New Zealand Major Open Championship 2022

Weiyang Yu
FIDE Rating: 1214
NZCF Rating: 1474
FIDE Performance: 1686
NZCF Performance: 1907
Starting Rank: 31st
Final Rank: 14th=
Final Score: 5/9
FIDE Rating Gain: 133
NZCF Rating Gain: 120

This was my first New Zealand Congress. I’d come to Christchurch worrying that it was going to turn out horribly, but fortunately I was in good form.

ROUND 1: Weiyang Yu (1474) — Karl Holdo (1827), 1⁄2-1⁄2
Before this game, I had done very little preparation on Karl due to most of my prep being on Ross Black (which was proven to be useful later), and the fact that I believe playing the London System means I need little to no preparation at all.

The game commenced in a 4...c5 London, but Karl surprised me slightly by playing 5...Bd6; a fairly uncommon move order but the recommendation of Stockfish. I replied by playing one of my favourite moves in the London System: 6.Ne5, showing my ambition in aggressive play. Karl followed up with 6...Qc7, where the game continued with me exchanging off two pairs of minor pieces, and entered a middlegame where I had a bishop against Karl’s knight.

The first critical moment of the game came on move 13, Karl had just played 12...a6, attacking my bishop. I could play 13.Bd3 or Be2 to keep my bishop (13.Ba4?! b5 helps Black, who was planning on extending on the queenside anyway), or 13.Bxd7 to temporarily misplace Karl’s knight and make ...e5 less effective. I played 13.Bxd7 in view of 13.Bd3 e5, where I will be forced to capture on e5 and give Black the initiative, or else waste several tempos to stop ...e4, forking my bishop and knight. Notice that Black has also completed development before White, so 13.Bxd7 speeds up White’s development by one move.

I soon castled while Karl started to make progress on the queenside. He played 16...b4, which is when things started to go downhill for me. Karl was able to create a weakness in the form of a backward pawn for me on c3, and - despite my struggles - soon won it. My position was rapidly deteriorating with two other weak pawns en prise, but I generated counterplay by attacking Karl’s neglected kingside and provoking weaknesses.

After a dubious but nonetheless practically interesting 26.Rb8, Karl’s time was going low and after a few inaccuracies by Black, I pawn stormed with 30.g4, aiming to create weaknesses on the kingside and further demolish Karl’s clock time. After 34.g5, Karl finally made a mistake with 34...Qf5?, allowing me to trade down into a drawn rook endgame (with accurate play). I then exchanged off all of Karl’s pawns except his h-pawn and a-pawn, entering a textbook draw with my king safely tucked away on g2, and my rook dawdling on the a-file. Karl soon realised there was no way in for him and we agreed a draw.

ROUND 2: Andrew Brockway (1778) — Weiyang Yu (1474), 0-1
Before this game, I had been told by someone that Andrew always plays 1.e4, while someone else stubbornly believes that Andrew is a sincere 1.d4 lover. Since a search in the database reveals the former to be more trustworthy, I mainly prepared for 1.e4, more specifically, a French Tarrasch.

The game began with Andrew choosing 7.Ne2 instead of Universal with 7. Ngf3. I had been practicing an exchange sacrifice (with 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.Nf4 Nxd4! 10.Qh5+ Ke7 11.exf6+ Nxf6 12.Ng6), and wasn’t afraid of the unbalanced position it led to. Instead Andrew took on f6 and castled, and the game progressed into an intense middlegame battle.

Andrew played an interesting but inaccurate idea on move 14, retreating his bishop to b1. However, I made a huge blunder straight afterwards with 15...e5? and 16...Nxe5??, opening up for a tactical shot that Andrew missed. He could’ve won an exchange with 18.Rxe5 Rxe5 19.Bf4!, where I would enter a hopelessly lost endgame. A huge missed opportunity for Andrew, and an enormous oversight by me. Instead Andrew exchanged off the pieces and gave me the advantage with 20.f4. With better-placed pieces, I was able to generate tactical threats on the kingside. When Andrew played 24.h3, I thought I had the coolest tactic on board, playing 24...Qf2 without a second thought.

...and missed that my d5-pawn was en prise.

Fortunately, I can play 25...Be6 to at least save my queen, but 26.Qxe6+ Rxe6 27.Bxf2 Nxf2+ would leave White a pawn up with a good position. Strangely Andrew played 25.Bxf2, allowing me to use a desperado to gain back the pawn and equalise with slightly easier play due to my superior pawn structure and piece activity. Andrew then immediately dropped a pawn with 29.Bd3, after which he dropped another pawn and quickly collapsed, enabling me to take home the full point after a hard fought game.

ROUND 3: Weiyang Yu (1474) — Benedict Suazo (2081), 0-1
I was excited and slightly terrified to play the number-one seed, but the game itself was a real mess.

I had prepared a London-like Dutch, which is what was played. Benedict was the first to deviate with 5...d6?!, suggesting he doesn’t play against my system often. I continued my plan with 6.h3, a common move in the Dutch, which gives my DSB a vacant square on h2. The game continued for a few moves before Benedict played the questionable 7...Nd5?, giving me an edge since c4 now comes with tempo on the knight. We developed our pieces for a few more moves before the first critical moment of the game.

After a trade on e4, my queen was attacked (12...Bxe4), here I can either move my queen to safety or play 13.Bd3, which allows 13...Bxf3, after which I could play Kh1 and Rg1, staring straight at the Black king. Instead I choose 13.Qb3, not wanting to blow up in my own face. I soon exchanged off Black’s good bishop with 16.Bf3 and pushed c5, attacking the weak e6 pawn. Benedict erred with 18...d5, weakening e5 and making that a wonderful outpost for my minor pieces.

We exchanged off another pair of minor pieces before entering a position where Benedict had an outpost on b4 while I had one on e5. I was in control of the open c-file and seemed to have a better position. I charged forward and played 26.Bd6, taking advantage of Benedict’s loose rook, but he surprised me with 26.Nd3, paying me back with my own trick. I thought I had nothing better if I was to keep the minor pieces, so I exchanged them with 27.Qxd3 Qxd6. Realistically, 27.Rc2 was a way better move since Black’s knight is now trapped and he has no way to avoid losing a pawn after 27...Qd7 28.Ba3, where Black’s only move would be 28...Nb4. The game went on and the next critical moment soon came.

After 28...Kf7, I briefly looked over 29.Rc6, quickly deciding against it since after 29...Qd7 30.Rxc6 Qxb5 31.Rxb5 Rxb5 32.axb5, I wrongly assumed the King Pawn ending was drawn since Black could reach the b6-pawn in time, but I missed that by the time Black captures my b6-pawn, I would be able to munch off Black’s e6-pawn and have a completely winning position. A huge missed opportunity that would’ve won me the game.

Benedict was able to trade queens after I played 29.Rc8?!, we then entered a complicated rook endgame. I was doing just fine before I overstretched and pushed 38.f4, after which the game was still holdable but made harder since I allowed the Black king to have access to e4 in some variations (eg.the one played in the game). After an exchange of pawns on g4, I had to make a tough choice, I can either play 41.Kxg4 and hope the damage on my pawn structure wouldn’t matter, or I can cower back and play 41.Kf2. In the end it seemed whichever move I chose, I had to give up the e3 pawn and go for the g4 pawn at some point so I could deny the entry of the Black king and activate my rook. Sadly, I’d somehow missed that the Black king could come to e4 and made two back-to-back mistakes, playing 41.Kf2? and 42.g3??, the latter cost me the game. Benedict seized his chance and put his king onto the precious e4 square, and soon after promoted a pawn.

A very disappointing game for me after having a wonderful position in the middlegame, but it reminded me my endgame skill is to be improved.

ROUND 4: Ross Black (1854) — Weiyang Yu (1474), 0-1
As I said earlier, the round 1 preparation was helpful.

Well, not really (I was having the White pieces in round 1 but Black pieces this round).

Ross played an unorthodox variation of the Exchange French, which seemed slightly dubious in my view, since his pieces are not as actively placed as they could be. After 12.Nf1, the engine already gave me a small edge due to Black’s more active pieces, but I wasn’t able to attack Ross’ kingside and soon three pairs of minor pieces plus one pair of rooks were exchanged.

The queen endgame was equal, but I managed to create some targets on Ross’ kingside with 30...h4, which led to the displacement of White’s knight (33.Nf1, the only move to defend the g3-pawn). Just when I was dawdling around with my queen and hoping Ross would crack under pressure, he overextended with 36.d5, which straight up drops a pawn after 36...cxd4 37.cxd4 Qd4+, allowing me decent winning chances.

Ross then put up impressive resistance by threatening to perpetual-check my king from several different diagonals, but with 40...a5, I made some progress and reached the time control, meaning I would have more than enough time to calculate. I played 41...Qe5, defending the long diagonal while attacking g3 and still supporting my queenside pawns. After this, I was able to create a passed pawn fairly easily.

White’s queen was unable to stop my passed a-pawn single-handedly, so I logically played 49...Qb3, a move that serves two purposes, restricting White’s knight by attacking g3 while also supporting my a-pawn to a2.

Ross immediately surprised me with 50.Kh4, showing clear intention for a mating attack, while defending my king would lead to the loss of my key passed pawn, after several hasty judgments I came to a conclusion that White’s counterattack can be easily stopped by my knight and two pawns, proceeding to play 50...a3. After Ross’ 51.Qe5, I made a small mistake, missing that my queen protects f7 and played 51...Kh7, which was still winning for me, but wastes time. Nonetheless, I found a nice tactic to seal the deal: 56.Ne4 Qh1+ 57.Kg5 Qh6+ 58.Kf6 g5 59.Kf7 Qe6+!, temporarily sacrificing my knight in order to promote my pawn. Seeing he has no way out, Ross resigned.

ROUND 5: Wei Kai Chen (2007) — Weiyang Yu (1474), 1-0
This game tells me how much of an idiot I am, having only prepared for 1.b3 (which Wei Kai occasionally plays) and not a thing for the opening he plays most: 1.e4.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Wei Kai decided to play.

The game was normal for a few moves (French Tarrasch) before Wei Kai played the ambitious 5.f4, a move probably only played by the Wellingtonian (and possibly others who’d written “Totally Wellington” on their profile). After this move, I was out of preparation (if I had any at all) and had to rely on my experience with the other Tarrasch lines.

I soon made my first mistake, playing 8...g6?!, a move that I use against the Universal Tarrasch. Sadly, it does not work the same way here since the idea ...f6 isn’t as strong against White’s better protected centre (perhaps another reason behind 5.f4). I followed up with 9...Bg7, then immediately made my position even worse by castling kingside, running directly into the minefield.

Wei Kai made his attacking ambition clear by playing 11.g4!?. Realistically, this isn’t a great move, but kingside pawn-storms are frightening to face over the board. Here the only move that would keep White’s advantage slim is an inhuman one: 11...a5! - which I do not understand. I played 11...h6, with the idea of 12.f5 exf5 13.gxf5 g5 14.f6 Nxf6! And I would have counterattacking chances.

The knight sacrifice was indeed sound, but I failed to find the correct continuation after 16.Nb3 and my position quickly deteriorated, with an unstoppable mating threat ending the game in White’s favour.

ROUND 6: Weiyang Yu (1474) — Noah Oseki (1736), 1-0
I wasn’t able to find any games of Noah’s, so I assumed he would play some normal c5 lines against my London System.

I was half right since Noah played ...c5, but on move two, dragging me out of my comfort zone as I had almost no idea what to play.

Funnily enough, a friend of mine had prepared this exact line as Black to use against a FM in one of the earlier rounds and I was able to remember a few moves, hoping Noah would not go for the queen sacrifice my friend had mentioned.

To my great relief, Noah did not capture my b2-pawn, making it possible for me to stabilise my position.

After 9...e6, my pieces were nowhere near as active as Noah’s, and I could barely see any clear ways to improve them - especially my LSB and c3-knight. I played b4, gaining space on the queenside and planning to push b5, which would improve my knight and create play for me. Noah countered with 10...Ne4, preventing b5, since my knight was now attacked. I switched plans and played 11.Na4, aiming to play Nc5 next. Noah erred with 12...b5, ignorant of my intention to play Nc5 - note the doubled pawn after 13.Nc5 Bxc5 14.dxc5 is in fact strong since it is also an advanced, protected passed pawn deep into Black’s territory. Black - to my delight - proceeded to play the line above and allowed me to finally equalise (as White?!) after some dubious opening play.

I was then able to exchange one pair of minor pieces - which is more helpful for White since my passed pawn will prove to be ominous in the endgame - and chased Noah’s good e4-knight away to an unexpected square.

I’d completely missed the purpose behind Noah’s 16th move: ...Rfe8 until he played 17...Nd6, exploiting the pin on my c5-pawn due to my unprotected queen. I decided that I had nothing better if I kept the minor pieces since the position is quite closed and that favors Noah’s knight over my bishop pair, therefore playing 18.Bxd6. Then I exchanged the last minor pieces with 19.Bd3 e5 20.Qf2 (unpinning my queen and threatening cxd6) Rf6 21.Bxf5 Rxf5. I knew the endgame would favor me because of my queenside pawn majority and the fact that my king is close to where Noah’s majority lies and could easily stop them while safely advancing my queenside counterpart, but I thought I needed to rid myself of the dangerous d-pawn first. After several rook manoeuvres, I forcefully removed Noah’s most dangerous force by exchanging it with my f-pawn, before pushing 29.c4 to get my majority rolling.

Noah made the mistake that likely cost him the game with 30...Qb5, after which the rook endgame was still defendable but White would be playing for two results. His last chance in the endgame was 35...Ke6, which is the only move that does not lose by force but would give Black a very passive position. After 35...Rc3?, I secured a winning position and finished the game with the satisfying 40.Kb6! And Noah soon resigned. Probably one of my best efforts in Major Open.

ROUND 7: Zachary Yu (1821) — Weiyang Yu (1474), 0-1
I had prepared a decent line against Zachary’s Jobava London, but it didn’t turn out so well.

Zachary surprised me as early as move one, opening the game with 1.c4. This was welcomed by me as I had prepared a line that worked great against Emily Gan in the Juniors, and without further ado I played 1...Nf6, but Zachary played on equally quickly and I soon saw what was wrong.

After 6.Nf4, I realised the game had transposed into the Jobava London, only I was unable to play my preparation, meaning I had to think about every move. I was horribly ashamed of the opening since I had no idea I was being move-ordered, but I continued to play normal moves in the London System, such as 8...Nh5 and Stockfish even claimed I had a better position by move ten.

After all our pieces had been developed, I made the mistake of unnecessarily giving up my bishop pair with 20...Bxf5, when 20...Bf8 would give me a subtle edge. The rest of Zachary’s piece were proved to better-placed as I lost a pawn after 29.Rec2, but after a series of exchanges, I won the pawn back with 33...Bb2, forking the rook and the pawn and entering a completely drawn endgame with opposite coloured bishops and one rook each. However Zachary declined my draw offer and played on.

I made an inaccuracy with 51...f5+ and was forced to give up a pawn after more manoeuvrings, but despite having already made the time control, Zachary’s time was running ominously low and just after I played 69...h5, expecting him to capture my f5-pawn, Zachary’s flag went down, making me the winner of the longest struggle in the round.

ROUND 8: Weiyang Yu (1474) — Anya Thurner (1778), 1⁄2-1⁄2
This was my second game with Anya at Christchurch, after playing her in round two of the Junior Championship. That game had been a draw and I was looking for a better result with the White pieces this time.

As usual, I played the London System. In response Anya played her favourite move as Black against any 1.d4 openings: 7...b6, intending to fianchetto her LSB and extend on the queenside. I mainly played in the centre, first placing my knight onto e5, before stabilising it with 10.Ndf3. Anya pushed forward with 10...c4, with the plan of b4-a4-b5, completely dominating the queenside. I prepared to push in the centre with 12.Re1 and 15.Nd2, before finally playing 17.e4 just as Anya pushed 16...b4. After 17...dxe4, I solved my queenside issues and have easier play as my pieces are more prepared for the opening of the position.

Anya blundered a pawn soon after with 22...Ne5?, since the knight would be pinned after 23.Rxa8 Rxa8 24.Bxe4 and cannot capture on c3. We exchanged off all the minor pieces and entered a heavy piece endgame.

I played 27.Qa2, attacking the a8-rook and the d5-pawn since Anya couldn’t capture my queen due to her weak backrank, this move really didn’t do much as on the next move, I moved my queen back to exactly where it was two moves ago, showing my lack of understanding in this endgame.

The rooks were off the board after a few dawdling and I basically lost hope in winning the game since I wasn’t able to convert my extra pawn into a passed pawn. I then completely slipped up with 43.h3, giving away all my advantage because Black’s king can now advance in the queenside and with the help of the Black queen, completely blockade my pawns. Anya did not play the key 44...Kc4 and allowed me to regain my advantage, but I had no idea what the winning idea was and played the hopeless 49.c4, after which the game soon ended in a draw as my c-pawn was lost.

ROUND 9: Clinton Wells (1894) — Weiyang Yu (1474), 1-0
Last and indeed the least, I present to you the worst play one could find in this tournament.

I prepared the same variation I had employed against Emily Gan in round 5 of the Junior since that game turned out great for me, having equalised easily as Black and enjoyed a good game (at least before I saw Stockfish’s evaluation).

Clinton deviated from my game with Emily on move 3, playing 3.e4 instead of 3.Nf3. I chose the insane line 3...c5, in which White has to sacrifice a pawn to get any initiative at all. Clinton did not play the pawn sacrifice and allowed me to quickly equalise after 6...Bb4, transposing into a very unpopular Sicilian variation for White.

Despite this, I immediately gave White the advantage by playing the tempting 7...Bxc3+, apparently the doubled isolated pawns do not compensate for the loss of my bishop pair. I then made my position living hell by playing 8...O-O?, immediately spotting White’s continuation after I played the horrible move: 9.Ba3 Re8 10.Bd6, completely killing my coordination by blockading the d-pawn. Fortunately, Clinton did not see the aforementioned variation and played 9.Be2, enabling me to free up my position and take the venom out of Ba3 with 9...d5.

After an exchange on d5, Clinton pinned my knight with 11.Bg5, basically forcing an endgame after 11...Nxd4 12.Qxd4 exd4 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qxf6 gxf6 15.fxe4. I then got rid of one of my weak pawns by playing 15...f5, since 16.e5 would lead to the loss of that very pawn after 16...Re8, where White has no way to defend e5.

We had entered an endgame where we both had two weak pawns. My pawns are easily defended, while Clinton’s, despite being harder to protect, were also hard to target. Clinton started a minority attack with his remaining pieces on the kingside, first pinning my bishop, then threatening to win it with 22.h4. I defended against that threat and swapped off a pair of rooks before swinging to the kingside with 27...Rh5, attacking the h4-pawn, which cannot be defended. Clinton responded with the intermezzo 28.Rf3, attacking the f6-pawn while freeing up g3. He then played 29.Re3, planning Re7-xa7, where his queenside majority will be difficult to stop. For safety’s sake I chose 29...Kf8, but soon gave up defending the f6-pawn after 30.Re6 Rxh4 31.Rxf6+.

After 33.Rf6, Clinton later told me he would’ve just took the repetition if I had played 33...Ke7, but my instinct of pushing further in such a drawn position made me play 33...Rh5, which led to a complicated bishop endgame, where my endgame skill completely crumbled and resulted in the painful end of an otherwise satisfying tournament.

Conclusion:
This was the best tournament performance I ever had and showcased the dramatic change of my style from defensive to aggressive. Overall I am very satisfied with my play over the eleven days of Congress. To me this was a success even the painful losses couldn’t overshadow.

Thanks to all the people who made Congress this year possible, and to all my friends and opponents who granted me so much happiness throughout my time in Christchurch.

—Weiyang Yu, 05.02.2022