Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel
2007 · Result ½–½ · English Opening: King's English Variation, Two Knights Variation (A22).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel 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
- Lothar Giese (1826)
- Black
- Ralf Gebert-Vangeel (2071)
- Result
- ½–½
- Year
- 2007
- Opening
- English Opening: King's English Variation, Two Knights Variation (A22)
About this chess game
This chess game between Lothar Giese (1826) and Ralf Gebert-Vangeel (2071) was played in 2007 and finished ½–½. The opening was the English Opening: King's English Variation, Two Knights Variation (A22). 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 Lothar Giese games or Ralf Gebert-Vangeel games? This Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel 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: King's English Variation, Two Knights Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel?
Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel (2007) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel?
The game opened with the English Opening: King's English Variation, Two Knights Variation (ECO A22).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Lothar Giese vs Ralf Gebert-Vangeel, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.