On paper, Round 2 looked like another comfortable assignment for India. On the board, it was anything but. Indonesia's players refused to be intimidated by the enormous rating gap, holding three of India's four grandmasters to draws and pushing the defending champions into a much closer contest than the final standings might suggest.
India eventually escaped with a 2.5-1.5 victory in Samarkand. Praggnanandhaa R and Gukesh D were both held, while Vidit Gujrathi could not convert a promising position. That left Nihal Sarin with the responsibility of finding the only win India needed.
He did it, but even Nihal's game was far from straightforward. His encounter with IM Arif Abdul Hafiz swung dramatically from one side to the other before a series of tactical mistakes left the Indian grandmaster standing with the full point.
The result gives India another match victory after their 3-1 opening-round win over Thailand, but the four games tell a much more interesting story than the team score alone. Indonesia made India work for almost every half point.
Round 2: India vs Indonesia
India entered the match as the second seed of the Open section, with Praggnanandhaa, Arjun Erigaisi, Nihal Sarin, Gukesh D and Vidit Gujrathi in the squad. Indonesia brought a much lower-rated lineup, but all four of their players had already won in Round 1 as Indonesia opened the Olympiad with a 4-0 victory over Ghana.
The Round 2 lineup therefore had an interesting dynamic. India had the rating advantage on every board, but Indonesia arrived with confidence and nothing to lose. The matchups were Susanto Megaranto against Praggnanandhaa, Nihal Sarin against Arif Abdul Hafiz, Satria Duta Cahaya against Gukesh, and Vidit Gujrathi against Nayaka Budhidharma.
What followed was a lesson in why team chess is different from an individual tournament. India did not need four wins. They needed one player to break through while the other three avoided losing. That is exactly what happened.
Board 1: Susanto Megaranto vs Praggnanandhaa R
A 79 Move Test of Patience
The first board produced the longest game of the match. Praggnanandhaa met Megaranto's 1.e4 with the Caro-Kann, and the game developed into the kind of position where one side can have a small space advantage without having a clear way to make it matter.
Megaranto tried to keep the position alive, but Praggnanandhaa repeatedly found practical ways to simplify. The Indian grandmaster was never interested in taking unnecessary risks, and as the queens and minor pieces disappeared, the position became increasingly difficult for White to improve.
The first important moment came with 14.c4. It looks like a normal space gaining move, but it also gives Black a very clear plan. After 14...cxd4 15.Nxd4, Black has removed the central tension and taken away much of White's potential pressure.
From there, Praggnanandhaa gradually made the position easier to defend. The rooks were exchanged, the bishops disappeared, and the queens came off on move 24. What remained was a long technical endgame in which neither side had enough to force a breakthrough.
The one moment that deserved closer attention came on move 49. Megaranto's 49.Ke3 looks like exactly what a player is taught to do in a rook ending: centralize the king. But chess is full of exceptions, and here Black's 49...Rb3+ gives the rook immediate activity.
It did not change the result, but it shows why rook endings can be so unforgiving. A single tempo can completely change which side is asking the questions.
Black's h-pawn eventually advanced all the way to h2, creating one final practical test. Megaranto eliminated it with 75.Rxh2, and after the rooks were exchanged, the king and pawn ending was completely drawn.
After 79 moves, the players agreed to a draw. For Praggnanandhaa, it was a job well done. Indonesia had failed to win the board, but Megaranto had successfully neutralized one of India's strongest players.
Board 2: Nihal Sarin vs Arif Abdul Hafiz
The Game That Decided the Match
With the other three games eventually ending in draws, this was the board that carried the match. Nihal chose the Chekhover Variation of the Sicilian with 4.Qxd4, steering away from the most heavily theoretical Open Sicilian positions.
The plan was sensible, but what followed was anything but quiet. Both kings eventually moved to opposite sides, Nihal launched his kingside attack, and the game turned into a tactical fight where both players repeatedly missed the strongest continuation.
The first major swing came with 16.g5. The attacking idea is easy to understand. White has castled long, Black has castled short, and White wants to open lines around the black king. The problem is that Black can use the same pawn advances against White's king.
After 16...hxg5 17.fxg5 e5, Black's central pawns become active while White's king remains exposed. The attack that looked dangerous a few moves earlier has suddenly become a liability.
The remarkable part of the game is that Black did not convert the advantage immediately. After Nihal's 21.g6??, Black could have continued with 21...Qxc2+ and maintained a winning attack. Instead, 21...f6?? gave White another opportunity.
Nihal then played 22.Qg3??, missing the chance to stabilize the position. Black finally took on c2 with check, and once again the advantage swung back toward the Indonesian player.
The biggest turning point came on move 24. Black had a winning position, but 24...O-O-O?? placed the king directly into a tactical minefield. Nihal immediately found 25.Nd6+, and suddenly the black king was being attacked by the knight, rook and queen.
Even after 25.Nd6+, Black still had defensive resources. But 26...Kc7?? was the final collapse. Nihal's rooks entered through the d-file, the queen took over the seventh rank, and the black king was forced into a series of checks.
By 37.Nc5+, the position was completely lost. Nihal had survived his own attacking mistakes, punished Black's inaccuracies, and converted the final advantage.
That win mattered enormously. Without it, India's three draws would have left the match level. Nihal's fighting ability on Board 2 was the difference between a 2-2 result and another Indian match victory.
Board 3: Satria Duta Cahaya vs Gukesh D
The Maroczy Bind Does Its Job
Gukesh faced one of the most strategically demanding structures in the Sicilian: the Maroczy Bind. Cahaya's 5.c4 immediately restricted Black's usual central breaks and gave White a stable grip on the light squares.
For Gukesh, the challenge was not surviving an attack. It was finding a way to create counterplay in a position where White had more space and Black's natural breaks were difficult to achieve.
Everything about the game began with 5.c4. Cahaya did not need to launch an immediate attack. Instead, he created a structure that made Gukesh work for every active idea.
The Maroczy is powerful because it takes away Black's easiest route to equality. The d5 break is difficult to achieve, and Black often has to spend several moves reorganizing before finding meaningful counterplay.
Move 25.Bg5 was another important practical decision. Cahaya offered an exchange rather than keeping every piece on the board. Against a player of Gukesh's strength, this makes sense because every additional piece gives the stronger player another tactical resource.
After 25...Bxg5 26.Qxg5, the position became even more difficult for Black to complicate. Gukesh continued maneuvering, but the structural problems remained.
The final phase was particularly instructive. Once the rooks disappeared on move 47, Gukesh's queen became extremely active. Rather than trying to force a win from a position that no longer offered one, he used checks to repeat the position.
The game ended after 51 moves. Cahaya had achieved exactly what he wanted: a controlled draw against one of the strongest players in the world.
Board 4: Vidit Santosh Gujrathi vs Nayaka Budhidharma
The Advantage That Slipped Away
This was arguably the most frustrating game for India. Vidit entered the game rated more than 300 points above his Indonesian opponent and reached a position where White had the more comfortable setup.
But chess does not award points for having the better position. Vidit repeatedly missed the most energetic continuation, while Budhidharma kept finding ways to generate counterplay. By the time the players agreed to a draw, the advantage had disappeared completely.
The first critical moment came after 13...Bxf5. White had a pleasant position and Black's knight on g4 was somewhat misplaced. Vidit's 14.Qd2 was natural, but it was too slow.
The direct 14.h3 would have immediately questioned the knight and forced Black to make a decision. Instead, Vidit allowed Black to play 14...h6 followed by 15...Nf6, and the position became much harder to press.
Black then gave Vidit another opportunity with 17...Bg4?. This was the moment when White could have regained a serious advantage with 18.h4.
Instead, Vidit's 18.Re3 and 19.Ba4 were not forceful enough. The attacking momentum disappeared, and Budhidharma's pieces began to coordinate.
By move 28, the character of the game had completely changed. Black's 28...h4 was not perfect, but White could no longer create a convincing attack. After 29.Bxf4 exf4, Black's pieces became active and the kingside structure was no longer easy for White to attack.
After 34.h3, the players agreed to a draw. Vidit had started the game with a clear practical opportunity, but several missed chances allowed Indonesia to escape with another half point.
What the Four Games Tell Us
India's 2.5-1.5 victory is much more interesting when the four boards are viewed together.
Praggnanandhaa showed patience in a long Caro-Kann endgame. His opponent never allowed the game to become dangerous, and the Indian grandmaster was content to play a technical draw.
Gukesh faced a well constructed Maroczy Bind and could not create enough counterplay. Cahaya's defensive strategy was clear from the opening: restrict Black's pawn breaks, trade pieces when useful, and never give Gukesh the kind of tactical position where he could generate complications.
Vidit had perhaps the clearest opportunity to win, but several small inaccuracies allowed the position to slip away. It was a reminder that rating differences do not automatically produce decisive results at the Olympiad.
And then there was Nihal.
His game was chaotic, imperfect and highly entertaining. He overextended his attack, missed chances, survived serious danger, and then punished his opponent when the opportunity finally came. In a team event, that kind of fighting spirit can be worth more than a perfectly controlled game.
The Tactical Lesson From Nihal's Win
The most useful lesson from the decisive game is not simply that 24...O-O-O was a blunder. The deeper lesson is how quickly the evaluation of a position can change when both kings are exposed.
Nihal's 16.g5 and 21.g6 showed the danger of attacking without enough supporting pieces. Hafiz then had chances to finish the game, but missed them. Once Black castled into the knight check on d6, the entire tactical geometry changed.
This is why forcing moves matter so much in sharp positions. Before making a quiet move, calculate checks, captures and threats. In this game, the difference between winning and losing repeatedly came down to one forcing move that was either found or missed.
India's Match Score After Round 2
India now has two match victories from two rounds of the 2026 Chess Olympiad, following the 3-1 win over Thailand in Round 1 and the 2.5-1.5 victory over Indonesia in Round 2.
The result is useful, but the performance also leaves several questions for the Indian camp. Praggnanandhaa and Gukesh were unable to convert their games, while Vidit will know that he allowed a promising position to fade. Nihal, meanwhile, showed exactly why depth matters in a team competition.
That is the beauty of the Olympiad. A team does not need four stars to win every round. Sometimes three players hold the line while one player finds the breakthrough.
Final Result: India 2.5-1.5 Indonesia
India 2.5-1.5 Indonesia
Praggnanandhaa R 1/2-1/2 Susanto Megaranto
Nihal Sarin 1-0 Arif Abdul Hafiz
Gukesh D 1/2-1/2 Satria Duta Cahaya
Vidit Santosh Gujrathi 1/2-1/2 Nayaka Budhidharma
Indonesia made India fight for almost every point, but Nihal Sarin's victory proved decisive. India moves forward with another match win, while Indonesia leaves the round having shown that its players can stand their ground against one of the strongest teams in the tournament.
For India, the message from Round 2 is simple: the result is in the bag, but the chess still has room for improvement.
