Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow
2012 · Result ½–½ · English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Four Knights Variation (A35).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow 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
- Paulo Moses Fucs (2207)
- Black
- Georg Von Buelow (2382)
- Result
- ½–½
- Year
- 2012
- Opening
- English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Four Knights Variation (A35)
About this chess game
This chess game between Paulo Moses Fucs (2207) and Georg Von Buelow (2382) was played in 2012 and finished ½–½. The opening was the English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Four Knights Variation (A35). 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 Paulo Moses Fucs games or Georg Von Buelow games? This Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow 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 English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Four Knights Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow?
Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow (2012) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow?
The game opened with the English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Four Knights Variation (ECO A35).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Paulo Moses Fucs vs Georg Von Buelow, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.