Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh
IND/C1515 (IND), 2017 · Result 1–0 · Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh 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
- Amit Dutta (2231)
- Black
- Agrawal Rakesh (1956)
- Result
- 1–0
- Event
- IND/C1515 (IND)
- Year
- 2017
- Opening
- Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18)
About this chess game
This chess game between Amit Dutta (2231) and Agrawal Rakesh (1956) was played at IND/C1515 (IND) in 2017 and finished 1–0. The opening was the Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18). 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 Amit Dutta games or Agrawal Rakesh games? This Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh 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 Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh?
Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh (2017) finished 1–0, a win for Amit Dutta.
What opening was played in Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh?
The game opened with the Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (ECO E18).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Amit Dutta vs Agrawal Rakesh, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.