Lessons From Prague IX

I STARTED well in my round-nine game, reaching the following position with black.

White has just played 13.Qd1-e2

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Black is slightly better, according to Stockfish17 and Dragon1, but after 13...e5?! it was White who was slightly better thanks to the reply 14.Ng5.

LESSON: every move, with very few exceptions (such as delivering mate, for example), has drawbacks as well as benefits. If I had thought about that when considering my 13th move, it would surely have occurred to me that ...e5 weakens the sensitive f7 square.

Lessons From Prague VIII

MY round-eight game reached the following position after 40 moves.

The game is completely equal, according to Stockfish17 and Dragon1

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

I resisted the temptation to play 41.Bd4?, when 41...Bxd4 42.Kxd4 improves the situation of the white king, which is now on the fourth rank while Black's remains on the third rank.

But after the obvious 42...Kd6, White is lost thanks to Black's ability to create a passed pawn on the queenside, eg 43.Kd3 Kc6 44.Kd4 Kb6 45.e5 fxe5+ 46.Kxe5 a5 etc.

LESSON: a drawn piece-and-pawn-ending can easily become a lost endgame in transposing to a purely pawn-ending.

Lessons From Prague VII

IN round seven I won with black against a Kazakh international master - only the third time I have beaten an IM.

Impressed? Perhaps not when you consider by the time of our game his rating had fallen to 1997.

Admittedly that is 101 Elo higher than my rating, but is a long way down from a 'standard' IM's rating of 2400.

Aitkazy Baimurzin was born in 1956, so a decline is to be expected.

But what exactly happens to such a player's strength?

I believe that, generally speaking, players do not lose positional knowledge. Indeed such know-how may keep increasing as time goes by.

So such a huge decline in strength, assuming it has not been directly caused by illness, is almost certainly the result of a loss in tactical ability.

This is in mark contrast to juniors, who tend to be much stronger tactically than their ratings would suggest, but lack sound positional judgement.

That is why two bits of oft-given advice for playing against juniors are: 1) get the queens off, 2) if all else fails, swop down into an ending.

My game against Baimurzin bears out my seniors' theory, as the following snapshots illustrate.

After five moves White (Baimurzin) was slightly better, according to Stockfish17 and Dragon1

After 10 moves the engines reckon White had the upper hand

At the 20-move mark White was still better, although the engines now fluctuate between awarding White the upper hand or 'just' a slight edge

But the very next move saw the tactics start after 21.Nc2?! e4!, and six moves later White resigned.

LESSON: you can tell a lot about a player's strengths by noting how ratings have progressed (or regressed), and in particular by taking into account the opponent's age.

Lessons From Prague V

MY round-five game at the world senior team 65+ championship in Prague featured an instructive 'trick' in the opening that I believe is not as widely known as it should be.

White has just played 11.Nb1-c3, adding to the pressure on the black d pawn

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

The first thing to note is Black cannot grab the white d pawn as 11...Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 is met by 13.Nxd5, when 13...0-0 can be strongly answered by 14.Bg5!, winning a piece, eg 14...Rae8 15.Rae1 etc, or 14...Bxb5 15.Nxe7+ and 16.Qxb5.

So White's threat to d5 is real, which might prompt the move 11...Be6?! However White then has 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Na4, with a nice outpost at c5 (Stockfish17 and Dragon1 also like 13.Bf4).

I played 11...0-0!?, the point being that after 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Black has 13...Be6, putting huge pressure on White's d pawn.

Since 14.Qe4?! is met by 14...Bd5, 15...Bxf3 and 16...Nxd4, my opponent played 14.Qxd8, and after 14...Rfd8 it can be seen d4 must fall unless White makes positional concessions to hold on to the extra pawn.

He did this by giving up the bishop-pair with 15.Bxc6, the game continuing 15...bxc6 16.Be3 Rab8 (possibly better is 16...Rdb8!? or 16...Bd5) 17.b3.

Black remains a pawn down, but has the bishops, a lead in development and pressure against d4

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

I could have won the exchange with 17...c5 18.dxc5 Bxa1, but after 19.Rxa1 White has two pawns for it, and the bishop-pair has gone, meaning White is probably for preference.

White could also avoid giving up the exchange with, for example, 18.Rad1, but then the engines' 18...c4! exposes the fragility of White's queenside.

Another try is 18.Rfd1!? Bg4 19.Rd2, but 19...Bxf3 20.gxf3 cxd4 21.Rad1 Rb4 is equal, according to the engines.

I eschewed the exchange with 17...a5!?, relying on the bishop-pair and pressure against White's queenside pawns to provide compensation for being a pawn down.

LESSON: the motif of Black allowing d5 to fall, knowing there will be sufficient pressure against an isolani on d4, arises more frequently than might be thought, and is a useful 'trick' to remember.

Lessons From Prague IV

In this position from round four I am the exchange up and have the safer king

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Nevertheless the black king is also menaced, and something must be done about the immediate threat to the black queen, while not simply dropping the black bishop.

Actually the threat to the bishop is not so great as the knight is also threatened. Once this is realised it is not so hard to find the engines' 27...Qc5! Since 28.Nxg7 achieves little, White must play 28.Bxe4, but 28...Qa3+ 29.Qb2 Qxb2+ 30.Kxb2 Rab8+ 31.Kc2 exf5 32.Bxf5 leaves White with only a pawn for the exchange, meaning Black is winning (Dragon1) or at least has the upper hand (Stockfish17).

A reasonable-looking try would have been 27...Qa5!?, or even 27...Qxd1+?!, both so much better than my 27...Qb7??, when 28.Nd6 gave White a huge winning advantage.

LESSON: unlike in most games and sports, where a single blunder, such as an own-goal in football, can be recovered from, in chess all the nice positional play in the world can be undone by a single blunder from which recovery is simply not feasible.

Lessons From Prague III

ANYONE doubting the power of the bishop-pair should look at my round-three game.

White has just played 29.b3

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Stockfish17 and Dragon1 reckon the position is completely equal, which means the bishop-pair is compensating for Black being a pawn down and having three isolanis.

The game continued 29...Bb2 30.Rxc8 Rxc8 31.a4 bxa4 32.bxa4 Bd5 33.a5

White has a passed pawn, but the position remains equal

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Now 33...Ra8 puts immediate pressure on the passer. It can be defended with 34.Bb6, but then comes 34...Bc3. And after 35.Nf3 Black can give up the bishop-pair to snaffle the pawn by 35...Bxf3 36.gxf3 Bxa5 with complete equality as the pinning 37.Ra1?? is a gross blunder in view of 37...Bxb6+.

The game saw 33...Rc2?, when 34.Nf3 gains a probably decisive tempo on the light-square bishop.

However I played 34.a6?!, when 34...Bc1 again demonstrates the bishops' power, eg 35.a7 Bxd2 36.Bxd2 Be4 leaves White no way of converting the pawn advantage.

Instead 34...Bc3? should lose to 35.Nf3, but after 35.a7? the bishops could again prove their worth with 35...Bxd2 36.Bxd2 Be4, reaching the same drawn position as in the note in the previous paragraph.

However my opponent played 35...Ra2??, when 36.Nb1 wins a piece, but my inferior 36.Nf3?! was also good enough, and I won in a few moves.

So how much is a bishop-pair worth?

International master Larry Kaufman - now a grandmaster - wrote a famous article on The Evaluation Of Material Imbalances, using a database of almost 300,000 games involving players rated 2300+.

He concluded that the bishop-pair, ie having two bishops against bishop and knight or against two knights, is on average worth half a pawn.

But pay attention to the word average. On an open board the value of the bishop-pair rises, which is why in the first diagram the bishops compensate for Black being a pawn down and with pawn weaknesses.

LESSON: ignore the advantages of a bishop-pair at your peril. Kaufman even goes so far as to claim that "if you have the bishop-pair, and your opponent's single bishop is a bad bishop (hemmed in by his own pawns), you already have full compensation for a pawn."

Lessons From Prague II

STOCKFISH17 reckons I had a lost position in my round-two game in just seven moves.

If this had involved the blunder of a piece, or even of a pawn in particularly bad circumstances, it might be easy to understand.

But my game was losing for positional reasons, which means there is an instructive lesson to be learnt, and so I want to look at the opening in some detail.

Ed Baarslag (2005) - Spanton (1896)
Réti

1.Nf3

My database of my games shows I have faced this move 173 times, scoring +60=44-69, or 47% - a fairly good score with black.

I have tried five different replies (in descending order of frequency): 1...d5 (60 games), 1...Nc6!? (43), 1...Nf6 (35), 1...c5 (34) and 1...e6 (1).

My percentage scores have been roughly the same for 1...d5 (42%), 1...Nf6 (44%) and 1...c5 (44%), but significantly higher for 1...Nc6!? (58%).

I am not sure how much can be read into this, but it is possible that ...Nc6's success is at least partly due to it being less common than ...d5, ...Nf6 and ...c5 (for what it is worth, 1...e6 is also uncommon, and I won with that).

What I play against 1.Nf3 is influenced by my repertoire at the time, or at least by the opening I hope to get, but the success of 1...Nc6!? is food for thought.

1...d5 2.c4 d4

This advance used to be criticised in some opening books as playing into White's hands, but it is the top choice of Stockfish17 and Dragon1.

3.b4

Gaining space and opening the b1-h8 diagonal for the dark-square bishop, but making the b pawn a target for Black's dark-square bishop.

How should Black respond?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

3...c5!?

This is by no means an obvious move, but it is the engines' choice. The idea is that after 4.bxc5 Black does not need to rush to win back the pawn. Instead 4...Nc6 prepares ...e5, after which Black will have ...Bxc5. White could play against this with 5.d3 e5 6.Ba3, but 6...f5!? threatens ...e4, giving Black plenty of compensation for a pawn.

Of equal popularity with the text is 3...f6!?, when ...e5 cannot be prevented, which means White will have to do something soon about the coming threat to b4. A typical line in ChessBase's 2025 Mega database runs 4.e3 e5 5.c5!? a5 6.Qa4+ Bd7 7.b5!? Bxc5 8.Bc4, with an imbalanced position that the engines reckon gives White full compensation for a pawn.

Strong players, including a 2600, have tried 3...e6!?, but it can be argued that, having played ...d4, Black should strive to get in ...e5 in one move if at all possible.

4.e3

Attacking Black's centre before ...e5 can be played.

4...dxe3

This is easily the most popular continuation, but the engines also like 4...Nf6, when 5.bxc5 is naturally met by 5...Nc6, so White often prefers 5.Bb2!?, although the engines reckon 5...dxe3 6.fxe3 cxb4 favours Black.

5.fxe3

How should Black continue?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

5...e6?!
The strongest players have, almost certainly rightly, shunned this move, for reasons that will become obvious.

Also dubious is 5...e5?! as 6.Nxe5 Qh4+? 7.g3 Qe4, which occurs 13 times in Mega25, fails to 8.Nf3.

The normal continuation is 5...cxb4, when 6.d4 gives White the centre, but Black seems to have decent compensation, eg 6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.0-0 e6.

6.bxc5 Bxc5 7.d4

In contrast to the previous note, White has gained the centre with tempo and without being a pawn down.

7...Qa5+?!

A dubious novelty. It is better to move the bishop, albeit leaving White with the upper hand, according to the engines.

After the text Stockfish17 reckons White is positionally winning, although Dragon1 'only' gives the upper hand.

The game continued ...

8.Bd2 Bb4 9.Bd3 Nf6 10.0-0 0-0

... after which Dragon1 agrees White's advantage is winning.

LESSON: moves such as 2...d4 create an imbalanced position in which every move is critical, and a failure to properly understand the nuances can be quickly fatal, especially for Black.

Lessons From Prague

MY round-one game in the world senior team 65+ championship reached a knight-and-pawn ending in which my active king made up for being a pawn down.

Indeed in the following position I thought I was winning, as Black appears to be in zugzwang.

I have just played 44.Ke5-d5

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

However Stockfish17 and Dragon1 demonstrate there are at least five moves that draw, including the game's 44...Nf4+.

The biggest surprise to me is that one of the five drawing methods is with 44...Nd4!?, even though after 45.Nxd4 cxd4 46.Kxd4 White has a protected passed pawn.

That is normally fatal for the opponent, but the engines demonstrate that here it is not so.

Black has to play the fairly obvious 46...Kd6, when the try 47.Ke4 Ke6 48.Kf4 Kf6 49.Kg3 Kg5 50.Kh3 Kf5 51.Kh4 Kg6 gets nowhere.

The black king remains within the square of the white passer, and 52.c5 Kf6 53.Kxh5 Ke6 54.Kg5 Kd5 55.Kf5 Kxc5 56.Ke5 Kc6 57.Kd4 Kd6 also fails to make progress.

LESSON One is that a distant passed pawn can make up for a protected passer.

LESSON Two is the old but easily ignored advice that you cannot play by general principles alone ('a protected passer is a major weapon in a pawn-ending') - concrete analysis is necessary.

More Winning Chess

CHARLES Higgie, who played board four for England 3 at the world senior team 65+ championship in Prague, scored +6=1-2, gaining 36.6 Fide elo.

Here is his last-round game against Karel Šlechta, of Czech club side ŠK Sokol Vyšehrad.

Higgie (1945) - Šlechta (1874)

Sicilian Classical/Dragon

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.f3!?

This is fifth-most popular in ChessBase's 2025 Mega database, behind 6.Be3, 6.Be2, 6.Bc4 and especially 6.Bg5.

6...g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Bc4!?

This is quite a popular alternative to the mainline 8.Qd2, although lines can easily transpose.

8...a6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.0-0-0 0-0

Now both sides have castled, how would you assess the position?

*****

*****
*****

*****

*****

Games with opposite-side castling are often tricky to evaluate, but Stockfish17 and Dragon1 much prefer White.

11.h4 Rc8

The engines suggest 11...b5 or 11...h5!?

12.Bb3 Na5 13.h5 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.g4 Qa5 16.Nb3 Qd8?!

Almost certainly too passive, but the engines' 16...Qe5 may not be a lot better.

17.hxg6 Rxc3!?

Exchange sacrifices on c3 are thematic in the Sicilian, but here the sac is too late and too ineffective to affect the outcome.

18.gxh7+ Kh8 19.bxc3 Qc7 20.Bh6 Bxh6 21.Rxh6 Bb5 22.Qd4 Qc4 23.g5 1-0

After 23...Qxc4 24.cxd4 Nd7 Black would be the exchange and two pawns down, and without hope of mating chances.

Winning Chess

BOARD one for England 3 - the team I played for at the world senior 65+ championship in Prague - was Brian Hewson, who scored +3=3-3, gaining 26.8 Fide elo.

Here is his game from round one against Norwegian grandmaster Leif Øgaard.

Hewson (2039) - Øgaard (2358)

Réti/Nimzowitsch-Larsen

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.b3 c5 4.Bb2 Nc6 5.d4!?

The main move in ChessBase's 2025 Mega database is 5.Bg2.

5...Bg4 6.Nbd2 Qa5!? 7.Bg2!?

This may be a novelty. Borislav Kostić - János Balogh, Bardejov (Czechoslovakia) 1926, went 7.dxc5 Qxc5 8.Bg2, with an equal game, according to Stockfish17 and Dragon1 (1-0, 35 moves).

7...Bxf3!? 8.exf3!?

The engines prefer this to recapturing with the bishop, presumably because the bishop could become a target for black expansion after, for example, 8.Bxf3 cxd4 9.0-0 e5.

8...cxd4 9.0-0 e5

Black has won a pawn, but White has the bishop-pair and can hope to undermine the black centre

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

10.a3 Bd6 11.f4!? exf4!?

After 11...0-0 12.fxe5 Bxe5 13.Nf3 the engines reckon White has at least full compensation for a pawn.

12.Re1+ Kf8 13.Nf3 fxg3 14.hxg3 h5 15.Nxd4 h4

Black is still up a pawn, but the position is opening for the bishops

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

16.Nxc6?!

The engines prefer 16.g4 or 16.gxh4!?

16...bxc6 17.Qf3?

Again the engines prefer g4, but give Black the upper hand.

17...Ne4?!

Winning, according to the engines, is 17...hxg3, eg 18.Bxf6 gxf2+ 19.Qxf2 gxf6 20.Qxf6 Qc5+, but neither king is safe.

18.Qg4 Nf6

If 18...Rh7? then the simple 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Qxe4 is good for White.

19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.gxh4

Now White has regained the pawn, but given up the bishop-pair, how would you assess the position?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Clearly it is messy, especially with opposite-coloured bishops, but the engines reckon equal chances.

20...Be5 21.Rad1 Qxa3 22.h5?!

The engines agree White maintains the balance with 22.c4!?

22...Qc5 23.Re2?!

The engines still prefer c4.

23...Rd8 24.Qf5?!

The engines suggest 24.Qh4 or 24.Kf1!?

24...Qd6?!

Black has at least a slight edge after 24...Rg8, according to the engines.

25.Rd3 Rb8 26.Rh3 Qa3 27.Rhe3!? Qd6 28.Rh3!?

An implicit draw offer?

28...a5

Black is right to play on, according to the engines.

29.Rh4 Qe6 30.Qxe6 fxe6 31.f4?

The engines reckon 31.Bh3 leaves Black at best slightly better.

31...Rb4?

Correct is 31...Bd4+, eg 32.Kf1 Kf7.

32.c3 Bxc3 33.Rxe6 Rxb3 34.Rxc6

Black to play and lose

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

34...d4??

Saving the d pawn, but losing the game. Perhaps I should have titled this post Losing Chess.
35.Rc8+ Kg7 36.Rg4+ 1-0

Pen Of Participation

A RULE at the world senior team championships banned players from using their own pens.

But at the end of the final round we were allowed to keep the official pens we were using, which was somewhat more useful than the certificates-of-participation we also received

Summing Up Prague

MY score of +2=4-3 on board three (of four) for England 3 in the world senior team 65+ championship gained exactly 18 Fide elo.

Proof that I played, I guess 

England 3 were seeded 34th, but finished 27th.

27. England 3 (RtgAvg:1982, Captain: Anthony Ashby / TB1: 9 / TB2: 17,5)
Bo.		Name	Rtg	FED	FideID	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Pts.	Games	Rp	w	we	w-we	K	rtg+/-
1		Hewson, Brian W R	2039	ENG	437484	1	0	1	1	½	0	½	½	0	4,5	9	2156	4,5	3,16	1,34	20	26,8
2	CM	Ashby, Anthony C	2049	ENG	405302	0	0	1	0	½	0	0	½	½	2,5	9	1962	2,5	3,67	-1,17	20	-23,4
3		Spanton, Tim R	1896	ENG	404802	½	0	1	0	½	0	1	½	½	4	9	1978	4	3,10	0,90	20	18
4		Higgie, Charles L	1945	ENG	1803263	½	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	6,5	9	2102	6,5	4,67	1,83	20	36,6

Here is the final table from Chess-Results

Rk.	SNo		Team	Games	+	=	-	TB1	TB2	TB3	TB4	TB5
1	2		England 1	9	7	2	0	16	24	0	171,5	188
2	1		Lasker Schachstiftung GK	9	5	4	0	14	24	0	164	179
3	9		Saxonia	9	6	1	2	13	22,5	0	150,5	162,5
4	11		Israel	9	5	3	1	13	22	0	169	187
5	8		England 2	9	5	2	2	12	21,5	0	171,5	186
6	3		France 1	9	4	4	1	12	21,5	0	171	188
7	4		Italy	9	5	2	2	12	21,5	0	168,5	183
8	10		Sweden 1	9	5	2	2	12	21	0	168	184,5
9	13		Switzerland	9	4	4	1	12	21	0	154,5	171,5
10	14		Coriolus	9	6	0	3	12	19,5	0	155,5	167,5
11	17		France 2	9	5	1	3	11	22	0	155,5	172
12	6		Finland 1	9	4	3	2	11	21,5	0	156,5	173,5
13	12		Hungary	9	4	3	2	11	20	0	162	179
14	19		Netherlands Orange	9	4	3	2	11	19	0	156,5	169
15	18		Ireland 1	9	5	0	4	10	19,5	0	147,5	162
16	24		Denmark	9	4	2	3	10	19,5	0	143	157,5
17	22		France 3	9	5	0	4	10	19,5	0	142,5	156,5
18	15		Berlin	9	4	2	3	10	19	0	159	174,5
19	25		Kazakhstan	9	4	2	3	10	19	0	147	160,5
20	20		Brazil 1	9	4	2	3	10	19	0	144	159
21	28		VýchodoČeši	9	4	2	3	10	18,5	2	157,5	174,5
22	21		Switzerland Riehen 1	9	4	2	3	10	18,5	0	150	165
23	27		Senioři Polabí	9	5	0	4	10	18	0	160	177
24	23		ŠK Sokol Vyšehrad	9	3	3	3	9	19,5	0	146,5	158,5
25	5		Czech Republic	9	2	5	2	9	18,5	0	150,5	167,5
26	38		Norway Southeast	9	2	5	2	9	18	0	140	153,5
27	34		England 3	9	3	3	3	9	17,5	0	148,5	161
28	7		Norge - OSS	9	3	3	3	9	17	0	162	179,5
29	30		ŠK Slavoj Litoměřice	9	2	5	2	9	17	0	144	156
30	26		Finland 2	9	4	0	5	8	18,5	0	140,5	155
31	33		Austria	9	4	0	5	8	18	0	154,5	169,5
32	32		Scotland	9	2	4	3	8	17,5	0	145	161,5
33	16		Schach-Club Kreuzberg	9	3	2	4	8	17,5	0	144,5	159,5
34	39		Team Skåne	9	2	4	3	8	17,5	0	141	154,5
35	40		Switzerland Riehen 2	9	3	2	4	8	17,5	0	136	148
36	36		Ukraine	9	3	2	4	8	17	0	158	175
37	44		ŠK Plzeň	9	2	4	3	8	17	0	140,5	154
38	29		Sweden 2	9	2	4	3	8	16,5	0	147,5	161,5
39	37		Latvia Women	9	3	2	4	8	16,5	0	146	158,5
40	43		Czech Republic Women	9	3	2	4	8	16,5	0	130,5	142,5
41	31		Deutsche Bahn / BSW	9	4	0	5	8	14,5	0	136	148
42	53		United States	9	3	1	5	7	17	0	132,5	144,5
43	47		Lokomotiva Praha RaL	9	2	3	4	7	16,5	1	131,5	144
44	50		Turku	9	2	3	4	7	16,5	1	130	142
45	42		Brazil 2	9	3	1	5	7	15,5	0	125,5	137,5
46	48		France 4	9	3	1	5	7	15	0	137	149
47	45		England 4	9	3	0	6	6	15	0	150,5	165
48	35		SK 2012 Denmark	9	2	2	5	6	14,5	0	144	158
49	54		Ireland 3	9	2	2	5	6	12	0	133,5	145,5
50	52		Poland Women	9	2	1	6	5	14,5	0	135	147,5
51	49		Ireland 2	9	1	3	5	5	14	0	130	142,5
52	46		KS-58 Helsinki	9	2	1	6	5	12,5	0	132,5	144,5
53	51		Northern Germany	9	1	2	6	4	13,5	0	134,5	146,5
54	41		Sweden 3	9	0	2	7	2	12	0	129	141

Annotation:
Tie Break1: Matchpoints (2 for wins, 1 for Draws, 0 for Losses)
Tie Break2: points (game-points)
Tie Break3: The results of the teams in then same point group according to Matchpoints
Tie Break4: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)
Tie Break5: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)

The final table in the 50+ championship.

Rk.	SNo		Team	Group	Games	+	=	-	TB1	TB2	TB3	TB4	TB5
1	1		USA		9	6	3	0	15	24	0	175	191,5
2	4		Italy		9	6	3	0	15	23	0	175	193
3	5		Kazakhstan		9	6	2	1	14	24	0	174	190
4	2		England 1		9	5	2	2	12	24,5	0	176	193
5	16		England 2		9	6	0	3	12	24	0	147,5	160
6	6		Slovakia		9	4	4	1	12	22	0	174	190,5
7	8		Confluentia		9	6	0	3	12	22	0	162,5	178
8	9		Hungary		9	6	0	3	12	20,5	2	164	180
9	18		Canada		9	6	0	3	12	20,5	0	159	175
10	14		ŠK Moravská Slavia		9	5	2	2	12	20	0	167,5	184
11	3		Iceland		9	5	1	3	11	21,5	0	176,5	192
12	7		Czech Republic		9	5	1	3	11	21,5	0	155,5	172
13	10		Sweden		9	4	3	2	11	20	0	157,5	174
14	19		Scotland 2		9	3	5	1	11	20	0	154	168,5
15	15		Denmark		9	4	3	2	11	19	0	158,5	174,5
16	17		Oslo Schakselskap		9	5	1	3	11	19	0	152,5	168
17	13		Equipe FQE		9	5	0	4	10	21,5	0	151	166,5
18	11		LSG 1		9	4	2	3	10	20,5	0	150,5	164,5
19	21		TU Magdeburg		9	4	2	3	10	18,5	0	158	174,5
20	25		Czech Republic Women		9	4	2	3	10	18,5	0	156	171
21	12		China Women		9	4	2	3	10	18	0	161	177
22	35		Caissa Poland		9	4	2	3	10	18	0	148,5	165
23	29		TJ Sokol Údlice		9	4	2	3	10	17	0	152,5	169
24	23		Zuid Limburg		9	4	2	3	10	16	0	152	166
25	26		USA Women		9	3	3	3	9	19	1	148	158,5
26	39		ŠK Bohemia Pardubice		9	4	1	4	9	19	1	141	151,5
27	24		Philidor Brothers		9	3	3	3	9	18	0	154,5	165,5
28	31		Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya		9	4	1	4	9	18	0	150	164
29	42		SC Roter Turm Altstadt		9	3	3	3	9	18	0	139,5	155,5
30	37		ŠK JOLY Lysá nad Labem		9	4	1	4	9	16,5	0	152,5	163,5
31	33		Polish Amateurs		9	3	3	3	9	16,5	0	149	163,5
32	36		Equipe Quebec		9	4	0	5	8	19,5	0	144,5	158,5
33	20		Austria		9	3	2	4	8	18	0	139	155,5
34	34		Brazil		9	4	0	5	8	17	2	147,5	162
35	22		Scotland 1		9	3	2	4	8	17	0	155,5	172,5
36	28		U.S.A. 5 Brothers		9	3	2	4	8	16,5	0	146,5	161
37	32		Kazakhstan Women		9	4	0	5	8	16	0	154	166,5
38	30		England Women		9	4	0	5	8	15,5	0	149	161,5
39	49		Turm Bergheim		9	3	1	5	7	18	0	129,5	136
40	50		Stochov		9	2	3	4	7	17	0	142	154,5
41	48		ŠK Mahrla Praha		9	3	1	5	7	17	0	127,5	138
42	47		England 3		9	3	1	5	7	16,5	0	145,5	162
43	44		Kralupy		9	3	1	5	7	16,5	0	120,5	127
44	27		Finland		9	2	3	4	7	16	0	140,5	147
45	52		TJ Sokol Pečky		9	3	1	5	7	15	0	122	132,5
46	41		TJ Žďár nad Sázavou		9	3	0	6	6	16,5	0	135,5	142
47	40		Sachsenwölfe		9	1	4	4	6	16,5	0	135	141,5
48	45		Středočeši		9	3	0	6	6	16	0	136	146,5
49	46		Steinitz Praha		9	2	2	5	6	14,5	0	128	134,5
50	38		Sekáček		9	2	2	5	6	14	0	141	156
51	43		Guernsey		9	2	2	5	6	12,5	0	129,5	136
52	53		Jawa 2025		9	1	2	6	4	10,5	0	131,5	138
53	51		Scotland 3		9	0	3	6	3	11	0	120,5	127
54	54		Czech Mix Team		9	0	1	8	1	6,5	0	123,5	134

Annotation:
Tie Break1: Matchpoints (2 for wins, 1 for Draws, 0 for Losses)
Tie Break2: points (game-points)
Tie Break3: The results of the teams in then same point group according to Matchpoints
Tie Break4: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)
Tie Break5: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)