Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Women's World Championship (2017)

  PARTICIPANTS (sorted by highest achieved rating; click on name to see player's games)
Anna Muzychuk, Ju Wenjun, Zhao Xue, Nana Dzagnidze, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Antoaneta Stefanova, Pia Cramling, Valentina Gunina, Dronavalli Harika, Zhu Chen, Ekaterina Kovalevskaya, Bela Khotenashvili, Elina Danielian, Tan Zhongyi, Hoang Thanh Trang, Aleksandra Goryachkina, Natalia Pogonina, Monika (Bobrowska) Socko, Lilit Mkrtchian, Anna Ushenina, Lela Javakhishvili, Nino Batsiashvili, Natalia Zhukova, Huang Qian, Olga Girya, Elisabeth Paehtz, Ekaterina Polovnikova-Atalik, Shen Yang, Salome Melia, Inna Gaponenko, Anastasia Bodnaruk, Nino Khurtsidze, Alina Kashlinskaya, Sarasadat Khademalsharieh, Padmini Rout, Marina Romanko Nechaeva, Deysi Estela Cori Tello, Sopiko Guramishvili, Anastasia Savina, Irine Kharisma Sukandar, Nastassia Ziaziulkina, Dinara Saduakassova, Le Thao Nguyen Pham, Sopio Gvetadze, Daria Charochkina, Olga Zimina, Mo Zhai, Shiqun Ni, Sabina-Francesca Foisor, Katerina Nemcova, Atousa Pourkashiyan, Mitra Hejazipour, Yaniet Marrero Lopez, Maritza Arribas Robaina, Qiyu Zhou, Nataliya Buksa, Viktorija Ni, Ayelen Martinez, Khaled Mona, Shamima Akter Liza, Amina Mezioud, Sabrina Latreche, Nancy Lane Chess Event Description
Women's World Championship (2017)

Official site:
See also: Wikipedia article: Women's World Chess Championship 2017

Rules and Details:

The 2017 FIDE Women's World Championship, held from February 11 to March 3 in Tehran, Iran, features 64 (1) players in a series of knockout matches. The early rounds are two games each, plus a tiebreak if necessary. The final is a match of four games, plus a possible tiebreak, with the winner declared Women's World Champion. The prize fund is USD $450,000 with the winner taking home $60,000.

Players receive 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with a 30-second increment from move one. The tiebreaks consist of two 25 min + 10-sec increment rapid games, then if needed two additional 10+10 games, two 5+3 blitz games and finally a single Armageddon game, where White has 5 minutes to Black's 4, but a draw counts as a win for Black. (2)

Controversial Points:

Reigning Women's World Champion Yifan Hou is not participating. Other notable absentees are Koneru Humpy and Irina Krush, as well as US Women's Champion Nazi Paikidze, and Mariya Muzychuk who are boycotting the event over the choice of the Iranian venue.

(1) The event starts with only 63 players, due to the recent passing away of qualifier Cristina-Adela Foisor. Her intended first-round opponent, Olga Girya, is seeded directly into the second round.
(2) Source: chess24

 page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 217  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Zhu Chen vs I K Sukandar  1-041 2017 Women's World ChampionshipE20 Nimzo-Indian
2. M Hejazipour vs A Bodnaruk 1-038 2017 Women's World ChampionshipB80 Sicilian, Scheveningen
3. Le Thao Nguyen Pham vs L Javakhishvili  ½-½63 2017 Women's World ChampionshipE17 Queen's Indian
4. P Cramling vs K Nemcova 1-052 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
5. S Guramishvili vs S Khademalsharieh 1-038 2017 Women's World ChampionshipE20 Nimzo-Indian
6. M Socko vs A Savina  ½-½96 2017 Women's World ChampionshipC41 Philidor Defense
7. D Charochkina vs Huang Qian  0-175 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
8. N Zhukova vs Khurtsidze 0-131 2017 Women's World ChampionshipE20 Nimzo-Indian
9. N Ziaziulkina vs A Ushenina ½-½22 2017 Women's World ChampionshipB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
10. E Danielian vs P Rout ½-½57 2017 Women's World ChampionshipA04 Reti Opening
11. S Melia vs E Polovnikova-Atalik 1-035 2017 Women's World ChampionshipC53 Giuoco Piano
12. O Zimina vs B Khotenashvili  ½-½40 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD85 Grunfeld
13. D Saduakassova vs M R Nechaeva  1-052 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
14. I Gaponenko vs E Kovalevskaya  1-070 2017 Women's World ChampionshipB33 Sicilian
15. D E Cori Tello vs A Kashlinskaya ½-½39 2017 Women's World ChampionshipE51 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3
16. A Goryachkina vs Mo Zhai  ½-½36 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD22 Queen's Gambit Accepted
17. A Pourkashiyan vs E Paehtz  ½-½23 2017 Women's World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
18. L Mkrtchian vs Shiqun Ni ½-½40 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD85 Grunfeld
19. Ju Wenjun vs N Lane 1-028 2017 Women's World ChampionshipD00 Queen's Pawn Game
20. A Mezioud vs A Muzychuk  0-133 2017 Women's World ChampionshipA07 King's Indian Attack
21. Kosteniuk vs S Latreche 1-029 2017 Women's World ChampionshipC77 Ruy Lopez
22. S Akter Liza vs D Harika  ½-½85 2017 Women's World ChampionshipC53 Giuoco Piano
23. N Dzagnidze vs K Mona 0-164 2017 Women's World ChampionshipA09 Reti Opening
24. V Ni vs V Gunina 0-156 2017 Women's World ChampionshipA16 English
25. A Stefanova vs Y Marrero Lopez  1-041 2017 Women's World ChampionshipA04 Reti Opening
 page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 217  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic,

Just because the girls were forced to wear the hijab I did not want to entertain or discuss the idea we should force Muslims to decorate themselves with a Christian Cross.

Or because I thought it was OK to hold the tournament in Iran I would also agree to the holding of a similar event in North Korea.

In these cases 'B' does not follow 'A'.

If I have one opinion on one matter it does not mean anyone can claim I have the same opinion regarding another matter.


I was hoping the Iranian chess fed would cut the lad some slack. He appears blameless for playing an Israeli and the organisers did contact the Iranian authorities to apologise and say it was their fault.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <Sally Simpson: ... If I have one opinion on one matter it does not mean anyone can claim I have the same opinion regarding another matter. ...> A very precise definition of opportunism.
Mar-18-17  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> <Just because the girls were forced to wear the hijab I did not want to entertain or discuss the idea we should force Muslims to decorate themselves with a Christian Cross.>

The way you've phrased this, I have to narrowly agree. Of course WE will not be doing this. But the point is that if someone <else> does it, then we have no right to object after approving of the mandatory hibab. (Although in the North Korea example, there may be other completely unrelated reasons to object to holding a tournament there).

<If I have one opinion on one matter it does not mean anyone can claim I have the same opinion regarding another matter.>

If you claim to believe in basic fairness (which pretty much everyone claims by default), then yes we can. If you're an umpire, and tell one team not to crowd the plate, then we can assume you're saying it's wrong for <both> teams to do it. If you're not, if you're saying it's wrong for one team but not the other, then you're showing partiality, and should be removed from your job.

I believe it is right for me to be discussing this issue, but wrong for you to be doing it. Do you see anything objectionable in that?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic,

You are bringing in non related matters assuming because I hold an opinion on one subject I must therefore agree to hold an opinion of your choosing on a different matter.

You are asking me to debate from an unfair position. You are telling me I must have a certain view on a completely unrelated matter because of my opinion in another matter.

I'd like to be given the choice and not told in advance what my opinion was.

And now suddenly I'm a baseball umpire and yet again I'm being told what I would do and what opinion I would hold.

Can I not simply let both teams crowd the plate (what ever that means) that sounds like it favours neither side. (I know SFA about baseball you could have placed me somewhere else to give my opinion for me.)

Mar-18-17  morfishine: <Petrosianic> has finally earned the right to enter my "Hall of Ignore"

Enjoy your stay <P>, you will find some very entertaining company for the rest of eternity



Mar-18-17  not not: NeXT time they should be forced to wear bikinis and in case of tie there should be mud fighting as a tiebreak. The fat ones only should wear burkas. And free beer for anybody with polish passport. That's what I call womens championship.
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: I'm not ready for FIDE-bikini chess.


you shouldn't be, either.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: That gave me a long laugh. Thanks, <HeMateMe>.
Mar-20-17  Petrosianic: <morfishine: <Petrosianic> has finally earned the right to enter my "Hall of Ignore"

Enjoy your stay <P>, you will find some very entertaining company for the rest of eternity


If making unanswerable points is the way to get in your Hall of Ignore, it should have happened a long time ago. You have been inattentive.

Mar-20-17  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> <You are bringing in non related matters assuming because I hold an opinion on one subject>

I'm assuming basic fairness and intellectual consistency on your part, and you (oddly) keep insisting that I can't do that. Maybe this is all my fault. I keep assuming that you don't mean what you seem to be saying, but maybe it's exactly what you mean. I certainly haven't been able to get you to even claim to believe in either of those things.

I apologize for the baseball analogy. I should have used a chess one, so let's try this instead. You are refereeing a blitz tournament between Flatfoot College and Meatball Tech. (Kudos if you know where those two schools are from, because googling won't help you). You tell Flatfoot's players that they must press the clock with the same hand they use to move, which is fine. But then you let Meatball's players move with one hand and push the clock with the other. When called on the contradiction, you claim that that's a completely different issue, and that nobody can assume your position on how Meatball should move from your position on how Flatfoot should move.

Do you see where this is going? By no stretch of the imagination are these different issues. Having one standard of conduct for your friends and another for your opponents is a violation of basic fairness. Even if you didn't understand the first analogy, it was expressly clear that it was intended to illustrate a double standard. But I cannot for love or money get you to deny holding such a standard, or to say a word against double standards in general. All right, have it your way. Now that I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, I will no longer assume even basic fairness on your part until you at least claim that I should. I will repeat back that this is what you told me to do. Are you SURE you want this?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: <Sally Simpson> We're entitled. You've messed us around so eloquently and so humorously in the past we didn't think you could possibly mind. If we're wrong you only have to say so. Do say so and then shut up.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic,

FIDE rules state you must use the same hand to move the piece and press the clock unless you are physically unable to do so.

If I allowed such a thing then I would be breaking a rule.

Having an opinion is not the same as breaking a rule (unless it seems, it differs from yours).

In my 'opinion' having the event in Iran was OK.

I do not agree with the law about women being forced to wear the hijab, I do not agree with any of the more serious anti-women laws Iran has.

I read from Iranians how this event would help Iranian Women and highlight chess in Iran.

What better way to break down some of the barriers and not make a country feel ostracised by accepting their offer to hold the event. (it was the only offer from any FIDE member country.).

Time will tell on that one, though the anti-chess publicity stunt they pulled with perfect timing by banning that brother and sister shows what we are up against.

The Iranian problem chess wise is a bit of challenge to the '"we are one people"' motto. But .'in my opinion' it should be looked upon as a welcome challenge and we should persist.

Because I hold that opinion it does not mean I would automatically agree to another chess event being held in another country whose record v human rights is questionable.

You seem to think I will and have come up with all kinds of fictitious scenarios where you make up my mind and choose my opinion for me. (and in that last you have me breaking the FIDE laws of chess.)

I remind you that your countries FIDE representative acting in your name never raised an objection to this event being held there. (none of the 159 reps did) If I were you and you feel so strongly about it (I notice not strongly enough to make a noise about it in the FIDE Women's Grand Prix Tehran (2016) forum. And I'm being accused of double standards!) I'd take it up with him.

Mar-21-17  Petrosianic: It's okay, you've won the argument. In future I will not assume any fairness or consistency in your opinions until you explicitly tell me it's supposed to be there. I acknowledge the truth of your claim that there are others who do the same.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic,

I'm cool. No argument there, it was a discussion and it was a draw.

Do you think who ever does the intro's will get around to mentioning it was won by Tan Zhongyi. (or are they keeping it a secret.)

Well done Tan Zhongyi!

Mar-28-17  Petrosianic: From USCF President Gary Walters' letter to FIDE. I guess he didn't get the memo that he was supposed to sell out his principles if they waved a hundred dollar bill in front of his nose.

Or maybe he did, and this is just talk. We'll see what happens, if anything, if FIDE continues to blow him off.

<On October 6, 2016, I wrote to FIDE, care of yourself, to ask that any religious requirements for the Women’s World Championship in Iran be spelled out plainly respecting the obligatory wearing of hijabs, as well as for any other religious conduct requirements that might be imposed upon the participants. Without repeating my earlier letter, the text of the provisions at issue may be found in Section 1.2 of the FIDE Handbook, as well as set forth in Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter. At the time of my earlier letter, we found it peculiar that FIDE held itself to the world as being opposed to discriminatory treatment and as a guardian of equal rights, only to award the Women’s World Championship to a country that resides at the center of controversy concerning the fair and equal treatment of women. We continue to find FIDE’s actions peculiar.>

Premium Chessgames Member
  Absentee: <Petrosianic: From USCF President Gary Walters' letter to FIDE. I guess he didn't get the memo that he was supposed to sell out his principles>

Since when is this about principles rather than politics?

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Is wearing a hijab really the Moslem equivalent of wearing a crucifix for Christians? Or is it more like wearing Amish-style clothing while visiting an Amish community?
Mar-28-17  devere: <beatgiant: Is wearing a hijab really the Moslem equivalent of wearing a crucifix for Christians? Or is it more like wearing Amish-style clothing while visiting an Amish community?>

You don't get arrested for not wearing Amish clothing in an Amish community. In Iran a woman who fails to wear the hijab in public is liable for one year in prison plus many lashes with a whip.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <devere>
The point of the question was: does hijab express <religious faith> or does it express <conforming to community clothing standards>?

How it is enforced is important too, so thanks for that comment, but that's a new argument: the belief that we should judge societies by how severely they enforce their dress codes.

Mar-28-17  Petrosianic: That's a good question, and perhaps some kind of argument could be made along those lines. I wonder if the Amish example would fly? Even if the clothing isn't specifically religious, people are still required to identify themselves as a group that they're not.

Here's a good question. Let's take religion totally out of the equation and see where we stand. Suppose the next championship is awarded to Denver, and all participants are required to wear Broncos jerseys? Say it's against the rules, but the organizers coughed up an extra percentage and the rules were ignored. I think I'd be pretty unhappy about that too.

Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: Suppose Trump was the only bidder on the next Candidates at one of his hotels, with the only condition that everyone wears Trump ballcaps and Make America Great t-shirts?
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
<all participants are required to wear Broncos jerseys>

Is that because the local population in Denver considers it a case of indecent exposure if you aren't wearing one?

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: But to give a direct answer, if a hypothetical event organizer in Denver offers a higher bid for a dress code which is not FIDE approved and not motivated by local laws and customs (e.g. to promote the Broncos), I have to agree with <Petrosianic>: <I think I'd be pretty unhappy about that>
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <tamar>
<Make America Great t-shirts> The details matter. If the dress requirement involves religious or political messages, it touches on human rights.

But here's how he can work around that. Instead of requiring the players to wear the shirts, he should provide tiny shirts for the chess pieces. Who could object to that? After all, the standard set already includes a cross on the chess kings.

Mar-30-17  Petrosianic: Yeah, it seems the actual issue here is turning the players into billboards. It's bad enough when sports stars sell themselves that way. You know, wear their sponsors logo everywhere, or some such. It seems even worse when other people sell them.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 31)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC