James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini
WSTT/7/16/1, 2016 · Result ½–½ · Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (B81).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini with deep analysis, save the moments that matter, fold the ideas into your own opening repertoire, and drill the positions until they're second nature. CipherChess turns the games you study into the results you get — free to start.
Start Free on CipherChessMore Games By These Players
Game details
- White
- James Clancey (1867)
- Black
- Giuseppe Sabbatini (1937)
- Result
- ½–½
- Event
- WSTT/7/16/1
- Year
- 2016
- Opening
- Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (B81)
About this chess game
This chess game between James Clancey (1867) and Giuseppe Sabbatini (1937) was played at WSTT/7/16/1 in 2016 and finished ½–½. The opening was the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (B81). You can replay the full game move by move on the interactive board above, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to study every move with the Stockfish engine.
Looking for more James Clancey games or Giuseppe Sabbatini games? This James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini encounter is one of millions of chess games indexed in the CipherChess mega database. Browse both players' full records, the openings they play most, and head-to-head results, then load any game onto the board to prepare your own lines against the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack.
Frequently asked questions
Who won James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini?
James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini (2016) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini?
The game opened with the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Keres Attack (ECO B81).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of James Clancey vs Giuseppe Sabbatini, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.