Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo
1. Cidade Velha Open, 2015 · Result 0–1 · King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack (E76).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo 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
- Cleber Alex Da Silva (2037)
- Black
- Leandro Perdomo (2419)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- 1. Cidade Velha Open
- Year
- 2015
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack (E76)
About this chess game
This chess game between Cleber Alex Da Silva (2037) and Leandro Perdomo (2419) was played at 1. Cidade Velha Open in 2015 and finished 0–1. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack (E76). 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 Cleber Alex Da Silva games or Leandro Perdomo games? This Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo 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 King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo?
Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo (2015) finished 0–1, a win for Leandro Perdomo.
What opening was played in Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack (ECO E76).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Cleber Alex Da Silva vs Leandro Perdomo, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.