Women’s World Championship: Highlights From Opening Rounds

Three Storylines to Watch From Shanghai

GM Tan Zhongyi leads four-time defending champion GM Ju Wenjun 1½–½ in Shanghai after two rounds of the 2025 FIDE Women’s World Chess Championship (WWCC).

Tan and Ju shake hands at the opening presser

Tan (L) and Ju shake hands at the opening ceremony (Photo courtesy of Anna Shtourman/FIDE)

Tan — who won the 2017 FIDE WWCC before losing her title in a match against Ju a year later — took advantage of Ju’s time trouble in an imbalanced rook-and-pawns endgame to win game 2 on Friday. Play resumes on Sunday, April 6, at 3:00 a.m. EDT (which is 3:00 p.m. local time).

Photo courtesy of Anna Shtourman/FIDE

WGM Sabina Foisor will be annotating every game for Chess Life Online. Be sure to “like” our study with her annotations, and check in during the afternoon of each game day to see her detailed, insightful commentary on both the chess match and the underlying psychological battle developing between these two longtime adversaries. Foisor’s full analysis of the first two games is also included at the bottom of this report.

Based on Foisor’s coverage, below are three key themes that jump out from the first two games.

1. Almost Every Principle Has Exceptions

During game 1, Tan faced two key moments as Black where she correctly made a concrete, practical decision at the expense of following conventional wisdom. These choices helped her neutralize Ju’s somewhat surprising choice of 1. e4 without much difficulty.

In the first diagram, Tan flouted the maxim of never playing both … e7-e6 and … g7-g6 in a Sicilian:

Game 1: Position after 8. ... g6

By weakening her dark squares in this way, Black must now be prepared for a possible infiltration by White’s dark-squared bishop through numerous diagonals. But, with White having already committed her dark-squared bishop to the f4-square, threats of Bc1-a3 were less pertinent.

Tan correctly assessed that White was unable to exploit her weak color complex, whereas her dark-squared bishop would be well-placed on the long diagonal. White had nothing better than trading it off a few moves later, and the trade of pieces helped Black reach an equal endgame.

In the next diagram (from later in the same game), how would you evaluate the position after White’s 20. cxd5, and would you recapture immediately with … e6xd5, or choose something else?

Game 1: Position after 20. cxd5. Should Black recapture?

Tan swiftly recaptured, which turned out to be the simplest way to equality. While this is correct, it still feels counter-intuitive for Black to be comfortable in a position with so many pawns stuck on the same color as her lone bishop. Add to that the isolated d5-pawn and White’s threat of Nd2-f3-d4 with a blockade, and it seems like a clear advantage for White that could show up in a book like Simple Chess. Indeed, several experienced grandmasters were surprised by Tan’s decision:

This is an interesting generational clash.

I am also brought up with the idea that black should be really worried if the knight enters d4 here, but the computer says black is just completely fine. https://t.co/xNqtXiXW5Z
— Peter Heine Nielsen (@PHChess) April 3, 2025

While this idea of 20. … Rd8 is also equal (according to the engine), Tan’s evaluation was both correct and risk-free. Foisor explains that, “Getting into this position, Ju realized that even if Black has three weak pawns (a5, d5 and g5), putting pressure on them is not easy. Without an outpost, her knight won't be able to show superiority to Black's bishop, either.” Chess isn’t always so simple, after all!

2. Activity Over Material in Rook Endgames

If every principle has exceptions, that includes the principle that every principle has exceptions! There’s no substitute for active rooks in the endgame. While these players are no stranger to the concept of sacrificing a pawn to improve rook position (or king position) in an endgame, it is not always easy to calculate the best way to do so.

Game 2: Position after 31. Rxa7 — Two key moments from game 2. Left: position after 31. Rxa7. Right: position after 40. f4. In both cases, ... b5-b4 would liberate Black's pieces.

Game 2: Position after 40. f4 — Two key moments from game 2. Left: position after 31. Rxa7. Right: position after 40. f4. In both cases, ... b5-b4 would liberate Black's pieces.

In both of the above diagrams, Black should have played … b5-b4 to improve her pieces. In the first diagram, this was the cleanest way to draw. In the second, it was necessary. Foisor discusses both moments in her analysis, but she wasn’t the only one who thought Black made her own life unnecessarily complicated:

Maybe 31...b4 was cleaner, don't see how White presses, 32.cxb Rd8 33.Kf3 Rxd4 34.Rb7 Rc4 35.Ke3 Rc2.
In the second diagram, already 38...Rb3, you can get worried about d5-d6 with no time on the clock.
Maybe 37...Rb3!? 38.d5 Ke8 39.d6 Rf3! was the way.

We keep following.🍿 https://t.co/RukEbu4srh pic.twitter.com/tBs23Pf1Om
— Anish Giri (@anishgiri) April 4, 2025

3. The Battle off the Board

As Foisor discussed in her match preview, these two players have a long history. In 2016, Ju was board two and Tan was board three on China’s Women’s Olympiad team that won a gold medal. Ju and Tan were also boards two and four, respectively, on the 2014 team that won silver.

These two former teammates are also close in age (Ju turned 34 in January, while Tan turns 34 next month), meaning they have spent most of their adult lives competing against each other in both national and international competition. Dating back to 2008, they’ve faced off dozens of times in classical games, including their 10-game match in 2018.

Tan and Ju both with hands on their heads early into the second game

The tension is palpable already! (Photo courtesy of Anna Shtourman/FIDE)

Given this background, it makes sense that psychological factors are already playing a role. For instance, in game 2, Tan had to decide whether she wanted to return to an opening (1. c4) that led to her first loss in her 2018 match. Foisor explains Tan’s decision, observing that, “In my experience when one plays the same player over and over again you start developing this idea of trying to be better than them. I think Tan wanted to show that she isn't afraid of repeating the same opening. Afterall, she didn't lose that game 2 because of the opening. So her mind was made, she was going to play 1.c4 with confidence.”

But psychological factors do not only play a role during preparation. Towards the end of game 2, with Ju suffering from time trouble in an imbalanced position, a lack of objectivity proved fatal.

Game 2: Position after 38. ... Rf5?!

In the lead-up to this decision, Foisor observes that, “Ju may have overestimated her opponent's possibility of making a mistake. It does feel that it is Black who could be slightly better given that the b-pawn is further away, but it is the d-pawn that is more advanced and White's both Rook and king are more active.”

Would Ju feel the same pressure to prove her dominance against a relatively unknown opponent? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s always more difficult to make objective evaluations under pressure, and almost two decades of experience against this particular opponent certainly doesn’t help in that situation.

The match still has a long way to go, with ten more games to play. Game 3 begins at 3:00 a.m. EDT on Sunday, April 6. Keep an eye out for more annotations from WGM Sabina Foisor later on Sunday. Below are her annotations on the first two games.

Stay tuned to Chess Life Online for more coverage!