WGM Ghazal Hakimifard (SUI, 2243) vs WFM Emilia Deak-Sala (AUT, 2105) · ½-½
Board 4, Switzerland vs Austria, women’s event · Sicilian Defence, Kupreichik Variation (B56) · 90 minutes for 40 moves, then 30 minutes, plus 30 seconds per move
By Bogner AI Coach AI Coach . This analysis was written by a Bogner Chess AI coach.
Round ten of the women’s event in Samarkand, Switzerland against Austria, board four. WGM Ghazal Hakimifard sat with White against WFM Emilia Deak-Sala, and next door the match arithmetic was already half done: Kosteniuk held a draw on board one, Hryzlova won on board two, Manko lost on board three in mutual time trouble. The match was open; a win on this board would have taken it, a half point kept it at two-two.
put the Kupreichik structure of the Sicilian on the board, and with , and White set the pieces up for a race on opposite wings. After move 21 the count sat at around half a pawn in White’s favour, and the decisive sequence lay between moves twenty-two and twenty-seven. For Hakimifard this game follows the loss to Abrahamyan and the draw with Fisabilillah, the second split point in three rounds against an opponent rated a hundred and more points below her.
The exchange that did not come: 22.Bf2?!
Up to move twenty-one Hakimifard had ordered the position the way it wants to be ordered: the king on b1, the rooks on d1 and f1, the bishop pair on g3 and e2, the knight on c3 with an eye on d5. The count sat at around half a pawn for White, with the black knight on e5 the only really active black piece.
The move the position offered was . The bishop takes the knight only it could take, and the black d6 pawn turns into a fixed e5 that needs no piece to guard it; the white setup with the rook on the d-file and the queenside operation via Na2 settles in without hurry, and the half pawn stays. also held the edge at its upper end.
?! was the human choice, and with it the half pawn was gone. The bishop leaves the long diagonal with the plan to come back via d4, and it needs a move for that which Black uses to reorder her own pieces. After the count was zero: the e5 knight lives unchanged, the pawns on a5 and f6 take targets away from the white attack, and the edge is traded for a tempo that the structure does not give back. The move is not a tactical error, but the order is the lesson: in a position with the bishop pair and one central defender opposite, the trade of one own bishop for that defender is calculated as long as the own structure carries the trade; a retreat in the same move gives away exactly the tempo the attack needs later on.
WFM Emilia Deak-Sala (AUT, 2105)
WGM Ghazal Hakimifard (SUI, 2243)
The knight walks into the corner: 25.Na2?! and 27.Nc1?!
After ?! the count was reset, and White needed a second plan. had taken the one guard off the e5 knight and put the question on the board: how does White get something out of a position that is nominally better and factually level.
was the move the setup asked for. After White wins the h pawn back, opens the rook file, and keeps a small remnant of about a quarter of a pawn; the break asks for calculation with two bishops hanging, but the calculation ends quietly for White.
?! chose the other side and opened the wrong wing. After ?! the knight was back in its starting corner, the a-file stood ready for the black rook, and the count sat at a slim pawn against White. Both moves are human to explain, because a queenside move looks more plausible than a kingside pawn break in a queenside structure; they are not the right ones on this board. Credit to Deak-Sala, who played without hesitation and kept the queenside opening for two moves before the white kingside could stir. The lesson holds for every opposite-side castling position: the own kingside pawn advance stays the main resource, and a knight sortie to the edge does not replace it.
WFM Emilia Deak-Sala (AUT, 2105)
WGM Ghazal Hakimifard (SUI, 2243)
Waiting for the clock to ask the question: 37.Ng1 to 41.Ne2
From move 32 the count had settled at a pawn and a half to two pawns in Black’s favour. ?! was the move that made the material loss durable: after the black knight held its centre and White had no active plan left. Around move 33 the black clock dropped under five minutes for the first time, and from move 35 the white one followed.
From the waiting began. kept the position balanced on the repetition, without White finding a new grip and without Black finding the object that would collect the advantage. Before the time control Black had one minute fifty-eight on the clock, White nine minutes twenty-seven; the harder task sat with Black, because the side that stands better has to find the break and the side that stands worse only has to keep it out.
Objectively every active white idea was worse than the waiting, and the shuffle Ng1/Ne2 with the rook on f3 parried every black idea that had no concrete defensive resource behind it. Practically this stretch is the reason the game was still a game after the time control. The lesson sits with the passive side: in a clearly worse position choose the move that leaves the calculation to the opponent, because a repetition that allows nothing is the one move that can force the opponent into the own mistake.
WFM Emilia Deak-Sala (AUT, 2105)
WGM Ghazal Hakimifard (SUI, 2243)
The move that would have won the game: 47...f5
Around move 45 the time trouble on the white side seemed to bring the second turning of the game. ?! Kf8 ? after eight minutes thirty-nine seconds of think was the third longest move Hakimifard played in this game, and it was an inaccuracy. After ? the count sat at minus two point six, the largest black credit of the game: the bishop wanted to reclaim the long diagonal on b2 and left the queenside of its own king open in the process.
The move that would have collected the full point was . After the attack with the two connected rooks and the strong knight on c5 stood against a white king whose only cover was the bishop on b2 itself; the calculation ends at around three pawns for Black. The move asked Black to open her own king’s cover before the combination ended, and with seven minutes on the clock, in a position that was won on paper, that is exactly the hardest move of the day.
?? was played in eight seconds and brought the repetition: , and the third occurrence of the position after drew the game. It is the moment where a won position was given back because the clock no longer allowed one more move of calculation. Credit to Deak-Sala, who ran the harder task cleanly for forty-seven moves; the move is still an error, and the lesson sits with the winning side: when a repetition is offered, calculate the one concrete attacking move before you repeat, because the repetition waits one move longer.
WFM Emilia Deak-Sala (AUT, 2105)
WGM Ghazal Hakimifard (SUI, 2243)
Verdict
Objectively the game fell between moves twenty-two and twenty-seven: ?! first gave back the half pawn, ?! then opened the wrong wing, and with ?! the knight was back in the corner and the black queenside was on the march. From that point the practical task had switched: White had to defend, Black had the advantage in hand. Practically Hakimifard saved the game with the Ng1/Ne2 repetition and the rook on f3, found in a stretch when both clocks were under five minutes. The one move she still lost was ? after nine minutes of think; the one move that brought her back was ?? played in eight seconds by the opponent. For the Swiss side it is the half point on board four that saved the two-two match, and the full one that lay on the board and stayed there. Credit to Deak-Sala, who built the advantage cleanly and held the harder task for forty-seven moves. The learning sits in both moments of the game: in an opposite-side castling position the own kingside pawn advance stays the main resource, and in a repetition offered in a winning position, calculate the concrete attacking move first.
Moves
½-½
Was this analysis useful?