an in-between move, which she recaptured Bxc3, then took the pawn Nxd5.
A decisive mistake followed—she played Qf3, which drops a piece (after 18. Qf3 Nxe5, 19. Qxd5 exd5, 20. dxe5 Rxc5) we traded knights, then queens, and then her darksquared bishop was hanging in the resulting position. After Rook takes bishop my opponent resigned. In the final position I was up a piece, had a passed pawn and was likely to win the pawn on e5.
Game 5
Onto game 5, now on board 1, against one of the only two other players on 4/4. i again opened with 1. d4. My opponent responded with the Pirc, and I chose an aggressive setup with 3. e4. After c6, I played Bf4 instead of the more common Be3, hoping to lure my opponent into tricky lines.
After Bg7 from my opponent, I straight away advanced with e5, this is a line that gambits a pawn after Nh5 but leads to rapid development for white and a difficult position for black. My opponent instead opts for dxe5, and after I recaptured, he traded queens.
His next move, Nd7, is a blunder and a line I’m familiar with, allowing me to play Nd5, threatening a fork on c7. He slid his king to d8, but I followed with e6, attacking his knight and attempting to create weaknesses in front of black’s king. I was expecting Bxb2 from my opponent here (which would have lead to 7. … Bxb2 8. Bxc7+ Ke8 9. exd7+) but instead he took fxe6 which allows me to take on c7 with my knight. He then pushed e5, attacking my bishop and cutting its protection of the knight.
Rather than take the rook and risk losing both pieces, I played Ne7+, forking his king and bishop. After Ke7, I played Bh6, defending my knight. Here, my opponent aimed for counterplay with Nf6, threatening Ng4 to trap my bishop. I played Nf3 to create my own threats, and after Ng4, I struck with Ng5+. He moved up his king to g6, after which I played Ne4+, forcing him back to f7 – only move.
I continued Bc7+, which he blocked with e6. This allowed Nd6+, forcing Kf6, and I played Ngd8, freeing my other knight from g7. Instead of relieving the pressure with Rxe8, he played Ke7, allowing me to bring dark-squared bishop into the attack with Bg5+. After Kd7, and some thought (I really thought there should be a mate here!) I played Nxc8+, a discovered check that left my opponent with no good options—taking the knight on c8 would allow mate-in-1, while taking on e8 would drop a rook after Rd8+. Seeing this, he resigned.
Game 6
Back on board 1 again, I led the section with 5/5, needing only a draw to win outright. Despite this, I decided to stick with my aggressive approach and try to get an early advantage out of the opening. My opponent opened with d4, and I responded with Nf6. After 2. c4. the queen’s gambit, I opted for the Budapest Gambit with e5, but unfortunately he declined it, playing f3. I then captured exd4, leading to an equal position. To avoid getting my dark-squared bishop trapped in, I played Bb4+, and when he blocked with his bishop, I traded them off with Bxb2.
After he recaptured with his knight, I pushed d5, reasoning that if his knight had gone to the more natural c3, this move wouldn’t have been as easy to accomplish. Development continued, and on move 11, he played Ne5, double-attacking my light-squared bishop, which I traded off.
Over the next few moves, we both built up pressure on the Ne5 knight. He repositioned his other knight to f3 and doubled his rooks, while I developed my knight to d7 and pushed a5 to claim some queenside space. On move 17, he released the tension with Nxd7, initiating a trade of one pair of knights and both rooks.
I took my time before deciding to recapture his rook with my queen, sacrificing the b7 pawn (if Qxb7, I had counterplay with Qe2 or Qe4, potentially forcing a repetition). Instead, he played Qe3, offering a queen trade. I accepted, spotting a follow-up tactic: after fxe3, I played Nf4, winning his e3 pawn.
At this point, he offered a draw, and after a quick think, I accepted. Though I later realized my advantage was greater than I thought, I was exhausted, and an endgame with 6-7 pawns each could have lasted hours. I don’t regret taking the draw—it secured my tournament victory with 5.5/6!
I was really happy with my performance in this tournament. I felt in control throughout my games and gave my opponents few chances, which was reflected in how short many of them were—five of the six finished in under 30 moves. I won a prize of €200 for first place, gained +106 ICU rating points (rising from 1489 to 1595), and earned my first FIDE rating of 1644.